[Jeff_Stettner]

Pat,

Maybe. The thing about Forest Park, for me, is the variety of positive factors:

1. Fun, thoughtful design. Actual architetural thinking went into this muni.
2. Solid conditions.
3. Price. It's accessible. Top fees are in the $30 range.
4. Location. Not only is it in the middle of a city with other outdoor activities literally surrounding the golf course (running, biking, boating, etc). but it is also easily accessible by public tranist including both busses and the Metrolink.
5. Setting. Forest Park has to be one of the most beautiful parks in the country.

I struggle to think of a more relevant golf course that does not dumb down the design features for the general public.

[Mike McGuire]

Lawsonia. If only to learn how to create exit strategies.

Adam-

Have played Lawsonia many times. Could you explain what "exit strategies" means?

[JESII]

If architects studies the Paul Daley Scottish golf quadrilateral: TOC, North Berwick, Prestwick, Cruden Bay; I'm convinced they'd build much better courses than if they studied the American classics.

This is a pretty interesting observation, one worthy of its own thread, really, but I'll simply say this: I'd guess most architects have at least played these courses; is it apparent?

George, I think you would be surprised how few architects have play all these courses.

I have played none of those four, but I have played some links golf...and I love it, would choose it over "American" golf every day of the week...BUT...is there any chance those four courses can even come close to providing the variety that Pine Valley, Merion, Cypress Point, Shinnecock do?

The links course might have varied weather conditions, but the architectural variety nod has to go massively to the US courses.


As to the question originally asked...you'd have to go for a worldwide variety, no? A couple links courses in GB, a couple American greats, and a sandbelt course or two...or possibly New South Wales?

[JMorgan]

Five in 1890, maybe.

[Andrew Summerell]

If architects studies the Paul Daley Scottish golf quadrilateral: TOC, North Berwick, Prestwick, Cruden Bay; I'm convinced they'd build much better courses than if they studied the American classics.

This is a pretty interesting observation, one worthy of its own thread, really, but I'll simply say this: I'd guess most architects have at least played these courses; is it apparent?

George, I think you would be surprised how few architects have play all these courses.

I have played none of those four, but I have played some links golf...and I love it, would choose it over "American" golf every day of the week...BUT...is there any chance those four courses can even come close to providing the variety that Pine Valley, Merion, Cypress Point, Shinnecock do?

The links course might have varied weather conditions, but the architectural variety nod has to go massively to the US courses.

With regard to architectural principals they would come close.

As to the question originally asked...you'd have to go for a worldwide variety, no? A couple links courses in GB, a couple American greats, and a sandbelt course or two...or possibly New South Wales?

As my list shows, I do agree with you on this point. I also think Merion or Oakmont would have to be included because they are on clay.

[Jim Nugent]

Forest Park -- The future of golf. A thoughtful course that is well-maintained literally in the center of a city with reasonable greens fees. The setting and architecture are commendable.

Forest Park in St. Louis? 

You bet.

I used to really like that course.  Haven't played it since 1971 though.  Several big changes since then.  Anyone who played the various renditions, which do you like more?  Holes 1-4 on the old course (NLE) were quite cool, I thought. 

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, Lawsonia has those considerate ramps off to the side of many of the greens that not only point you the way to the next, they ease your walk off of the many raised greens. The also provide a way for the mower and other equipment to exit.

Lawsonia is worthy of study for other reasons, too. After having played many of the modern publics in Chicago back in the 80's I was floored by the design when I first experienced it. It made me think about the architects intent and/or their marching orders for the first time.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

you guys can fill in the blanks with your own preference but my studies would be as follows
Best of Macknzieism
Best of Macdonaldism
Best of Doakism
Best of Crenshawism
Best couple of the "one off wonders" ism

[TEPaul]

1. TOC
2. The most rudimentary late 19th and early 20th century geometric/steeplechase layout I can find (actually I did find one in Upper NY State).
3. In GB, some of turn of the century heathland courses and over here Myopia and GCGC.
4. NGLA
5. Oakmont, Merion East, Pine Valley
6. Shinnecock, Cypress and Pebble
7. Some 1950s RTJ and Dick Wilsons.
8. Shadow Creek
9. Sand Hills


Sorry, George, that's nine instead of five but that would be my study curriculum. 

[William King]

Forest Park -- The future of golf. A thoughtful course that is well-maintained literally in the center of a city with reasonable greens fees. The setting and architecture are commendable.


What Jeff meant to say was: "how to build in slow play!" Last time I was there, just after the renovations, I was standing on #2 Hawthorn (par 3; a no-no in my book) and could see 4 other teeing grounds, each with 2 groups waiting! 

[Tommy Williamsen]

1. TOC
2. The most rudimentary late 19th and early 20th century geometric/steeplechase layout I can find (actually I did find one in Upper NY State).
3. In GB, some of turn of the century heathland courses and over here Myopia and GCGC.
4. NGLA
5. Oakmont, Merion East, Pine Valley
6. Shinnecock, Cypress and Pebble
7. Some 1950s RTJ and Dick Wilsons.
8. Shadow Creek
9. Sand Hills

Tom Paul makes an excellent point.  He lists courses from different periods.  I might come up with a different list of but the five should somehow illustrate a variety of styles from different decades.

Sorry, George, that's nine instead of five but that would be my study curriculum. 

[Jim Nugent]

What Jeff meant to say was: "how to build in slow play!" Last time I was there, just after the renovations, I was standing on #2 Hawthorn (par 3; a no-no in my book) and could see 4 other teeing grounds, each with 2 groups waiting! 

Both 2 and 3 used to be par 3's -- tough ones -- before they made the changes. 

[Bruce Katona]

The first 3 on how to work with a site and do things properly:

1. Sand Hills
2. Shinnicock
3. Cypress Point

The last 2 on how not do design and build a course:

4. Country Club of the Poconos
5. Bear Brook

[Tim Leahy]

How about Rustic Canyon? How to build a fun, challenging, and architecturally interesting public course in an outragiously expensive area that still charges reasonable rates under $100.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()