Not exactly the book length treatment Forrest gave it, but here was my routing piece on Cybergolf.com:
While results are never standard, at least for me, I think the process is. Golf architects won't like me revealing this, or any "design secrets," especially since we shroud the subject in just enough mystery to elevate ourselves to "deity status," and keep anyone from routing courses themselves. Is that magician who divulged magic secrets on television still alive?
My first rule of routing is, if it works easily on the first try, it has 17 or 19 holes. I will get to other rules only after an introduction and shameless banter (read as, "this is padding"). However, I can tell you this about routing:
It's hard work. I usually prepare more than 20 preliminary schematics. I once labeled routings alphabetically, but after once running out of letters, I now use numbers. On some projects, infinity is not enough. As a non-genius, I take inspiration from those who say that genius is 90 percent perspiration, and 10 percent inspiration.
It's a science. My childhood neighbors listened to my ramblings on golf courses, often remarking, "Well, there is a science to everything," which probably was a polite way to end the subject. But it is a phrase I remember to this day. I mention this to commemorate their contribution to my career, and to sum up my ideas on the routing process, which I apply to every routing, even though each site and routing is so different. The process involves:
· Analysis.
· Test and Concept Routings.
· Refinement Plan and field (often right through clearing and earthmoving).
· Play downhill. The best way to do this is to locate tees on small rises although large ones work even better. From there, the hole "lays out in front of you like a road map."
I can also tell you some myths that are not in the least true. Architects don't "find natural green sites first. This is more "sound bite" than sound practice. While we do catalogue all the nifty, neat and natural features on a site, every feature can be important, if fit in the basic scheme. If not, it becomes, well, less important.
Architects don't "listen to the land. I tried, but this certainly didn't work internationally, when the land spoke in a foreign language (like metric), and even Southern routings took longer because the land spoke slowly, usually in a soft drawl. And in the Northeast, I ask the land questions, and it answers, "Who wants to know?" in typical New York fashion.
In fact, we do most work on topo maps, using pre-made clear plastic golf holes to set a general pattern, which never fails to astonish and disappoint office visitors. Our computers do not replace the human thought process in routing.
Routing, in the end, is really just like one giant jigsaw puzzle. We just keep test-fitting the pieces until we make them all fit!
And later, speaking of using the wind for routing:
The Scots said, "Nae wind, nae golf." ("No wind, no golf.") It still is a vital design element and one that separates golf from the monotony of video games. Golf announcers still say, "scores are up because of the wind," because it's true.
We account for the prevailing wind in routing, taking cues from early architects, who triangulated* holes, aiming them in every direction so golfers faced different downwind, headwind, and crosswinds from hole to hole. Today, designing for wind variety is sometimes less important as real estate and environmental mitigation have increased in relative importance.
We strive to vary winds on par-3, short and long par-4 and par-5 holes by hole direction, trying to get some of each "going to each point on the compass." If we always put long holes downwind, and short holes into the wind, they would perhaps play to similar lengths. Golfers REALLY remember a long hole into the wind, even if they don't like its difficulty.
If I make concessions to ideal variety for ease and speed of play, I favor upwind and downwind holes, as crosswinds are difficult for average players.
For additional challenge, I often conceal wind direction by placing tees and greens in sheltered areas. Each disguises wind, with sheltered greens preventing golfers from gauging wind speed or direction from the flagstick.
I loosely estimate wind effects in designing holes. Estimates aren't perfect, but it's better than ignoring winds altogether in planning.
I plan on 1 yard additional distance per miles-per-hour of average daily wind speed prevailing downwind, and 1.5 yards less distance per miles-per-hour average wind speed in prevailing headwind, following a Golf Digest study suggesting that wind hurts golfers more than it helps. Trailing winds reduce backspin, reducing lift, maximum height and distance. Headwind drives shots down, reducing both flight and roll distance.
We also consider simultaneous effects of the downhill/uphill shot, slope in the landing area, and the lie of the ball at address:
Shots gain/lose flight by approximately 1 foot per vertical foot of difference. A shot 70 feet downhill will travel about 70 feet (23 yards) farther. Uphill shots lose similar distance.
Roll is approximately 10 percent of total tee-shot distance. Downhill landing areas increase roll, and uphill slopes reduce it, without affecting flight distance. We estimate roll variations from slope percentage i.e., 7 percent downhill/uphill slopes gain/lose 7 to 14 yards on normal turf.
Draws roll 10 to 15 yards farther than fades. If a hole clearly calls for a draw, we allow for this in calculating the distance of a good tee shot.
* To my current readers not in the more recent political meaning where all holes stay in the middle of the road, as compared to the other politicians. It means all holes face different directions on consecutive holes, so the golfer faces winds blowing every which way.
Post script note - this must be getting old, because the "triangulation" joke was a Bill Clinton era jab......