Does the property pretty much dictate the routing ?

[John Foley]

John Foley,

I've not played Leatherstocking, but intend to one day.

With respect to Leatherstocking are you making a case for elevating Micro Architecture over Macro Architecture ?

Or, that Micro architecture is the "icing on the cake" ?

Once the clubhouse is sitused, doesn't that determine or influence a good deal of the routing ?

Pat - W/ the case of Leatherstocking what I am saying is the Micro architecture improved the end product substatially. A different Macro w/out the same Micro would IMHO not have the same effect on the golfers experiance. So yes - in the case of Leatehrstocking IMHO - the Micro is the icing on the cake.

In Leatherstockings case once the Otesaga hotel was situated and the sloping property ( the old Feinmore farm I beleive) to the North was demed to be the land for the golf course that influnced 75% of the routing. In that case the final hole was always going to play along the lake.

[Charlie Goerges]

Patrick,

Forgive the denseness of my question, but what exactly is meant by sequence in this context? I've always considered it to mean the order (in that sense, isn't the sequence always 1-18 ).

George,

If the first hole is a par 4, the second hole could be a par 3, 4 or 5, that's a form of sequencing.

Bear with me a bit as I'm trying to get a feel for what is really a different routing. Would a change like the one below at NGLA be considered a change in the routing? (imagine that #2 played along the yellow line and #3 played along the white line)




To expand on that, would a change like that have been considered a different routing if it was the only such change? How about if many of the holes had similar changes (i.e. only a green or tee location change; or perhaps both changing, but the hole occupies the same corridor)?

[Kalen Braley]

For those who claim the property dictates the routing, didn't the Erin Hills routing contest we had on here recently pretty much prove otherwise?

I don't think any 2 of the 10 or so routings I saw were similar at all.  Yes a few holes played in the same corridors but that was about it.

[Charlie Goerges]

Just for reference here are the several Erin Hills routings:




It goes:
1. Topo
2. Erin Hills
3-11. Contestants

Then reset

[Greg Tallman]

Of course...

Highest point = clubhouse = starting point, endpoint and middle point. The rest is just fitting a puzzle together to meet the location of your tremendous finanacial drain.

This stuff is so easy and yet we pay guys millions to do it??!!

Oh yeah 

[Kalen Braley]

Just for reference here are the several Erin Hills routings:




It goes:
1. Topo
2. Erin Hills
3-11. Contestants

Then reset

Charlie,

Thanks for taking the time to do that, those routings all over the place.  I think that proves the point very well that the property does not dictate the routing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Charlie,

That's a great feature, someday you'll tell us how to do that.

Kalen,

I'm not so sure that's the case.

Just because there are multiple routings available doesn't mean that they're of equal quality.

Erin Hills and especially York are interesting studies.

Jim Nugent,

I believe there were several similarities in the Doak and Nicklaus routing at Sebonack.

If Charlie could do his magical overlays for York and CPCC, that would be great.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bear with me a bit as I'm trying to get a feel for what is really a different routing. Would a change like the one below at NGLA be considered a change in the routing? (imagine that #2 played along the yellow line and #3 played along the white line)




I don't know that your routing is realistic in terms of holes # 2 and # 3.

But, let's assume it is.

Is the routing different ?  Yes, but to quantify how different, I'd describe it as "de minimus", or not substantive.

To expand on that, would a change like that have been considered a different routing if it was the only such change? How about if many of the holes had similar changes (i.e. only a green or tee location change; or perhaps both changing, but the hole occupies the same corridor)?

On the particular location you've cited, the routing would be generally the same with some "internal" differences

[Kyle Harris]

Awhile back, someone posted an "alternate" version of Merion that is very similar to what Charlie Georges just did with NGLA.

It features several new green and tee sites but followed along the general lines of the actual routing.

I really can't think of a way to answer "no" to this question, though how much of the routing is based on the architect's interpretation of the property.

[Kalen Braley]

Kyle,

Of course if we limit ourselves to properties like Merion, where it was already tight to begin with,  then the answer will always favor the Yes side, but how do you explain Erin Hills?  Or most other properties that are not limited by the tight boundry lines?

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

Of course if we limit ourselves to properties like Merion, where it was already tight to begin with,  then the answer will always favor the Yes side, but how do you explain Erin Hills?  Or most other properties that are not limited by the tight boundry lines?

Kalen,

That is what I'm attempting to cover in my second question. I'm not particularly limiting my own interpretation to the general "shape and direction" of the routing but of all the internal break points (read: the point between the hole and the next tee) in the golf.

[Ben Sims]

Mr. Mucci, you pose one of the more interesting posts I've seen in awhile.  Being new here, I don't want to step on anyone's toes...yet.  Simple answer MACRO is not genius, MICRO is genius. 

A quick look reveals MICRO architecture and a finishing of the product at the top level (we're talking PV, ANGC, CPC, Pac Dunes, Sand Hills) that way exceeds it's fellow courses to an extent.  MACRO architecture is a work of the big genius upstairs.  IMHO, its not possible for MICRO to trump MACRO.  But thats the old good course on bad site vs. bad course on good site debate.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Would you say that the property of NGLA dictated what is essentially an out and back routing, or did CB Macdonald had other choices on the property that he didn't utilize?

I don't mean this as a negative...I'm asking how big the original size and dimensions of the property was that Macdonald had at his disposal.

[Kalen Braley]

Kyle,

Of course if we limit ourselves to properties like Merion, where it was already tight to begin with,  then the answer will always favor the Yes side, but how do you explain Erin Hills?  Or most other properties that are not limited by the tight boundry lines?

Kalen,

That is what I'm attempting to cover in my second question. I'm not particularly limiting my own interpretation to the general "shape and direction" of the routing but of all the internal break points (read: the point between the hole and the next tee) in the golf.

Kyle,

I would agree thats a good way to look at it, but I'm still seeing far more break points on a parcel like Erin Hills than something like Merion.  If you look at an aerial, Merion is roughly shaped like Italy in that it has the shoe and leg pieces which are farily long and slender. So its pretty limited in terms of the potential hole corridors and thier respective green pads.

However when you look at EH, its a triangular parcel and now you have much much more combinations and permutations that can be devised and it proved out in the contest.  I would think that piece of property did little in dictating or suggesting any type of preffered routing and based on Tom Ds comments his routing was very different than whats in the ground now.

Another course that comes to mind is Ballyneal.  From what I discussed with Rupert he said they had literally close to 100 potential green sites if not more and it was a matter of just finding the best ones to use to make a routing.  I'm sure they could have routed it half a dozen other ways and still had it come up aces.  And from what I've read it was a similar thing at Sand Hills.

So a property can dictate a routing, but only if its restricted in size and shape that forces your hand to get most of the holes running in forced corridors.

[Kyle Harris]

Kalen:

The amazing thing about the Merion property is that the only really "dictated" breakpoints are around the clubhouse for the first tee and 18th hole, and within the quarry.

I think the reason the site is so ideal in terms of use for golf is that there are plenty of options despite a very constricted, awkwardly-shaped, site.

I will agree that the permutations are more numerous on a site like Erin Hills, however, I think it could be reasoned that the Erin Hills site also would lead to a much greater variance in quality - which is where I believe Pat was going with his response to Charlie.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

Of course if we limit ourselves to properties like Merion, where it was already tight to begin with,  then the answer will always favor the Yes side, but how do you explain Erin Hills?  Or most other properties that are not limited by the tight boundry lines?

Kalen,

Don't limit routing dictates solely to the property lines.

Expand your thoughts/horizons/imagination to the third dimension, the topography.

Must I now send you to the dunce class and seat you next to TEPaul ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Would you say that the property of NGLA dictated what is essentially an out and back routing, or did CB Macdonald had other choices on the property that he didn't utilize?

I think the site purchased limited the routing to an "out and in" routing.

Within that context, I believe other hole designs were available, but, when you add in the site of the clubhouse, either the temporary one or the current one, the die was pretty much cast.

I don't mean this as a negative...I'm asking how big the original size and dimensions of the property was that Macdonald had at his disposal.

If you add in the Sebonack property there was about 450 acres available.
The land was described as "worthless".  Describing it as "hostile" would seem appropriate.  It contained bogs and swamps and had never been surveyed.

Of the 450 acres, the company that owned it agreed to sell 205 acres to CBM on behalf of NGLA.

It's my understanding that CBM got the 205 acres that he wanted in the context of what he wanted to design and construct.

He rode the course on horseback for days and found the land form for many of the concept or template holes he envisioned.

It would seem that his decision to by that particular parcel was largely determined by his previous examination and study of the land, rather than the company selling him a random parcel, and him finding his holes through blind luck or pure genius.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr. Mucci, you pose one of the more interesting posts I've seen in awhile.  Being new here, I don't want to step on anyone's toes...yet.  Simple answer MACRO is not genius, MICRO is genius. 

A quick look reveals MICRO architecture and a finishing of the product at the top level (we're talking PV, ANGC, CPC, Pac Dunes, Sand Hills) that way exceeds it's fellow courses to an extent.  MACRO architecture is a work of the big genius upstairs.  IMHO, its not possible for MICRO to trump MACRO.  But thats the old good course on bad site vs. bad course on good site debate.

You cite ANGC as an example.

The MICRO architecture has been changed dramatically over the intervening 75 years, YET, the golf course was recently elevated to # 1 status by GD.

If the MICRO architecture has been changed so often and so dramatically over the years, how do you account for ANGC's lofty status as one of the best golf courses in the Country and World, for all these years ?

There's only one answer.

The MACRO architecture is brilliant and the MICRO architecture is of far less consequence.

Have you been to Sand Hills ?

Are you familiar with the "Constellation routing" ?

If you added or deleted bunkers on almost every hole, would it make a substantive difference ?

P.S.  Welcome to GCA.com

[Charlie Goerges]

Patrick, I'd be happy to do one of those graphics for the courses mentioned, I just need to get some images, or find out where they are exactly (and I wasn't aware of another routing for Cypress Point). On a lark I nearly did one of the old Pine Valley and current Pine Valley, but I didn't want to spark a nuclear "incident"  .

It's good to get a working definition of what a different routing is, and while we can't know if the committee at Merion shared your definition, Patrick, perhaps we can begin to understand what kind of options there were.



Kalen, Kyle, Patrick et al:

The Erin Hills example works in favor of both sides of the example. For one, Kalen is right that a number of very different routings came about. While it is also true as Patrick and Kyle mentioned, there was probably a great variation in quality. That said, it's probably safe to say that at least a couple of the alternative routings matched or exceeded the real thing (at least according to some of the judges), and so at least a couple of viable alternatives existed.

The last thing I want to comment on is what Patrick said about the topography being a limiting factor much like the property lines. That is definitely true in my estimation (Note: once the results were finalized, I did my own routing). What I noticed happening in conjunction with the limiting factor of the topography was that with each successive hole I added to the routing it became exponentially more difficult to rout the remaining holes. And since I used the "best" land first, those remaining holes had to be routed over progressively less-ideal terrain and avoid that which was not usable at all. I enjoyed the activity greatly, but I don't envy the difficulty of what the pros have to go through.

[Kyle Harris]

Patrick, I'd be happy to do one of those graphics for the courses mentioned, I just need to get some images, or find out where they are exactly (and I wasn't aware of another routing for Cypress Point). On a lark I nearly did one of the old Pine Valley and current Pine Valley, but I didn't want to spark a nuclear "incident"  .

It's good to get a working definition of what a different routing is, and while we can't know if the committee at Merion shared your definition, Patrick, perhaps we can begin to understand what kind of options there were.



Kalen, Kyle, Patrick et al:

The Erin Hills example works in favor of both sides of the example. For one, Kalen is right that a number of very different routings came about. While it is also true as Patrick and Kyle mentioned, there was probably a great variation in quality. That said, it's probably safe to say that at least a couple of the alternative routings matched or exceeded the real thing (at least according to some of the judges), and so at least a couple of viable alternatives existed.

The last thing I want to comment on is what Patrick said about the topography being a limiting factor much like the property lines. That is definitely true in my estimation (Note: once the results were finalized, I did my own routing). What I noticed happening in conjunction with the limiting factor of the topography was that with each successive hole I added to the routing it became exponentially more difficult to rout the remaining holes. And since I used the "best" land first, those remaining holes had to be routed over progressively less-ideal terrain and avoid that which was not usable at all. I enjoyed the activity greatly, but I don't envy the difficulty of what the pros have to go through.

Charlie,

Could you go through you process a bit? Did you actually start at the first hole and go in order or did you find a nice area of the property, route a few holes there and then attached them to the clubhouse with the remainder?

Do you feel that some sites dictate a "method" of routing over others? I can see a site like Merion's pretty much dictating the first and last hole's directions... but 2-14/15 are probably as close to a free-for-all as anything.

[Ben Sims]

Mr. Mucci,

I humbly accept your reasoning, though I am still inclined to say that MICRO is what gets the courses their rankings. I am in fact impressed that you honed in on ANGC and Sand Hills.  I have been to Augusta but not up to the C&C modern masterpiece in Nebraska.  I so also see my err in not specifying definitions of MACRO and MICRO.  

But to reengage with ears backed...

I may get hammered for this, but I account Augusta's ranking to solid topography, conditioning that cannot be ignored (though GD seems to think it can), and risk reward that has no equal in tournament golf.  The pimento sandwiches are just icing on the cake.  It's MACRO routing was, IMHO, dictated by the land that sat there.  An architects job is to get the best combinations of holes with what he has to work with.  In that respect, what Jones and MacKenzie did all those years ago can never be erased.  I would argue that MICRO is what makes Pac Dunes so special.  It's routing (though better than its comparing partner Pebble) is a consequence of location and Mr. Doak's desire to flirt with the Pacific in two distinct crescendos.  What is more brilliant, his routing or his finishing that makes it look as if it's been there 100 years?  The answer is very subjective.

I admit I am not familiar with constellation routing.  I accept this fact with my head low.

The bunker question, well thats a hindsight argument.  We could go all day talking about distances from tee, shapes, cuts of grass leading to the bunker, etc.  The simple question of addition and subtraction of bunkers, I think, falls in line with the MICRO side of the equation.  And it clearly dictates the quality of a course. So yes, it would change quite significantly.

Thanks for this opportunity.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ben,

You should be aware that the 16th hole was totally redesigned and never a part of the original course.

In addition, the 7th hole was substantively redesigned as was the 10th hole.

Since you've been there you know how steep a hillside that course sits on.

It is the genius of the routing, not the individual features, that permits the golf course to retain its enduring qualities on that most unusual topography.

That routing brilliantly uses the slopes and inclines.

The use of Rae's Creek is also extraordinarily brilliant.

That's a product of the routing.

The addition or deletion of bunkers on various holes would have little effect on the overall quality of the golf course.  That's because the routing is so spectacular.  The routing is the "skeleton" that holds the architectural values in place, despite changes to the course's "skin"

Straighten up and fly right !

[Charlie Goerges]

Patrick, I'd be happy to do one of those graphics for the courses mentioned, I just need to get some images, or find out where they are exactly (and I wasn't aware of another routing for Cypress Point). On a lark I nearly did one of the old Pine Valley and current Pine Valley, but I didn't want to spark a nuclear "incident"  .

It's good to get a working definition of what a different routing is, and while we can't know if the committee at Merion shared your definition, Patrick, perhaps we can begin to understand what kind of options there were.



Kalen, Kyle, Patrick et al:

The Erin Hills example works in favor of both sides of the example. For one, Kalen is right that a number of very different routings came about. While it is also true as Patrick and Kyle mentioned, there was probably a great variation in quality. That said, it's probably safe to say that at least a couple of the alternative routings matched or exceeded the real thing (at least according to some of the judges), and so at least a couple of viable alternatives existed.

The last thing I want to comment on is what Patrick said about the topography being a limiting factor much like the property lines. That is definitely true in my estimation (Note: once the results were finalized, I did my own routing). What I noticed happening in conjunction with the limiting factor of the topography was that with each successive hole I added to the routing it became exponentially more difficult to rout the remaining holes. And since I used the "best" land first, those remaining holes had to be routed over progressively less-ideal terrain and avoid that which was not usable at all. I enjoyed the activity greatly, but I don't envy the difficulty of what the pros have to go through.

Charlie,

Could you go through you process a bit? Did you actually start at the first hole and go in order or did you find a nice area of the property, route a few holes there and then attached them to the clubhouse with the remainder?

Do you feel that some sites dictate a "method" of routing over others? I can see a site like Merion's pretty much dictating the first and last hole's directions... but 2-14/15 are probably as close to a free-for-all as anything.

Sure Kyle,

I followed your second example more so than the first. Basically I found what I thought, at the time, were the 5 or 6 best holes anywhere I could on the property. Then I tried to locate the clubhouse holes, 1, 9, 10, and 18 ( I would have done non-returning nines if that was the best option, but I started with some rough placeholders for those four holes). After this the process began to resemble sausage-making.

Of the first 6 holes I found, 2 made it to the final. And none of the rough placeholders for 1, 9, 10, 18 made it. I had to fight the tendency to do all of the cliches (Like the proverbial 18 downhill holes; every hole running in a valley etc.) and even so all three of my par 5s ended up between 540 and 560 from the back tees. I was surprised that I felt like I was running out of room on 360 acres!

I don't know much about routing methods, but I definitely think that the only way to fit a good or great course on a parcel the size/shape of Merion's, is to research/survey the available land and find the perfect piece first.

In terms of the very naturalistic method of just finding a bunch of holes and then narrowing it down, I think having the clubhouse location set in stone at the edge of the property severely limits the possibilities.


Take all that with a grain of salt, I don't know jack about doing this in real life.  

[Ben Sims]

Hot damn I'm being educated.  

I was aware of the 16's history but failed to remember it.  I STILL like points from both our arguments.  Routing makes the course on so many great layouts. Cruden Bay, Augusta, Pine Valley, Bandon Trails, NGLA.  These are but a few of the great courses that feature unique and amazing routings.  But , I still think Pacific's ragged bunkers blending with natural blowouts and its rumpled fairways, road and hell bunkers at Old Course, the waterfall slope of 16 green at Pasatiempo; these are MICRO features that contribute quite heavily to the overall experience of those layouts.  

But Mr. Mucci, your points are very, very good and I am learning to see what you are talking about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ben,

Would David Kidd and Tom Doak have been taken to task if they didn't use the land adjacent to the high bluff bordering the Pacific ?

Certainly, you have to concede that that area of the property was an integral element, if not a focal element in the routing of the golf course.

I think Tom brilliantly used variations in routing the holes at PD to take advantage of the Western property line.
His routing has some holes coming at the Pacific while others flank the Pacific.  I think that's a great routing feature only made possible by the property.