Define "grand scale" or "it's a big golf course"

[George Pazin]

One hears this quite often, most recently in regard to Bethpage Black. I'd be curious to hear how folks define this, so if you could expand on it, it would be much appreciated.

I can't say I've ever noticed a golf course NOT being big, so maybe this isn't something that I am personally attuned to.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

The "scale" dimension is often cited by many people when playing the Black ... to me it means the following ... you undergo a major journey when playing the course ... you don't have ANY clutter to interfere with the sight dimensions the course provides. You also have plenty of space between holes -- in fact -- it's rare for many people to see other holes when playing the course -- save for the concluding quartet that are so near each other.

The Black was blessed in having a site that has never been chopped away for other pursuits -- others sports at the park, housing and other such elements.

I've played my share of other courses throughout the globe -- but the mega scale of the Black is rarely exceeded from the ones I have played. When you finally make your way back to the clubhouse you simply shake your head in awe that you have traversed such a large piece of property and how the golf dimension is always accentuated.

One other element -- because BB is "walking only" -- you really get the opportunity to inhale all of the elements I just mentioned. The sheer size of the property is also bolstered by having mega size bunkers which serve to make the surrounding land look even more larger and at times truly compelling visually.

Hope this helps ...

[Michael Dugger]

George,

One example is looking at Wildhorse, NE then Sand Hills.

Wildhorse is compact, uses every ounce of the property.  You could spray a drive and find it in the fairway of another hole.

Meanwhile, a course like Sand Hills meanders to a fro, many of the holes are apart from one another.  A sprayed drive is not going to be found on another fairway, it is going to be found just that much further in the boondocks.

I think it also has to do with the size of the golf holes themselves.  Surely it is possible to have 18 individual holes, but I would not constitute such as "large scale" if each hole is tight and cramped.  A course that comes to mind here is Olympic Club.  In a sense the opposite of "grand scale" is calling a course "intimate"

Chambers Bay seems "on a grand scale"  There are lengthy, but reasonable walks between each golf hole.  None of the golf holes are on top of one another.  Many of the fairways and greens are tremendous in size.  To me it's a "grand scale"

[Tom Dunne]

Interesting question, George. To me it's a reflection of a course's ability to make the golfer feel tiny and insignificant. It's some combination of acreage and the way the boldness of the features interact with the property as a whole. Bethpage Black is definitely a huge course in both regards. Yale is another. I'd imagine Oakmont post-tree removal is, too, though I've never been there. Because of its features, Pine Valley is a grand scale course despite the fact that each hole is pretty much off in its own world, while Bandon Trails, which tracks around a pretty enormous piece of property (800 acres?) feels more intimate. It's a funny thing.

[Michael Dugger]

Interesting question, George. To me it's a reflection of a course's ability to make the golfer feel tiny and insignificant. It's some combination of acreage and the way the boldness of the features interact with the property as a whole. Bethpage Black is definitely a huge course in both regards. Yale is another. I'd imagine Oakmont post-tree removal is, too, though I've never been there. Because of its features, Pine Valley is a grand scale course despite the fact that each hole is pretty much off in its own world, while Bandon Trails, which tracks around a pretty enormous piece of property (800 acres?) feels more intimate. It's a funny thing.

I don't find Bandon Trails "intimate"

Charming, perhaps.....but the scale of BT seems "grand" to me

[Anthony Gray]

  George,

  L C Greenwood/ Roy Gerela. Some courses just have that feel. The holes do not look like they have been squezed in.

  Anthony

[Kevin_Reilly]

I never noticed "scale" as something to think about a golf course until I had the chance to play Sand Hills maybe 4 or 5 years ago (time flies!) and returned home to the still-treed Olympic Lake which felt like the local executive course in comparison.  Tilden Park felt like the local Par 3. 

BB is different from SH in the respect that part of SH's "scale" is related to the tree-less landscape, and save Ben's porch and a few other things, the lack of man-made things around.  Only thing close to scale on SF Bay Area courses would be some viewpoints during a round at SF Club.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Just checked my old calendar...Sand Hills is coming up on 6 years for me, not 4 or 5.  Yikes, Tempus really does Fugit!

[Garland Bayley]

If it has a 7 acre bunker, then it's grand scale.

[Tom Dunne]

Kevin,

I don't either if you were to put it on the spectrum with 1 being your shoehorned 70 acre local muni and 10 being BPB. I was trying (awkwardly, maybe) to compare it to another course where the holes tend to be treelined and separate from one another. Despite being on a smaller parcel of land, Pacific Dunes is golf on a grander scale than Bandon Trails (in my opinion), in part because of the ability of its features (a certain blowout bunker comes to mind) to dwarf the golfer.

I say all this as a fan of Bandon Trails.

[Nick Church]

My example would be Purgatory in Indiana.  It's a BIG course, but certainly not on a grand scale.

To me, "grand scale" is defined by the context, or the surround topography.  My experience is limited, but Pebble Beach probably fits the bill.  

Other courses that I've read about might include Banff, Bandon, Cape Kidnappers, to name a couple.

[Lester George]

George,

I think (and have said) Ballyhack is a BIG golf course.  Most private clubs have 24 to 28 acres of fairways, Ballyhack has over 56 acres of fairways.  Ballyhack has 162,000 square feet of greens where an average private club may have 110,000 square feet.  If you look at the Ballyhack thread you can get an idea of the scale which I think fits nicely into the landscape. 

I just played Chambers Bay, and, while it is BIG, I don't think it is larger than Ballyhack in raw acres or scale.

Lester

[Eric Smith]

To me, "grand scale" is defined by the context, or the surround topography.  My experience is limited, but Pebble Beach probably fits the bill.  

Other courses that I've read about might include Banff, Bandon, Cape Kidnappers, to name a couple.

Nick's description works for me.  

I'd nominate this golf course as an example of one that is on a grand scale:








Arcadia Bluffs

[Lester George]

George,

I think (and have said) Ballyhack is a BIG golf course.  Most private clubs have 24 to 28 acres of fairways, Ballyhack has over 56 acres of fairways.  Ballyhack has 162,000 square feet of greens where an average private club may have 110,000 square feet.  If you look at the Ballyhack thread you can get an idea of the scale which I think fits nicely into the landscape. 

I just played Chambers Bay, and, while it is BIG, I don't think it is larger than Ballyhack in raw acres or scale.

Lester

[Mike Sweeney]

If it reminds me of skiing at Snowbird, Utah:



Then it is "grand scale" golf to me:

[Brett Hochstein]

I'll start with a caveat that my thoughts here are not law, but a good general rule I believe to go by.  There obviously lots more factors that go into the creation and implementation of a new golf course that can restrict an ideal or inspire something new.  I don't have the time to get into a dissertation that complex.  That said:

For me, I would think that Nick is closest so far when he mentions the word 'context.'  I believe scale to be more based off comparative relationships of elements within the course and then secondly the course within its surrounds.  Scale is more a virtue of correctly matching the elements of the golf course (bunkers, greens, fairways) to the tune of the overall property or portion of the property (how vast or sharp are the elevation changes? how tall are the trees?  how dense or open is the vegetation?).  More simply, the goal as a designer should be to keep all the elements of the course 'in scale'  with those of the property.  This means fairway width should correspond with openness as well as broader type changes in elevation.  Greens sizes should follow, and then bunkers can be shaped to fit the overall scheme not just by size but also shape in the amount of sand visible. 

This is really apparent in other forms of architecture as well.  Look at St. Peter's Basilica in The Vatican.  Everything is massively in harmony.  I did not even realize how large the place actually was until someone pointed out that each letter on the inside of the duomo was 10 feet high.  Here in the States, The Capitol Building and Washington monument are appropriate visual anchors to the size and length of the National Mall.  A lot of the best courses are like these other great works in that they tend to visually fit the scale, and it is one of the most underrated and overlooked reasons that these courses stand apart.

Some good examples at random:

Large bunkers and eroded sand among sweeping fairways at Sand Hills.

Banff does all it can do on a mostly flat site among tall evergreens and foreboding mountain backdrops--wide fairways and large, low-lying bunkers add a strong horizontal presence to counter the overwhelming vertical presence.

Donald Ross's original 'sunken pit' bunkering at Oakland Hills perfectly fit the size, formation, and openness of the hills the course was built on. 

Any flattish parkland course with a good amount of trees that does not have bunkers the size of Sahara.


"It's a big golf course" is simply that--the overall size.  It is scale though that goes a step further into tying together the golf course appropriately into that overall size.

[Mark Bourgeois]

George

I love the topic of scale; definition should be straightforward but discussion proves it ineffable.

Interesting posts so far -- here's what we discussed a couple of years ago:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,30509.0/

Mark

[Ben Sims]

I don't think site size has everything to do with "big golf courses" or "grand scale".  I felt dwarfed on a few holes at Pasatiempo (namely #16).  I think it was due in part to the shapes and sizes being very well camouflaged within the normal landscape of the hills of Santa Cruz.  There were many times I felt I was much closer to the hole than I really was.  You could say it was the bold green contours, the tilt of the landscape, the edging of the bunkers; but it had nothing to do with the site for me.  Number 11 is only 390 yards from the tee I played it that day, but the barranca and the uphill nature made me feel puny.

As far as the course I felt smallest on.  Old Mac, hands down.  The Hell bunker is enormous.  The ridge between 1, 2, 17, 18 and the rest of the course is very large.  The sentinel snag on the ridge on #3 looms overhead for much of the opening half of the front nine and closing half of the back nine.  The approach shot to #7 is up the side of a damn sand mountain.  When you tee off on #8 to a green that is 20,000 sq ft, you tend to feel overwhelmed.  The other facet of Old Mac that made me feel small was the openness.  You are open to 14 holes all at once when you're over the ridge.  The fairways are enormous and they are all packed into the valley between the two huge dunes.  With a strong wind on a clear day, the course made me feel like a speck in a huge punchbowl of mousetraps.

[Rob Rigg]

Links courses tend to have the feel of "grand scale" because of the open space - same with Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Chambers, Sutton Bay - courses where you look out across the world from an elevated tee and then feel like an ant when you are down in the fairway - Ballybunion is amazing at doing this.

Compact parkland courses rarely feel big - but courses like BPB with big features, bunkers, waste area, mounds, etc. can also promote that feeling of being in a cathedral instead of a church.

[Philippe Binette]

scale, in a landscape mind, can be define as the comparative perception of a body into space. Since this definition includes the word perception, it implies that the body will try to establish a relation between himself, the elements that compose a space and the overall scheme of that perceptible space

Normally, a grand scale golf course involves a large piece of property and open vistas that allows you to understand the size of the site. You can have a 300 acre golf course but if each hole is isolated by trees, forget the grand scale.
As said in the definiton, you have to feel small on the golf course or from another vintage point, you see a golfer, small in a huge valley for example.

But, just as important, to accomplish a large scale golf course, the course has to blend well with the site so that you feel the course is boundless.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the replies, and I'm sorry I missed your earlier thread, Mark, thanks for the link.

I think I really only notice the exact opposite of large scale - when a hole feels crammed into a tight spot, usually caused by something awkward in the topography. We have a lot of that in western PA.

[John Mayhugh]

When I hear grand scale or big golf course, this immediately comes to mind.

[Tags:]

Tags: