The Ideal Dimensions

[Peter Pallotta]

Is there any thinking on/theories about what the 'ideal' proportions (width vs length) are for land to build a golf course on?  

Say, for example you had a 100 acres (that's small, I know) and all of it was 'usable'.  Would 400 yds wide by 1200 yds long be better/worse/the same as 600 yds wide by 800 yds long?

I know the question is a bit theoretical, but I was wondering if there was a general rule of thumb or bottom line out there about 'minimum necessary width/length" or preferences for one over the other, and if so, why?

Thanks
Peter  

[PCCraig]

Hi Peter,

The only dimensions that I could think of that would force lond unusable would be if the width was less than 200-150 yards wide...to the point where two holes could not run side by side.

I think it's an interesting question. I think the main thing a limited, in terms of length vs. width site, would do is limit you strategic options for placing and building golf holes.

Pat

[Mike Nuzzo]

I think the shape has a bigger impact - i.e. a trapazoid works great as it lends to more triangulation of holes - Seminole has two triangular loops within a larger trapazoid.
So I think an ideally proportioned rectangle would be wide enough to have separate loops - Texas Tech has triangular loops.
If you have a narrow property, hopefully it twists a little like the Old Course.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Apparently the dimensions and configuration of TOC were ideal for golf and as such it became considered as the prototype for all golf architecture.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way lawyers entered into the equation and proclaimed its dimensions and configuration too dangerous to emulate.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat, Mike - thank you. I hadn't thought about the shape, i.e.  the trapazoid, and the triangulation this allows, and the options that brings.

TE - you read my mind. It was on another thread that I was struck by how narrow TOC is.  I was thinking that a doubling of its width (to 400 yards) could allow for its kind of playability in a 'modern' setting. Then I combined that with Patrick's money/scare resources thread.

I guess what I want is a viable Max Behr-type-natural-TOC influenced-minimal-strategic golf course on a 100-acre-piece-of-formerly-crappy-land-not-too-far-from-the-major-urban- centre where I live. That kind of thing.

That's not too much to ask for I don't think.

Peter  

[Adrian_Stiff]

Peter- With a small parcel of land the key is the ability to use it all, I think your 400x1200 yds is the best you could hope for. Chipping Sodbury (Hawtree c1971) is 103 acres and about those dimensions. The course is 6800 yrds, has a practice ground, and no real safety issues.
150 yards is a nice width to run 2 holes, on older courses you often find two holes within a 100 yard band but I dont think many architects would be keen on signing their names to that degree of narrowness with todays 'laws'. Par 3s occupy much less ofcourse, perhaps even 1 acre per hole, sometimes a trick with small parcels is to have 5 or even 6 short holes in the layout, that way you can free up quite a bit of and for 12 or 13 holes.

[TEPaul]

"I guess what I want is a viable Max Behr-type-natural-TOC influenced-minimal-strategic golf course on a 100-acre-piece-of-formerly-crappy-land-not-too-far-from-the-major-urban- centre where I live. That kind of thing.

That's not too much to ask for I don't think."


Not at all and if an architect followed those instructions to a T the golf course should certainly be named The Hyphen G.C.

[Doug Ralston]

The most ideal golf site I have seen is 'The Majestic at Walden Pond' in southern Michigan; where 27 holes is laid out on a mere 1500 acres of land surrounding Walden Lake. That left just barely enough room for about 18 miles of cartpaths, and a few hundred acres of wetland and forest full of wildlife. Amazingly, though the parking lot was full, we virtually never saw another soul except when we returned to the clubhouse. Adaquet.  

Site envy? Bet your ass!  

Doug