Worst-routed "great" course?

[David Miller]

Of all the great courses in the world (whatever your definition of that may be), which one suffers from the worst routing?  

In other words, what course is credited as world-class not because of but rather despite its routing?  I.e., what architect of a world-class course has done the least with the site?

I've always been fascinated w/ routing critiques and would be interested in what you all have to say.

[Matt_Cohn]

Your question implies that one can build a great course over great land with a flawed routing.

I think some here would posit that a flawed routing essentially disqualifies a course from "greatness".

[David_Elvins]

I haven't seen enough of the course to comment but a few on here (James L and Mark F, I think) think that the routing at Kingston Heath should have been a lot better.

[Joel_Stewart]

Spyglass has been mentioned many times regarding the routing.  The first 5 holes are so good as opposed to the rest of the course.  Some have questioned why these sand dunes wasn't woven more into the overall routing?

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

I'm not sure about this one, but I throw it in for discussion:

The Old Course?

[Tom_Doak]

This is a scary thread, and if it keeps going this direction I think it will prove once and for all that most people here (even those who love architecture) don't know beans about routing a golf course.

Kingston Heath?  Just to get 18 holes on that property is exceptional, much less 18 of that quality.

The Old Course at St. Andrews?  Are you kidding?  It's got some of the great green sites in the world.

[BCrosby]

Routing questions seem so straight forward, but they are anything but. I am beginning to doubt they even make much sense.

It's the "compared to what" part of it.

Kingston Heath (or any other course) is not well routed compared to what?

Bob

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Tom,

Surely there's more to a great routing than finding great green sites?

[Jim_Coleman]

Galloway National.

[plabatt]

Tom
What do you think would be the reaction of a client where two fairways crossed each other?  This situation required four rangers to direct traffic at the cross-over. Yes! I am describing TOC's 7-11 crossover holes.  The afternoon I played the back-up began at the Sixth tee.  By the tenth tee, the back-up was three deep; foursome on the tee, foursome waiting, and the foursome coming off the Ninth green.  

Speaking of which, is TOC's ninth is the weakest hole on a Championwhip course.  Tom, Nine and Ten need MAJOR renovation, they simply are not of championship quality.  This statement is not heresay: Old Tom built the First and Eighteenth greens, Alan Robertson built the Seventeenth green, bunkers were removed from between the First and Eighteenth fairway, James Braid added bunkers and Dr. Mac expanded some of the greens. TOC has been tinkered with, and maybe it needs some 21st Century modifications.

[redanman]

Galloway National.

Awful routing.

Not "Great" but perhaps that proves the point of Matt Cohn's post.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Interesting - and bold! - question!

If you took an objective look at routing only, and all the things that would be theoretically ideal, like change of direction, dogleg, length, par balance, green and tee proximity, etc. it would be interesting to see how some great courses might rank.

On a purely objective basis, someone who analyzes courses like Matt Ward would concur with comments on TOC routing - not enough directional variety.  However, I think they figured that they would run all the holes the same two directions and patiently wait for the wind to change directions instead.  Others might critique Pebble Beach - too many consecutive holes with water hazards on the right.

But overall, we probably don't like courses based on numerical analysis.  That said, a few that come to mind -

In Australia, how about New South Wales.  Most feel that this ocean front course would be rated higher without a few funky holes.

In the US, the hillside routing of Olympic quickly comes to mind.  

Another possibility is Augusta National - I have always vaguely felt that using the old plantation house as the clubhouse made them go too much up and down the hills and that on that property, there may have been better routings.

[Joel_Stewart]

In the US, the hillside routing of Olympic quickly comes to mind.  

Jeffrey:
Ouch.  I'm with Doak here this could get ugly.  

Why would you consider Olympic's routing poor?  

[John_Cullum]

Another possibility is Augusta National - I have always vaguely felt that using the old plantation house as the clubhouse made them go too much up and down the hills and that on that property, there may have been better routings.

The hill is there, and you're going to have to go up and down the thing no matter where you put the clubhouse,(unless you build half of the course up on the driving range, parking lot area, but that is pretty flat and boring up there). I think Augusta NAtional is maybe the most brilliant routing of all

[BCrosby]

The hill is there, and you're going to have to go up and down the thing no matter where you put the clubhouse,(unless you build half of the course up on the driving range, parking lot area, but that is pretty flat and boring up there). I think Augusta NAtional is maybe the most brilliant routing of all

What John Cullum says.

Bob

[Phil_the_Author]

I greatly doubt that we would see the two Baltusrol courses routed as they are if Tilly would have been allowed to plow the existing course under.

They are actually a great design feat when you consider that he did his work under the order that 18 holes would remain open for play at all times throughout the project.

I just wonder if the routings would be different and more imaginative if he could have had a blank slate to work with.

[PThomas]

In the US, the hillside routing of Olympic quickly comes to mind.  

Jeffrey:
Ouch.  I'm with Doak here this could get ugly.  

Why would you consider Olympic's routing poor?  

I thought it was pretty good too

[Scott Weersing]

I think a safer question would be:

Which good course is prevented from being great because of its routing?

Which course has great holes, great greens, great land, but a poor routing?

[Peter Pallotta]

David
this doesn't directly address your question, but a while back I had a thread asking how people judged good routing. I asked because I simply didn't know how (i.e. on what basis) that judgment was being made, and what others were seeing out there that I wasn't. I was (and feel like I still am) incapable of 'judging' it, though I think I might've learned a little something that has helped me 'enjoy' it.  

The answers were interesting and helpful. In short, many mentioned that if  they 'lost themselves' on the golf course and felt that the routing helped bring them 'into' the round and the course while also taking good advantage of the land's key features and vistas, it was good and enjoyable routing. But many also pointed out that, besides the architect who did the routing and maybe just a very few others, no one could really judge if the architect had 'gotten the most out of a site', and certainly very few would know what restrictions (including environmental ones) the architect had to be deal with in deciding on that routing.  

To me, both those set of answers made a LOT of sense...and that, for better or worse, has been enough for me; I don't give making that judgment much thought anymore (though that's easy for me, as I'm not an architect nor is anyone asking me to make that judgement.)

There's also what Bob C raised:  the "compared to what" part of it is very tricky.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

In the US, the hillside routing of Olympic quickly comes to mind.  

Jeffrey:
Ouch.  I'm with Doak here this could get ugly.  

Why would you consider Olympic's routing poor?  

Maybe I just don't like hillside courses! So, perhaps this is a "site selection" problem for me.  I critique Augusta for going up and down the hills, and Olympic for following the contours!  I am not sure I think its a poor routing - I think Olympic probably does as well as it can for its site.

That said, at Olympic, virtually every tee shot is a dogleg with a reverse slope fw - and on a tight routing that forced them to plant a lot of trees for safety, meaning every tee shot is aimed an inch inside the branches. Not a lot of variety there, and granted, Augusta does better.

I was just throwing out answers in the spirit of the question, for, ah, discussions sake, since this is a discussion board.....all as I wonder why we have decided that it would be wrong for THIS topic to get ugly, when half the topics on here get the same way.....In my mind, this isn't a lot different than Pat's philosophical posts, unless perhaps because it asks us to name names.  The problem is, its easier to talk about feature designs theoretically than it is routing, so maybe names are necessary.  

But, if you took this in a Matt Ward kind of context, as I hinted at, and tried to put Golf Digest or Golf Week ratings points on various criteria, maybe none of them would be "poor"
but you would find that some great courses do lack certain elements of a great routing.  

Hey, on a golf architecture site, in my mind, its worth discussing.

[redanman]

In the US, the hillside routing of Olympic quickly comes to mind.  

Jeffrey:
Ouch.  I'm with Doak here this could get ugly.  

Why would you consider Olympic's routing poor?  

I thought it was pretty good too

I have always thought it needed many center line bunkers, more trips up and down the hill  to return to the clubhouse and another hamburger stand.

Lehigh's routing rules.

[Phil McDade]

Wasn't Piping Rock's routing compromised by the polo fields there? Ran's course profile suggests Macdonald was so upset at not being able to use the polo grounds that he ceded some of the control of its construction to Seth Raynor.

[Kirk Gill]

What about those of you who have created a routing for a course only to see another architect get the job, and are aghast at the routing that was chosen?

Or a safer question - are there courses where the routings of two different (and now deceased ) architects exist, where the "road not taken" might have resulted in a better course?

[BCrosby]

Not to beat a dead horse, but trying to assess routings is very hard. Again, it's the "compared to what" part.

For example, once you have laid out holes, you can compare bunker, green and tee locations. Try a bunker here v. there, ditto for tees, etc. All this is pretty easy to visualize and weigh.

But it's very hard to compare different routings because (a) you can't do it piecemeal (rerouting one hole usually has huge and unforeseen consequence for the rest of the routing) and (b) trying to imagine how alternative routings would look or play is, I think, virtually impossbile (absent an intimate knowedge of the terrain).

Assessing routings is a bit like comparing a novel Faulkner wrote to a novel he might have written.

Bob

[BCrosby]

What about those of you who have created a routing for a course only to see another architect get the job, and are aghast at the routing that was chosen?

Or a safer question - are there courses where the routings of two different (and now deceased ) architects exist, where the "road not taken" might have resulted in a better course?

York CC asked Ross and Flynn to do routings for a proposed course. Ross got the job. But his and Flynn's routings had almost nothing in common. It was quite remarkable.

Bob