The Quintessential GCA.com Golf Course

[Lou_Duran]

What are the architectural characteristics and maintenance regimes for such a course?
Architectural:
1) width, width, and more width;
2) irregularly shaped bunkers of various depths, probably no more than 30 to 40 in total, a few on the hook side of the hole, some diagonal, some in clusters, but usually in ones or twos;
3) irregularly shaped greens of varying sizes (no correlation between length of hole and green size), within complicated complexes, full of internal contours, false fronts and sides, "greens within greens", and more than a couple running away from the line of play;
4) few water hazards, with running brooks much preferred to lakes and ponds; oceans or major natural lakes are a big plus;
5) fewer trees, primarily setting back from the lines of play, but certainly not to frame the hole or planted in memorium;
6) no more than two sets of tees, never of the symetrical runway variety, though square tees are okay;
7) no attempt at mixing the holes by par so as not to repeat(e.g. 4,5,4,3,4,5,4,3,4) or having a par 72 with a 10,4,4 mix;
few if any forced carries;
9) a routing which provides both expansive views of the course in spots, as well as a sense of isolation in others;
10) a course yielding many uneven lies with moderate elevation changes, but easily walkable by most;
11) one that incorporates the wind and other weather conditions "thoughtfully" into its design.

Maintenance:
1) firm and fast;
2) minimal rough;
3) bent greens with grain;
4) no ornamentals;
5) firm, angular, non-white sand.

Which courses come closet to fitting the bill?
 

[Geoffrey Childs]

Lou

There is no quintessential gca.com course and I don't believe there should be one. This kind of posting simply perpetuates the stereotype that can inhibit individuals from posting what they really feel about architecture and individual styles and courses.

While playing together at Kiawah Island, you preferred The River Course while I preferred Cassique.  We had our little debate and everyone understood and hopefully respected each opinion that was debated.

This website should have more of that kind of civil debate in place of contrarian posts made for the sake of argument or the condemnation of styles whose success in not in question outside this small arena.

Perhaps we should nominate Trump Bedminster as the quintessential gca.com course and let the debate move on from there.  

[Mike Hendren]

Lou,

This one:



Mike

[Peter_Herreid]

NGLA, what a shock!  I would certainly agree

I'm sure it won't be long before GCA-faves Rustic Canyon and Wild Horse are mentioned, also...

I have brought this up before, but one less-commonly discussed course that I think come very close to these ideals is the St. Louis CC.  It doesn't fit every criteria Lou mentioned, but darn close-

[Jay Flemma]

Hey Coloradans!  Does ballyneal fit that description?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I would have to say in many ways Rustic Canyon and TOC are the GCA courses for the masses with Sand Hills, NGLA and Cypress Point being the private versions. I played Woodhall Spa last week and I must confess it is very special. A touch of wildness in the greens could have pushed it into this discussion. It had the rest though.

[John_Cullum]

6) no more than two sets of tees, never of the symetrical runway variety,

I don't understand the problem with the runway tee concept. I just don't see that as incompatible with otherwise good architecture, in fact I prefer it to little push ups scattered about.

[ForkaB]

The course would have to be in GBI (or maybe Australia), as there is no place in the US that could give similarly ideal golfing conditions all year round.  No golf carts!  No cart girls, but supple wenches in the 19th hole, serving cheaper and better beer and whisky than you can find west of Iceland.  As for the architecture, who cares?

[Lou_Duran]

Geoffrey,

I guess I am just a contentious guy bent on setting up stereotypes to squelch frank, thoughtful, civil discussion (e.g. "Bush sucks", "Pascuzzo is Satan", "Fazio doesn't think", etc. etc.). Can't you give me a break for once?  Please!

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are some "institutional" preferences in golf course achitecture here.  Perhaps if we better understood what we think is good gca, maybe, just maybe, we can address the work without resorting to maligning the creator.

BTW, did you suggest that the posts on Ran's mythical course (Carthage Club?) were somehow inimical to frank, open, thoughtful discussion?  I didn't think so.

Another architectural characteristic:

11) allowing for only a couple of exceptions, man-made disturbances to the land must be undiscernable, with the course retaining a natural, untouched look in harmony with its wider surroundings.

John Cullum,

Long, flat runway tees do not look natural or blend well with the surroundings.  I've often wondered why there are not more tees cut at fairway grade (ditto for greens), though I understand the visuals are better from a higher position.

BTW, I like the architectural concept of making progressively longer tee positions also more difficult in terms of the angle to the fairway.  Typically, runway tees do not allow for this.  

BTW2, I have no problem with multiple, unintrusive teeing areas as I don't believe that a course can easily be all things for all people.  My limit would probably be three or four, though I can see some cases where more or less could be justifiable.  Having to hunt for the tees among numerous sets is a No-No in my book.



 

[Lou_Duran]

Rich,

Though I can no longer drink and my doctor refuses to prescribe Viagra under his name for me, your thoughtful contributions are appreciated.  I am not sure about the cart thing.  It may not be long 'till I fall to the dark side.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Hendren,

That's a heckuva picture.  

Now I just have to get to work on improving that routing!  

[Lou_Duran]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the course Bogey was so kind as to provide a picture of?

[Kyle Harris]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the course Bogey was so kind as to provide a picture of?

ANGC

Was the old bunker on 14 really that big!? Wow...

[Anthony Butler]

I'll post NGLA before Mucci does.

The answer is Royal Melbourne (pardon the lack of grain and the too-white sand). Unlike Augusta, every hole still looks like MacKenzie designed it.

[Mike Hendren]

Gents,

That pic was previously posted by John Stiles or Bob Crosby elsewhere on this site.  

TigerB,

Not sure Cypress Point Club meets Lou's criteria.

Mike

[Lou_Duran]

Bogey,

CPC is my ideal course.  Hell, I don't even understand all the nonsense about #18 (though 16 deserves some criticism for being so penal and one-dimensional).  It is the one course where I would do nearly anything, including giving up golf elsewhere, to be able to play on a regular basis.

The list I posted does not necessarily reflect my personal preferences.  It is comprised of desirable features I've seen mentioned here repeatedly.

Personally, for example, I can tolerate white sand, some rough, a few tight holes, trees in places where it forces one to think off the tee in terms of placement of the drive, and the old rule of thumb that the size of the green should have some correlation with the length of the approach.  When it comes to golf architecture, my tastes are rather eclectic.  Can one like the work of both Raynor and Fazio?   I sure hope so.

[Guy Corcoran, Jr]

San Francisco Golf Club...welcome back "Little Tillie"

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey,

I guess I am just a contentious guy bent on setting up stereotypes to squelch frank, thoughtful, civil discussion (e.g. "Bush sucks", "Pascuzzo is Satan", "Fazio doesn't think", etc. etc.). Can't you give me a break for once?  Please!

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are some "institutional" preferences in golf course achitecture here.  Perhaps if we better understood what we think is good gca, maybe, just maybe, we can address the work without resorting to maligning the creator.

BTW, did you suggest that the posts on Ran's mythical course (Carthage Club?) were somehow inimical to frank, open, thoughtful discussion?  I didn't think so.

Lou

You misunderstand (or I did). I was trying to give you and anyone with contrarian views a break (for once) by attempting (poorly I guess) to embolden people to speak their minds rather then to compromise into one GCA.com mold of an ideal course. Hence bringing up our difference over River vs Cassique.  My apologies if you took it otherwise.

I think its healthier to debate over Fazio, C & C, Doak or anyone else directly rather then to point out what about them might be different from our homogenized GCA.com ideal when it might not be anyones ideal but a mixture.

ps- I've bumped heads with Ran over his ideal Yeamans Hall many a time.  When have I been smart enough to keep my mouth shut?  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Bogie, I was just giving my opinion, not trying to meet Lou's definition.

[SPDB]

Lou - Re: 16th at CPC. Do you find that par 3s are generally multi-dimensional? Aren't most par 3s one-dimensional?

[Lou_Duran]

Geoffrey,

Perhaps I did misunderstand the intent of your earlier reply.
It seemed that you were getting on my case for suggesting that gca.com has, collectively, a preferred set of architectural characteristics or features.  Maybe you don't like standards, but how can you have a discussion about anything if the object of comparison cannot be measured against something identified as desirable or correct?  BTW, debating the standards themselves is useful in eventually understanding what it is we value.

BTW2, I much prefer a debate regarding a routing, the use of trees, excessive contouring of the greens, or the location and types of hazards than one about the purported unhealthy ego, arrogance, and other motivations of the architect.  Having a good understanding of what constitutes "good" beyond what is in our gut (the old 'I know it when I see it') is useful, I think.

I am not suggesting homogeneity, nor a check-off list of features.  Most of the criteria I posted are not a question of all or none, but more of a relevant range (e.g. width 20 - 80? yards).  Nor could any one course include or exhaust all of them.

SPDB,

You are right about the nature of par 3s.  CPC #16, at least for most amateurs, is particularly one dimensional because most will attempt a driver with hopes of just landing it on or around the very large green.  A few, maybe many of the members, bail left with an iron, but that is not the challenge of the hole.  Many par 3s allow for using different trajectories, clubs, and lines of approach.  CPC's 16 is normally feel the wind, aim accordingly, and hope you make solid contact.

   

[Geoffrey Childs]

Lou

Exactly. If we as a GCA.com standard think width width width is ideal then why should someone argue that they prefer narrow fairways, trees and high rough?  You would find that most over on bombsquad would prefer the latter and argue strongly that width is for sissies who have no game.

I just want an environment where we all can freely and without harrassment back up (or attempt to) our architecture preferences.

I was not getting on you case or certainly did not mean it that way.

[Lou_Duran]

Geoffrey,

Just because a favored position exists, it should not prevent anyone with a differing opinion and some conviction to express it.  I know that there are some folks who shrink from debate and argument, but their contributions are probably limited anyways.  Perhaps if we wouldn't verbally abuse them and otherwise shout them down (figuratively), someone could convince us that difficult rough and 20-yard wide fairways are perfectly justifiable.

I certainly entertain alternative views which can be supported without rancor.  You may recall that I was the lone voice extolling the virtues of the River Course at the GW retreat.  Unless there was a greatly delayed reaction, I don't think I paid a penalty for taking what was clearly an unpopular position.  It shouldn't be any different here, regardless of the topic.

I am vaguely aware of bombsquad from what has been said here, but if the width issue would be argued on that basis (those who like wide fairways are sissies), I have no interest in checking it out.  Given your reference, I take it that you are acknowledging the existance of clear group preferences.  Why would you suggest that these should not be discussed?

Here are a couple more, though perhaps not talked about that often.

12) holes should be routed in all different directions to take advantage more fully of wind and other weather conditions; this is particularly critical in the par 3s;

13) where prevailing winds exist, all long holes should not be designed downwind, nor short holes into the wind;
 

[SPDB]

Lou - Its funny, I couldn't disagree with you more re: CPC 16. In fact, I think the hole has more dimensions than any par 3 I can think of. You have a decision to make, unlike many par 3s - either make a heroic effort or take the alternative and tougher route par.

I don't know why a legitimate shot at birdie should be such an entitlement. It's a lot like another great 16th - Merion.  They've restored the alternate route around the quarry, which the less bold can take to get to the hole if they don't feel up to the carry. It was far more relevant in pre-technology days.

[Michael Dugger]

Concur completely.  A very sage thing to say.

As long as there is balance, let there be a few really difficult holes.

One of my fave quotes:

"That bewhisked old timer there hitting to position, rolling his ball almost along the ground, may do his round in the eighties; while siege guns boom in vain and youthful champions with their prodigious power return from a campaign they have never wholly understood with a score which sickens them."

Robert Hunter

"What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?"

Alistair Mackenzie