What's More Important, the Topography or Soil?

[Phil Benedict]

A fellow who knows a good deal about architecture told me that he used to think topography was the most important factor in building a good golf course, citing Yale as Exhibit A, but has come to believe that soil is more important.  The discussion arose after I noted how much more interesting the green surrounds were at Pine Needles than the Ross Course I belong to, which I assumed reflected the fact that Ross sweated the details at Pine Needles because he spent so much time in the area.  This fellow said it may have more to do with the fact that the soil at Pine Needles drains better, allowing for nooks and crannies that would become breeding grounds for mosquitoes at my course, which doesn't have the benefit of sandy soil.

[John Moore II]

I think importance depends on what type of golf course we are talking about. If the goal is to simply build a good golf course, than I would say that soil is the more important, since that will allow the designer more flexibility to do things and move stuff around when necessary. However, when looking at the truly great courses, both are equally important. Sand Hills would not be what it is without both great soil and great topography. Same with Pine Valley, CPC and others.

[Ray Richard]

As the saying goes " golf course construction is 90% drainage and 10% common sense and if you are short on common sense, increase the drainage.". Drainable soil is critical,along with the ability to balance the soil quantities so you don't bring any in or truck any out.

[TEPaul]

I'd be happy to answer that but first I'd like you to define what you mean by "more" as well as what you mean by "important". 

[Lloyd_Cole]

I would think it depends how much money you have. Merion is on clay. Or maybe one should say, above clay.
I'd think if your budget was tight it would be soil, soil, soil.

[Phil Benedict]

I'd be happy to answer that but first I'd like you to define what you mean by "more" as well as what you mean by "important". 

Tom,

The optimum for building a great golf course is sandy soil and interesting terrain - the Sand Hills model.  But that choice isn't always available.  Suppose you were given a choice of building a course at a Pinehurst # 2 style piece of property - flattish but with great soil - or Yale - dramatic changes in elevation but soil that doesn't drain so well and is not easy to keep fast and firm?  Which would you choose?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Just about all the world's great courses (no, not all) are built on sand.  Bonus: sandy sites often have great topography!

Mark

[Gary Slatter]

Topography because soil can be improved (so can topography though).

[Adrian_Stiff]

Topography because soil can be improved (so can topography though).

I agree with this and both can be improved, its easier to improve the soil and or get away with a not such good soil. A crap topography with no improvement will equal a dull course and although it may have great soil, who will care.

[Kalen Braley]

Topography because soil can be improved (so can topography though).

I'm leaning this way as well.  You can always bring sand in and cap the fairways, greens, and tees.  Even at PD, its my understanding this was done on several holes.

I think ANGC is the poster child for this.  Not built on the best of soils, but the topgraphy is excellent.

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

Yes, Augusta National is a poster child for good topography (even though I would never think to vote for it as the best topo given to a golf course).

But Pine Valley and St. Andrews and Garden City and many more are poster children for good soils.

You want both of them, but the soils make building cool golf features a lot easier.  Sand and NO topography is no guarantee of success, but sand and a modicum of topography is better than the other way around.

[JESII]

My first instinct on this topic was that the importance of the soil would best come to light over time, by maintenance successes and failures. That certainly has an impact on how the architecture is perceived, but this comment by Tom Doak..."but the soils make building cool golf features a lot easier" opened my eyes a bit.

I'm assuming this implies little hollow pockets that might not drain well on non-sandy soil. I am also sure there are other "cool features" that I cannot envision this afternoon, but I think the point is that with drainage virtually assured, the GCA has a bit more creative freedom in micro-shaping.

So...my question is...what specific design advantages does a parcel of land that would require proper surface draining offer an architect when compared to a flatter sandy site?

Huntingdon Valley is built in a natural bowl and is the most amazing piece of land I have ever seen with respect to surface draining. We can have a deluge that takes the greens under water and an hour or two after it stops raining balls are in the air...that is good fortune, I know. What sort of freedoms does the sheet drainage type of landscape offer an architect that compares to the "cool features" Tom mentions re: sandy soil sites?

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

I will take good soils every time.

If just mediocre topography is added, it is an added bonus.

The difference in construction costs alone, at least here in Canada, are close to $1M

With the good (meaning sand) soils, the cost reducing items are; the greens can be push ups, the tees will require no special blends for rootzone, no stripping and replacing of topsoil, no sand capping and much less underground drainage (and therefore less catch basins)

[Tim Gerrish]

18 cups soil with a pinch of topography.

Look at Mr. Dye's work at Whistler.  All man made with imported soil.  We could disagree over some the design elements, but the course seems to be doing fairly well.  Though making it look 'natural' ( I hate that word) is difficult, you can always create topography.

It is so much more expensive to have to deal with soil, manufactured soils, hauling, poor playing conditions, difficult maintenance, increased maintenance budgets, etc.  The work involved to build Black Rock (see Ran's review) was incredible.  Multiple blasting crews for months on end, crushers so we could plate vertically the entire site with a 2-3' gravel layer, a choker layer and then importing topsoil.  And we had to shape it...   If it was well drained soil among the ledge outcroppings the Owner probably wouldn't have needed to build the housing.

[Peter Pallotta]

So...my question is...what specific design advantages does a parcel of land that would require proper surface draining offer an architect when compared to a flatter sandy site?

Huntingdon Valley is built in a natural bowl and is the most amazing piece of land I have ever seen with respect to surface draining. We can have a deluge that takes the greens under water and an hour or two after it stops raining balls are in the air...that is good fortune, I know. What sort of freedoms does the sheet drainage type of landscape offer an architect that compares to the "cool features" Tom mentions re: sandy soil sites?

First, I hope a few people chime in on JES's question. I think it's a very good question.

Second, I had a similar thread a while back, and soil won hands down, with a lot of compelling arguments from a lot of compelling people. I was convinced then. Now I'm not so sure -- for reasons that are probably easily dismissed as a matter of personal taste or impractical theorizing. But it seems to me that valuing the shaping of a very fine golf course on a sandy-site doesn't mean we need to de-value a golf course created with little shaping on a non-sandy site, even on an unspectacular non-sandy site.

I think we've come to expect too much, or at least too much in a very narrow bandwidth.

I think golfers and golf course architects alike need to look with fresher eyes at the possibilities and charms and economic good sense of the modest, non-sandy site -- though I'm not sure which of those two groups needs to lead or which is likelier to follow

Peter

[Tim Gerrish]

I think golfers and golf course architects alike need to look with fresher eyes at the possibilities and charms and economic good sense of the modest, non-sandy site -- though I'm not sure which of those two groups needs to lead or which is likelier to follow

Peter

The majority of golfers will play at the most convenient/ affordable course.

How many architects in this economy are going to turn down a new course project?    Bad soils or not, they'll help you.  You might not like what we have to say regarding the effects of poor soils, but that didn't stop a lot client sin the 90's.
   
It is the clients that need to lead...  There are a lot of people thinking we need more Bandon, Chambers Bay type of courses.  I guess they can turn a profit.  They are fine in small amounts, but do little to expand the game for the masses.

The problem with being modest on the non sandy site is the possible loss of rounds, additional maintenance and drainage necessary to make it functional / viable.  We seem to spend a far amount of time at older courses adding drainage at poor soiled courses.  IMHO

Fresher..  good adjective.. 

[Sean_A]

I have been over this time and again.  In the end, I can't separate the two.  Instinctively I would have gone with topography because all of my favourite courses have significant land movement.  However, I do believe good golf can be built on relatively uninviting sites so long as the ground game/drainage components are there.   Now, if a good archie is brought in with a good budget, miracles can happen.  Of course its cheaper to build and probably a bit more pleasing to the eye if the topography and soil components exist.  So with that stated, I believe the two are darn near equally important.  Why do I write this after seeming placing soil on top?  Well, nature (and sometimes ancient man made obstacles which are for all intents and purposes as good as nature) provides shots and circumstances that archies cannot envision or won't build.  These odd little quirks of fate can make all the difference so far as I am concerned. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Quite clearly great soils do not exist everywhere, and obviously sandy soils are better but......... From a UK perspective theses great soils exist around the edge of our coast and on about 3 other belt outcrops. So what do we do for golfers who do not live with 150 miles of a good soil.

Great greens can be built anywhere.
Great tees can be built anyhere.
Plenty of UK courses are on clays or chalks that drain pretty good, the only days we lose for golf are prolonged wet winter days.
There are plenty of good ones in central England on non sands, i suspect throughout the world the same is true.

Great soils are actually rare.

[Kalen Braley]

I sort of read this as an either/or kind of question, not both.  Great topogrpahy or great soil, so perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

In that context it still seems more ideal to work with great topography and bring in some better soil to cap the fairways.  As opposed to starting with a featureless piece of land and having to move massive amounts of soil on the site.

[Scott Witter]

This is a thought provoking question and I don't think there is a clear and distinctive answer since as a result of many parameters they are not mutually exclusive.  Sean is right, and I too can't separate the two.  I think some answers are influenced depending on the type of soils/sites an architect has worked with.  I doubt there are many golfers who really could tell the difference, let alone care, as long as the course was firm, fun to play and memorable.

JES II frames it well with a great example at Huntingdon.  If the site has a lot of great natural movement and I don't mean just broad sweeps, rolls and troughs, but smaller interesting character, with plateaus, benches...almost containing internal contour within the bigger site picture, then I believe in the long run this would outweigh the less than ideal soils.  This has been proven and tested on countless courses across the mid-west, northeast and upper mid-atlantic.

I remember Peter's thread on soils and 'on the surface' I was initially swayed by great soils as my first choice, but this has to be considered in the context of the site.  If given the option, I would take a great site in an out of the way location, you know what I mean...the type where all 18 are just waiting to be found, before I took a flattish sandy site in a heavy demographic area.  If we don't disturb the natural drainage patterns and soil conditions/dynamics, then I think we will be far ahead in the long run and the course will be built cheaper.  Sure, sand can be molded to create special cool features and made to look natural, but this usually comes at a higher cost.  Tom Doak makes a good point and if the possession arrow is pointing in the direction of great soils on a decent site you have a good chance of building something special...it is up to the architect to bring out the best of the site.

"I think golfers and golf course architects alike need to look with fresher eyes at the possibilities and charms and economic good sense of the modest, non-sandy site -- though I'm not sure which of those two groups needs to lead or which is likelier to follow"

Peter, I think some of this is currently being accomplished, but I do agree that this needs to happen more often.  The risk falls to the owner/developer to find the right site at a decent price, NOT EASY!  I think the modest, non-sandy sites site lead during the Golden Age and for many years after, but it seems for the past several years, that developers have learned that the combination of geat soils and a good site may outweigh location.  Sean also makes a good point as well, someone still needs to provide good golf to the areas between the sand and make it accessible.

[JESII]

Can a course with large, broad slopes and clay soil replicate the playing challenges of a windy links course?

I have always thought along these lines during the conversation of the design inspiration of Augusta being St. Andrews. The naysayers rely on the argument of "how could you recreate TOC on a very hilly plot of clay in Georgia?" I've usually thought...why couldn't you? But I've never been to either place.

I think about it in terms of playing a single hole. Side slopes represent a good wind from that direction, hazards can be placed with comparable strategic intentions. The only opposition to this line of reasoning is that at TOC, the wind can turn around.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim S:

It is harder building cool greens contours in heavy soil (with USGA construction) than in natural sand (where you can do anything you want and what you see is what you get).

The same is true for little contours around the green, and for micro-contours in fairways.

It is also easier to build more dramatic bunkers in sandy soil, particularly if the sand is good enough to be the bunker sand.  Again, it's the advantage of what-you-see-is-what-you-get, much like desktop publishing on the computer screen made everyone a potential self-publisher (before print became moot).

Trust me, the intricacy of contouring at St. Andrews is a lot better than at Augusta.

[JESII]

Thanks for that Tom.

I was not in doubt of your last point. But I do wonder if there is something the terrain offers to the guys in your business that the terrain at St. Andrews cannot. Also, I am not asking if you had one to choose which it would be, just is there anything Augusta has that TOC wishes it could have?

Almost as important to me is whether or not you (or any of the architects) recommend to any clients to not build USGA greens. I think I understand the potential legal ramifications, but there seems to be an upside in giving the architect the freedom to do a little more.

[Bradley Anderson]

Ross wrote that the advantage that Pinehurst had on other courses was the natural drainage of the sandy soil. It was the soil that allowed Ross to make the interesting and challenging contours around the greens that would have become birdbaths and weak turf if it had been built on clay.

Tom Doak could probably answer this: what is the actual elevation change from high to low at Pinehurst. It doesn't appear to be that significant, and yet it is clearly a great golf course.

I guess, if forced to choose, my vote would go to soil. I think that on really dramatic sites with great topo, you might not be as inclined to work as hard to build really interesting contours and bunkering, because the topo is providing what is the essence of the hole's identity, and when you lay intricate deisgn features on dramtic topo it gets very busy on the senses. But on most really well drained soils, topo is generally not too dramatic, and the architect can be more concerned with building good golf features, and with routing. Dramatic topo often dictates the route.

Pine Valley has both good soil, and good topo.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:  We build USGA greens only where we don't have good soils to build native-soil greens.  For some architects that would be all the time -- but in our case, nearly half our courses are built on sand, and those all have native sand greens, except when Jack Nicklaus vetoes it.

Bradley:  I don't know the total elevation change at Pinehurst ... I would guess it at 40-50 feet.  (Don't forget the fourth hole.)

Another way of looking at this exercise is to compare the two categories in the context of one architect.  For myself:

Sand without much contour:  The Legends, Riverfront, Lost Dunes, Atlantic City

Topo but not good soils:  Stonewall, Beechtree, Apache Stronghold, Cape Kidnappers, Stone Eagle, Tumble Creek

Sand AND topo:  High Pointe, Black Forest, Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle Dunes, St. Andrews Beach, Sebonack, Ballyneal

So maybe A vs. B is not as clear-cut as I said.  But you'd rather have both.