Core golf courses versus isolated golf courses

[George Pazin]

After thinking a bit more about my experiences at Pete Dye GC and Mystic Rock, and other courses that I truly love, I came to the conclusion that I have an innate preference for what I would call a core (not Coore , though his may fit my definition also) as opposed to an isolated golf course.

My definitions:

A core golf course is essentially a block of property, with holes filling the interior. There are few lateral hazards, plenty of internal hazards; you can see other golfers on other holes all over the place. The only real opportunities for a lost ball are perhaps on one side of the exterior holes, with OB, but that is minimized as much as possible.

An isolated golf course is more frequently fingers of property, with each hole separated by trees, creaks, and sometimes unfortunately housing. Other than seeing the occasional golfers ahead or behind you, you generally don't see anyone else on the course.

Obviously the biggest reason for this is that I'm a wild driver of the golf ball. I'd hate to see a chart of the distances I hit my driver - pretty much every round includes everything from a topspin forehand that would make Federer proud to a towering blast striped down the middle.

But I think there are a lot of other reasons I prefer this type of golf course. I love seeing other golfers out on the course. I enjoy having an almost infinite array of avenues of play. It may be rationalizing on my part, but it just feels more like golf when you can find your ball and play it, rather than figuring out where the drop zone is. On a core golf course, even if you're really wild, you're likely just on another hole! (I realize this does pose safety issues.)

My summary analogy is an isolated golf course is like two outstretched hands, while a core golf course is like a good firm handshake.

What's your preference? Why?

[C. Squier]

George, interesting summary.  I think for years the "ideal" golf course being built by developers was one where you felt isolated.  Plenty of those in Myrtle Beach.  The consumer wanted to have their own slice of heaven on each hole, not to be bothered by another 4-some.  I'm sure housing developments have been a catalyst for that as well. 

However, I too find myself enjoying a course more and more when I feel a part of "something" bigger.  Tree removal programs help a lot too.  Locally, Flossmoor CC in Flossmoor, IL has undergone a fairly large tree removal project and you now feel much more connected with the rest of the golf course.  Helps get a feel for the routing and lay of the land as well.  Besides the added benefit of better turf quality and playability, tree removal gives the intangible feeling of being connected to the course, not 18 individual holes. 

[Garland Bayley]

I prefer an isolated golf course where the holes are so wide you can't miss.

Nothing like wanting the best of both worlds.

PS See my description for a major championship course on Pat's thread.

[John Moore II]

What if the course is both core and isolated? Meaning that they are on a 'square' piece of property, but each hole is somewhat isolated from the others. But overall, I would prefer the core design, though the isolated one can be fun as long as the greens and tees are close together.

[Tim Leahy]

In the Sacramento area I grew up playing a combination of the courses and except for the housing thing I enjoy the isolated courses more. Playing a figure eight layout with no parallel holes gives me a more outdoor feeling seeing more nature off the fairway than park like surroundings with other golfers.

[Peter Pallotta]

George - one time in discussing this I thought of it in terms of "expansive isolation" versus "focused isolation".  The former are those big wide gently rolling courses with trees framing the vistas and not the golf holes, and the sky and the horizon and other golf holes visible from everywhere...but where the design and the space come together to leave you and your group feeling like you're pretty much alone in nature; the latter are those more dramatically rolling courses with trees framing the golf holes and keeping you and your group focused on what's in front of you, out of view from other golfers and vice versa. I like them both, but probably prefer the latter a little bit just because it feels like it "breathes" a bit better, and gives me that same feeling....

Peter

[Scott Weersing]

It would seem that a core golf course would not penalize the really wild golf shot. If you are just a little wild, you would find the hazards and you would be penalized more than if you hit it into another fairway. Golf is funny game that does not make sense sometimes.

It reminds me of Tiger Woods in the US Open. He was so wild that he missed the rough and then was able to reach the green.

I like the isolated golf course because it does punish the really wild golfer with a lost ball. Should golf reward the steady player or the long and wild player?

[Kalen Braley]

George,

Great topic.  I played a course a couple of months ago that was about as isolated as I can think of.  It was set up as a big loop that played thru a couple of fairly large size canyons, (non-returning 9s).

It was so quiet out there, you could heard the birds everywhere, insects doing thier thing, and sometimes it was just nothing but utter and complete silence.  I must say I absolutly loved it...

Its hard to say if I loved it because I rarely play on a course like that, or of its intrinsic nature of just being peaceful.  Either way, I choose this style 9 times out of 10 and really love just being out there alone or with a few friends. It sort of reminds you in some small way of mother nature at work, and we're just one small spec in the grand scheme of things.  Perhaps I'm getting a bit sentimental, but having lived in very populated areas for most of my life, perhaps this explains it. 

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

I find that core golf courses are clearly my preference for many of the reasons you've outlined.

I also find a sense of freedom that normally translates to my swing, as well.   I rarely find the same on "isolated" holes but that's just my psychological handicap when playing "tight" holes.

[Peter Pallotta]

"It sort of reminds you in some small way of mother nature at work, and we're just one small spec in the grand scheme of things.  Perhaps I'm getting a bit sentimental, but having lived in very populated areas for most of my life, perhaps this explains it."

Kalen - I think it sure does, at least for me. These type of golf courses are (still) about as close to nature as I usually get.  Maybe courses like Bandon/Pacific are so popular not in spite of their locations but because of them, i.e. wonderful architecture in remote and natural places that nonetheless the average golfer can afford to get out to at least once...

Peter     

[George Pazin]

It would seem that a core golf course would not penalize the really wild golf shot. If you are just a little wild, you would find the hazards and you would be penalized more than if you hit it into another fairway. Golf is funny game that does not make sense sometimes.

It reminds me of Tiger Woods in the US Open. He was so wild that he missed the rough and then was able to reach the green.

I like the isolated golf course because it does punish the really wild golfer with a lost ball. Should golf reward the steady player or the long and wild player?

I understand what you're saying about Tiger, but how often do you really see someone rewarded with a way off-line shot? My experience is that, not only does it add quite considerably to the length of the hole, but frequently leaves a poor angle as well.

Part of the reason Tiger benefits is the crowds trampling down the rough, btw - that generally doesn't happen outside of big time tournament golf.

I daresay your mindset - seeking to "punish the really wild golfer with a lost ball" - scares me a bit.

It kind of reminds of a thread from a long time ago, where we argued the merits of having the preferred angle be the same route as a very long carry. I believe it was the wise chipoat who said (paraphrasing) that length is its own reward, it shouldn't be doubly rewarded with favorable angles as well. The straight, controlled golfer already receives the lion's share of benefits on a golf course (rightfully so, I'll add) - do you really need to punish the really wild golfer?

I also find a sense of freedom that normally translates to my swing, as well.   I rarely find the same on "isolated" holes but that's just my psychological handicap when playing "tight" holes.

Probably one of the many reasons I tend to play my core home muni better as well.

[Anthony Fowler]

George I agree with your sentiment and like the words core and isolated to describe these categories of courses.

There are plenty of bad "core" courses, but when you find a good one it is truly something special.  Wannamoisett and Merion come to mind immediately.

One significant advantage of these courses is the feeling that the holes flow from one to another smoothly.  The best advantage, in my opinion, is that the course is more memorable.  The fact that I can see the same hole on more than one occasion and obtain a sense of direction allows me to remember all of the holes on a core course much more easily than I can on an isolated course.

Are there any thoughts on how to make an isolated course well? Ballyneal and Castle Pines pull it off quite nicely IMO.  Rustic Canyon is a core course where just about every hole plays along the perimeter of the property.  Any thoughts on this type of routing? 

[Jeff Shelman]

To me, it depends on what kind of facility it is.

I play at a private club that is certainly of the core variety. I like seeing my friends on other parts of the course as it adds to the social part of the game. I also like the ability to jump around in the evening when there aren't as many people around.

That, however, doesn't seem to be as much of an advantage at a public facility. There, I would simply like to see the best possible use of the land, regardless of style.

[Ken Moum]

There was a time when the idea of an isolated course was very appealing to me. I grew up playing old core courses, and thouht that I'd love the isolation.

And then I went to Scotland.

There's nothing like the collegial feel of a links course with golfers passing each other at close proximity, the city close at hand, and the townsfolk wandering by.

Now, I realize that isolation isn't what I wanted.

Ken

[George Pazin]

There was a time when the idea of an isolated course was very appealing to me. I grew up playing old core courses, and thouht that I'd love the isolation.

And then I went to Scotland.

There's nothing like the collegial feel of a links course with golfers passing each other at close proximity, the city close at hand, and the townsfolk wandering by.

Now, I realize that isolation isn't what I wanted.

Ken

Very similar to my own feelings. I understand the occasional desire for the isolation Kalen mentions, but more often, I prefer the social aspects of the game, even with strangers.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I like the isolated golf course because it does punish the really wild golfer with a lost ball. Should golf reward the steady player or the long and wild player?

Was it A Mac that said something to the effect that misdirected strokes are penalty enough?

What's the purpose of allowing lost balls? Beat your opponent on the merits of your game, not on the vagaries of the rules.

Of course pragmatically, real estate costs money, so instead of excess width, we must do with such vagaries as lost balls, and OB.

[Tim Pitner]

How do you categorize courses like Sand Hills or Ballyneal?  I see them more as isolated courses, but they don't fit neatly into either category as defined by George.

[Anthony Fowler]

Tim,

I think Ballyneal and Sand Hills are great examples of isolated courses done well, but I'm hoping someone with more experience than myself can chime in on this.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
I have been hesitant to give an opinion because I enjoy both types of courses, but I just got back from playing a 'core' style course w/ a few of our members and I can tell you that as of 5 pm today
I DEFINITELY PREFER ISOLATION!!!!! 

The course we played is old, 1920s or so, public, and there are quite few places where tees and greens from several holes are close to one another. It's also liberally dotted with parallel fairways.
I couldn't believe it out there today, no one respects the word 'quiet'. One of our guys is putting for eagle, right in the middle of his stroke some fool yells "give me a 7 on that hole" to the scorekeeper in his group. My guy is now chipping for birdie, as he rammed his putt off the green. There were several instances where players in our group had to back off a shot due to the noise, and none of these guys have 'rabbit ears'.
We also ran into the ball hawkers/players who pick up anything they see whether it's moving or not. This happened a couple of times today so we decided that in the future we'd write "THIS IS NOT YOUR BALL!! right across our chea..... trademarks if we ever played there again.

I could go on, but I won't.

p.s. All right, just one more. I was very happy to be in a cart today  as I'm sure the ball that ricocheted off the roof had my name on it.     

Maybe the stars were misaligned today.

[Ken Moum]

The course we played is old, 1920s or so, public, and there are quite few places where tees and greens from several holes are close to one another. It's also liberally dotted with parallel fairways.

There is, IMHO, a vast gulf of difference between a good core course and a crummy one.

My home course, a Ross, is on a very tight piece of property, and suffers none of those routing ills. OTOH, I've played courses built on similar tracts, where you almost need a batting helmet.

The more I understand golf courses, the more I understand why the best architects are so fussy about the routing.

Ken