The Single Most Important Feature

[Wyatt Halliday]

I thought this could prove to be an interesting excercise, and may help us better understand our fellow contributors.

What ONE aspect of GCA do you consider to be most important above all others and why?

-Hazard Placement
-Movement of green and green surrounds
-Angles (including width of playing corridors)
-Conditioning (including Maintenance Meld)
-Walkability
-Topography (including routing)
-Diversity of architecture (Optionality)
-Memorability
-Lack of housing
-No cart paths
-Vistas

This list is a starting point so feel free to add to it.

[Bill Shamleffer]

-Movement of green and green surrounds


An average golf course can be very enjoyable with well placed greens, and some high-end courses are just average because of lack of well placed greens.

If one wants to make a good low-priced course, just do the greens right.
(I know it is not that simple.)

[RJ_Daley]

I'd also go with movement of greens and surrounds, but why stop there, the movement and use of contours (particularly if natural contours) through the FWs are all part of it for me.  It doesn't have to be totally rolly polly or heaving with contour.  I like cleaver subtle use of natural contours or cleaverly graded ones as well.  Without the ground diversity of proper routing over contours, it is just a driving range to me.

[Phil Benedict]

Shot values.

[JNagle]

Angles -

Angles can encompass green and green surrounds when you think about the angle of attack into a specific green.  The angle of an internal contour, spine, swale or angle (slope) of drainage will all have an impact on playability.  The angle of the green then establishes the angle of the hole (i.e. dogleg, placement of bunkers, arrangement of tees....).  Angles are critical in establishing the faces of bunkers and how they are visualized by golfers.  Look at plans and photos of old courses, rarely will you see parallel lines.  Most bunker faces were set at varying angles.  Even within the realm of randomness, angles play a significant part because the random placement of hazards and such will ultimately create angles of play!

IMHO it is angles.

When working with Perry Dye in the early 90's there was a Dye Design manual that floated around the office highlighting some Perry and Pete design's.  The purposed of the diagrams was to show the prevelance of angles in design.

[Bill_McBride]

If the greens are boring, the course is boring.

If you add angles, it just gets better.

I also agree with Shivas, if it's not walkable.......fuggedaboutit.  It might be fun to play but it isn't great design.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Greens and walkability are good choices. But, you'll never make interesting greens and an enjoyably walk-able course without a thoughtful routing. Routing is unquestionably the most important element in golf architecture. The design of the green complexes is a somewhat distant second.

[Matt Varney]

I can't say one is most important as a feature.

I feel it takes 4 things to make a good golf course -

1. design shaping of the land
2. green complex size variation
3. bunkers and natural hazards
4. angles that challenge the player

A flat course is just what it sounds like very boring.  If you create nice contours shaping the playing ground during the design build phase it goes a long way to having a good golf course.  You add a collection of interesting green complexes that riange in size that are well protected by bunkers and natural hazards and the course will create interesting and challenging angles that place a high value on making shots for the golfers.

My 2 cents for what its worth - just 2 cents!

[JESII]

Optionality - gotta have it!

[RJ_Daley]

OK Dave, "I'm in for a penny, in for a pound..." 

[Matt Varney]

That is a funny response good one!  The economy sucks right now and I am not sure when it is going to rebound with thousands losing their job every week from all the businesses slowing down.  Penny for your thoughts and please don't send me War & Peace!

[Kirk Gill]

The single most important aspect is the bit of land on which the course has been constructed. Everything else comes from that baseline reality -  the routing, the greensites, whether the course flows over natural contours or was everything manually constructed, is it really walkable or is it too much of an up and down slog with long walks from tee to green..........every other decision in the construction of the course and the end result experience for the golfer is initially dictated by the ground.

[Ted Kramer]

Routing/Walkability

-Ted

[Charlie Goerges]

Topography. Topography is contour. Contour is movement. The shape of everything from greens to fairways to bunkers is the topography of the course.

Phil B. What does "shot values" mean? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't know quite what is meant by the phrase.

[Jim Tang]

I am gonna go with turf conditions and firmness.  Pacific Dunes, Kingsley Club and Ballyneal are all tremendous golf courses in their own right.  They all share one common characteristic; firm turf.  Man, I just love playing off those surfaces, which allows for so many shot options, both into greens as well as off the tee and around greens.

At the same time, I've played many a course with a great layout that was more or less destroyed becasue the ground was water logged, and you couldn't use the ground.  I realize that Arcadia Bluffs has taken a beating on this site over the years.  I love the layout and the vistas of Arcadia, but I think the course would be so much more fun, and much more well regarded (especially on this site) if the turf resembled turf conditions at say, Kingsley Club.  How fun would that course be to play on turf like that?

After turf conditions, I would go with quality of greens, since so many shots are played around greens in a round.

[Bill_McBride]

Greens and walkability are good choices. But, you'll never make interesting greens and an enjoyably walk-able course without a thoughtful routing. Routing is unquestionably the most important element in golf architecture. The design of the green complexes is a somewhat distant second.

Sorry, Jeff, I guess I was assuming the routing would be good, that's what you guys do for a living!  It sure can't be walkable without a good routing.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wyatt,
Greens. I think I could rationalize any of the others if they weren't up to snuff, but a boring green is impossible to overcome.

[Lou_Duran]

In order:

1) greens with good internal contouring, pin positions, and decent speed and conditioning that rewards proper execution

2) hazards, mostly of the sand variety

3) variety (length, direction of compass on windy sites, hole orientation)

4) walkable

5) adequate turf and bunker maintenance

[George Pazin]

They're all worthless without the proper Maintenance Meld (TM).

[Wyatt Halliday]

The single most important aspect is the bit of land on which the course has been constructed. Everything else comes from that baseline reality -  the routing, the greensites, whether the course flows over natural contours or was everything manually constructed, is it really walkable or is it too much of an up and down slog with long walks from tee to green..........every other decision in the construction of the course and the end result experience for the golfer is initially dictated by the ground.

Kirk,

I agree that the gound ultimately dictates several items on the list.....chicken and egg so to speak. However, there have been numerous threads which focused on superb courses laid upon less than ideal land. The difficulty is in choosing one feature over another ala Jim's post.

Wyatt

[Matt_Ward]

Wyatt:

In my mind, the #1 most important feature is the land / site the course occupies.

It's extremely rare for a great golf course to occupy poor land. There are exceptions -- Winged Foot GC doesn't have a superior site -- in fact, among Westchester County courses the site in Mamaroneck is really very ordinary in so many ways -- a tremendous credit to Tillie for making due with so little to start with.

But as I said - that's more the exception than the rule.

The land is what really served as the foundation to provide inspiration whenever playing.

No doubt the devil is in the details that follow.

As Will Rogers was famous for saying when asked why land is valuable his retort says it all, "because they don't make anymore of it."

The early designers had the benefit in having deep pocketed owners who had land that was pristine and simply screaming out for a quality design. They also created courses long before all the environmental regulations came forward.

In my mind, the land site itself constitutes no less than 50-60% of the total for any evaluation I do. If the land is less than ideal then the next two elements of routing and overall shot values must be that much better. Few places can overcome a deficient piece of property.

[Phil Benedict]

Phil B. What does "shot values" mean? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't know quite what is meant by the phrase.

Variety of approach clubs; reward for proper shot shaping; possibility to gain advantage with an heroic carry; shots that place a premium on distance control; challenging fairway lies.

[Kirk Gill]

I suppose you're right on some level, Wyatt, but the reason I said that was because the architecture on those courses  you talk about that were built on less than ideal land were the result of interesting decisions by the architect on how to deal with that land. That whole subject is as compelling to me as any other in the GCA arena. The solutions that the architect comes up with when faced with less than ideal land, or alternately, the way they use a spectacular bit of land to best advantage is something I love reading and learning about. (Matt, obviously great minds are thinking alike on this issue !)

BUT, I'll take your bait, and choose one architectural aspect of GCA that is the next most important to me, and on that note I'd agree with JNagle and say the use of angles. That issue speaks both to the visual impact of a course AND the way it plays.

[Tom Huckaby]

I also agree with Shivas, if it's not walkable.......fuggedaboutit.  It might be fun to play but it isn't great design.

Kapalua Plantation.

Not great design?

I've also made the point that the worst course I know, the one I tend to hate the most - THE RANCH - is really fantastic, genius design.  Getting a golf course onto the side of that mountain required a genius Dr. Mackenzie could only dream of having.

So Bill, I shall respectfully disagree with your statement, and that of shivas.

Remember he asked about the most important features of GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE, not golf courses themselves.

And to that end, I'd say "none of the above."   The most important feature of golf course architecture is a willing client; the second would be a lack of regulatory hurdles.

[Wyatt Halliday]

Huck,

I figured I could count on you to throw a 3-2 change!

WH