[Jeff_Brauer]

The thing about any design rules is that they can be broken.  To me, the question is how often in one routing? I can see a blind hole, maybe two per course.  After that, someone will say its goofy, even if I don't happen to think so.  Ditto for forced carries, long walks between tees, back to back holes, etc.

I have done second holes as par 3's, and at Brookstone in Atlanta, did no. 2 and 4 as par 3's.  I had originally had 8 as the other, but when the land plan changed and it meant squeezing it next to the poop plant, I squeezed one in and shortened hole 5 to accomodate.  2 always had to be a par 3 because of housing considerations and topo.

Its hard to write about routing as TD and Forrest say because most of the things you write are pretty good rules, but you can always find an exception.  For that matter, its hard to describe the process because its mostly plan a little on paper, walk the routing(s) you have prepared, change the routings (hopefully narrowing from say 5 to 3), walk the ground, change the routings, etc.  As with everything, skill and experience make a few things jump out at you, but hard work makes the exceptions jump out at you.

[Ben Sims]

Grrrland,

Throw down!! Give me two examples of a course in the top 100 from either Golfweek or Golf Magazine's lists that has been built since 1960 that has an uphill first.  I agree there are some good ones out there.  But in this country, we aren't seeing many uphill or blind 1st holes.  It's too much too soon for the American golfer.  And don't tell me the first at Pac Dunes is uphill or blind.

By the way, I did try and make it clear that the hole could be uphill if the tee box was elevated and laid the hole out clearly for the golfer.

Adrian,

I can fit pretty much any of my personal top 10 courses into my three rules for routing.  I NEVER said they were hard and fast.  But I beleive them to be good steps to a balanced and well recieved golf course.  My favorite courses (Pac Dunes, Old Mac, Pasatiempo, Riviera, NGLA, among others) all have the kind of balance that those three rules prescribe. 

But like I said, rules are meant to be broken.  CPC breaks my rules I'm pretty sure.  And I hear it's a pretty good course.

[George Pazin]

Ben, you should be aware that in Matt v. Sutton Bay, Tom D established that all routing rules are nonsense! Nonsense, I tell you!!

 

In all seriousness, if you have a rule and are willing to break it for a great hole, is it really a rule? Or just a guideline, per Mac's original 13?

My home muni has an opener that is both uphill and blind, and it's one of my favorite on the course (which rates about a Doak 3, btw).

[Peter Pallotta]

"...A routing may best be thought of as the theme of a book, and indeed the way the chapters and plot is presented in the writing. The great writers all have one quality in common: The ability to string together, with interest, a story so that the reader is not bored, kept captivated and wants to keep reading to the end...."

Thanks, Forrest. But I'd add that IMO the great writers create that engaging story/narrative via complex and vibrant characters, i.e. they manage to create characters who - through their actions and in keeping with their essential natures - drive the narrative forward to a satisfying and meaningful conclusion instead of being merely pawns in an over-arching story-line, carried along willy-nilly by a pre-conceived (and thus usually well-worn) structure and behaving in whatever way is necessary to serve that structure.  In other words, the characters come first, and the story emerges second, naturally. (The pre-conceived structure/narrative is the way of genre fiction and of pot-boilers; it can work well too, but it is rarely transcendent.)  Character is destiny, as they say -- and that destiny, I'd add, needs to be something more thought-provoking than whatever happens at the end of "Survivor".

I think there may be a gca parallel, but I don't know what it is...

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

The GCA parallel is that character is destiny.

A course which achieves a character of its own is nearly always excellent, even if it's weird.

[Garland Bayley]

Grrrland,

Throw down!! Give me two examples of a course in the top 100 from either Golfweek or Golf Magazine's lists that has been built since 1960 that has an uphill first.  I agree there are some good ones out there.  But in this country, we aren't seeing many uphill or blind 1st holes.  It's too much too soon for the American golfer.  And don't tell me the first at Pac Dunes is uphill or blind.

By the way, I did try and make it clear that the hole could be uphill if the tee box was elevated and laid the hole out clearly for the golfer.
...

Sims,

You seem to be confused! You gave a rule for 1st holes on all courses, but then you challenge with a minute subset of all courses. Also, remember as I wrote, uphill 1sts are a very limited set since the tendency is to put the clubhouse at a high point. Your rule for the most part seems to be a reflection of 1st holes being generally downhill, because they are next to the clubhouse. Other than that, there is no real reason for 1st holes to be downhill.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Grrrland,

Throw down!! Give me two examples of a course in the top 100 from either Golfweek or Golf Magazine's lists that has been built since 1960 that has an uphill first.  I agree there are some good ones out there.  But in this country, we aren't seeing many uphill or blind 1st holes.  It's too much too soon for the American golfer.  And don't tell me the first at Pac Dunes is uphill or blind.

By the way, I did try and make it clear that the hole could be uphill if the tee box was elevated and laid the hole out clearly for the golfer.

Adrian,

I can fit pretty much any of my personal top 10 courses into my three rules for routing.  I NEVER said they were hard and fast.  But I beleive them to be good steps to a balanced and well recieved golf course.  My favorite courses (Pac Dunes, Old Mac, Pasatiempo, Riviera, NGLA, among others) all have the kind of balance that those three rules prescribe. 

But like I said, rules are meant to be broken.  CPC breaks my rules I'm pretty sure.  And I hear it's a pretty good course.

Ben I guess to go over your three rules, you mention that one hole in the first five should be one of the best 3 or 4. Well I agree good holes should be nicely spaced, but what if the routing has two or three consective great holes early. I dont know why you say first five holes, then rule 2 says first third ie first 6 hole, I dont see anything wrong with the 7th and 9th being the two short holes on a front nine in some respects the longer you can delay that first short hole the better, but 6th and 8th are fairly common in modern design as are 4th and 8th. It does not really matter to much and my point in saying they are not good rules is merely why make a restriction, just get the best from the land 7 and 9 as a short hole would not be minus in a routing provided they were good holes ofcourse, having just three short holes is not a no-no either. I also like JB have had the 2nd & 4th as par 3 holes on two occasions and of my 10 courses, 3 times I have the 2nd as a short hole, my latest even starts with a par 3..the land has dictated, ideally it was not a good idea. Finally I know of some uphill first holes, I think probably the majority of first holes would be downhill or at least flat mainly because better clubhouse sites tend to overlook, but it does not have to be a rule, I probably just think you dont need those three things to be rules, they are not bad guides though or background thoughts but dont let them restrict your routing.

[George Pazin]

I think there may be a gca parallel, but I don't know what it is...

Peter

There is a GCA parallel, but I think I disagree with it.

I'd say the parallel is that if the elements of each hole are strong enough, the bare bones - the routing - doesn't matter. I know that's not true for me, for a multitude of reasons.

I'm reading a book now where the bare bones are solid - the story - but the details are pretty bad - the characterization, the style of the writer, etc. The bare bones are compelling enough that I want to finish it and find out what happens, but the details are such that I could walk away tonight and it wouldn't much matter. I'm curious to know what results, but I don't have anything invested in the answer, if that makes sense.

[Ben Sims]

Adrian,

I don't know why I stated five holes for rule 1, and six holes for rule 2.  If I had to revise, I would probably keep rule 2 as is and make rule 1 four holes to have one of the better 3 or 4 singular holes up near the front. 

But, I have to vehemently disagree that the one shotter hole should be delayed as long as possible.  I don't mid it at all as a second or thrid hole.  Bandon Trails has a par three at the 2 spot.  Pasatiempo at the 3 spot.  Let's see, PD has it at the 5 spot.  Ballyneal at the 3 and 5 spot.  Riviera at the 3 spot.  Crystal Downs at the 3 spot.  The list goes on.  So I feel that by delaying your one shotters, you're delaying a critical design element of any golf course.   

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben - I think that most courses will have a short hole in the first 6, but it does not matter if it does not. It also depends on what type of golf course you are designing if its highly commercial without features you can stick to a more riigid guideline but pushing the short hole back as far as you can would be a 'loose' good thing to do, but the mainthing to remember which comes up time after time by all the architects that post here is let the land be the master and if you can incorporate loose rules into a good routing then thats good but occasionally its when you break the mould you often get the winner. I mentioned in an earlier post one of my key points is to ind the best way to get up the hills, not one posted re that, eventually as time passes and things mature it is a key point. It is a great skill to get up the hills in a way that the golfer does not know he has done it. A lot of bad routings often by lets say 'good golfers' neglect this making the courses require a buggy?

[Carl Rogers]

It is interesting to observe the right brain - left brain mix in this discussion.

It is why a design (in any field) education represents such a dramatic break with a conventional K-12 experience, and why it is so subtle and difficult to quantify or explain.  It is very psychological.

[Wyatt Halliday]

Grrrland,

Throw down!! Give me two examples of a course in the top 100 from either Golfweek or Golf Magazine's lists that has been built since 1960 that has an uphill first.  I agree there are some good ones out there.  But in this country, we aren't seeing many uphill or blind 1st holes.  It's too much too soon for the American golfer.  And don't tell me the first at Pac Dunes is uphill or blind.

By the way, I did try and make it clear that the hole could be uphill if the tee box was elevated and laid the hole out clearly for the golfer.

Ben,

I know I'm not Grrrland, but this came to mind when I read your post. From Ran's review:

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/black-mesa

It's uphill and blind. Couldn't think of a second course though so you've got me there pard.

Wyatt

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - well, I don't know if I'd describe you as a minimalist architect anymore, but I'd say you're still a minimalist writer. Geez, compared to you I'm like the Desmond Muirhead of writers, or the Tom Fazio -- or maybe their bastard child, Desmond Fazio.

George - we may not be disagreeing after all; maybe it's just the way I'm (overusing) language. To use your words, I'd say that the "elements" ARE the "bare bones". I'm thinking about books/plays like Moby Dick and King Lear - in those, the characters of Ahab and Lear aren't just PART of the story, they ARE the story. The 'engine' of those terrific reads are the characters themselves, their essential natures  as manifested in action. And interestingly, I think that if judged by the standard 'rules' of dramatic structure or story development, both Moby Dick and King Lear would be considered FLAWED works of art -- but yet they are truly GREAT works of art, in spite or maybe because of that.  

Any character and story-line that brings us to a point where an old man is holding his beloved daughter dead in his arms and crying out "Never, never, never, never, never" is....well....MAGNIFICENT.

Peter  

[Ben Sims]

Doc Halliday,

Yeah yeah.  Ballyneal has a slightly uphill and slightly blind first shot as well.  Okay, I know when to eat crow.  As I was turning the pedals like Lance the last hour, the thought occurred to me that rule 3 might have been a bit--okay a lot--presumptuous.  But I'm sticking with rules 1 & 2 as good guidelines for the type of golf I like.  Like I said, I can't think of too many courses I love that don't have a par 3 early or one of the best holes near the front.  

And to everyone that keeps reminding me that the land should dictate and rules aren't "hard and fast" when it comes to routing...I get it.  Everyone goes against guidelines to make a better sequence...

[Adam Clayman]

Ben, When the group went to Banff Springs and played the original routing I was awestruck by the fact that the first one shotter was the sixth. I appreciated the time to figure out my swing before having an exacting hole like a one shotter.

 My impression is diametric from yours and recognize that having the first one shot hoe in the first three has become rote.

[Ben Sims]

Adam,

A discussion about what has become rote and hackneyed in regards to golf architecture could well take us to heights previously unseen on this website--save for a Merion thread or two.

I do however hear your argument quite frequently.  Here's a question I have for you.  Take Ballyneal for instance.  What's harder, a downwind approach with a seven iron into the 1st green, or a downwind seven iron into the 5th green?  Doesn't your swing have to be just as "figured out" for both of those shots? 

And while we're on the subject of hackneyed, isn't the par 5 opener getting a bit overused as well?

[paul cowley]

guys ....routing is an endeavor that turns into tongue tied generalities and exceptions unless you are talking about specific courses....it doesn't work.
It would take a book to do so....like Forrest Richardsons.

sorry.

[Ben Sims]

Paul,

You're right.  But I think this VERY subjective piece of the GCA puzzle is essential to understanding what goes into building golf courses.  Wouldn't you agree? 

I could ask one of the guys to explain a herringbone in the bottom of a bunker, but how fun is that?  I find that the most ambiguous subjects  are often the most rewarding to discuss and debate.  I would like to think that everybody is learning something here. 

[paul cowley]

Ben...I wish I could help you more.

[Matt_Ward]

Ben:

I read your initial post and have outlined my response ...

Routing is the wherewithal to get the most out of the property you have (clearly using the existing topograhical features) -- and in doing so have the best variety of holes that such land could produce. No doubt the determination of the "most out of the property" requires a keen skill because in general terms few golf courses have the benefit in being the only consideration. In real estate situations the golf must fit around those needs -- ditto for those layouts that are hemmed in with other usages that either next to or immediately near such a piece of land. Plenty of public courses -- especially those owned by a taxpayer jurisdiction usually face that quandry.

For example, a solid routing takes advantage of natural features that such property provides -- could be a stream or a knob of land that runs throughout the property and which invites holes to be located in different manners to get the most out of them.

A solid routing also takes note of the prevailing wind pattern and tries to make sure that the course doesn't lose much or become too demanding when the wind pattern changes to the other direction.

A friend of mine once observed that a quality routing may not be easy to understand or see -- but one that is bad can easily be the death of any course.

[Link Walsh]

If given a piece of land on the proposed site that is flat and not very interesting, might an architect be more likely to throw a few par 5s in that location to "eat up" a lot of the land at one time?  I guess I'm thinking about Pacific Dunes with some of the holes on the plain like 3, 12 and 15 (which I would say are each made interesting and strategic by the placement of bunkers IN the fairway).  Also, I think I've read a post somewhere on this site by an architect that basically said par 3s can be routed on just about any terrain.  So, if either of these two suppositions are at least partly true, do architects find themselves at least partly trying to incorporate some of the better land features of a site into par 4s?  Of course I know that, as has been been stated numerous times on this thread, that there are no rules that can't be broken.  For example, I'd say 10 and 11 at Pacific Dunes, on top of being back to back par 3s, occupy a pretty awesome piece of land.  Forgive me if this is way off.  Just curious. 

Also, the stories about how routings and/ or certain holes have been changed once the land clearing and construction have started are fascinating.           

[Chris Buie]

This aerial map shows a 1940 Donald Ross course called Pinecrest in Lumberton N.C.  What do you think of the routing on this course?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Chris- It is not easy to comment properly without a topo map, if its flattish its ok, he did not have a large parcel, so its suffered a bit from being a bit linear but as time has gone on the trees would have grown and developed. Looks just three short holes but I don't think thats a big minus. Overall I would have thought his routing made a good job out of a small piece of land.

[Tom_Doak]

Link:

If I've located a cool green site on the map, I tend to trace back and see how long of a hole I can make out of it which will still yield reasonable visibility from the various target areas.  If the green site is very small and the surrounds severe, I might reserve it for a par-3 -- because I can control the length of the approach shots to a par-3 -- but if it's not too severe, I probably tend to use it for a longer hole because I might have to manufacture a green site somewhere else on site, and that's easier to do for a par-3.

[Garland Bayley]

Doc Halliday,

Yeah yeah.  Ballyneal has a slightly uphill and slightly blind first shot as well.  Okay, I know when to eat crow.  As I was turning the pedals like Lance the last hour, the thought occurred to me that rule 3 might have been a bit--okay a lot--presumptuous.  But I'm sticking with rules 1 & 2 as good guidelines for the type of golf I like.  Like I said, I can't think of too many courses I love that don't have a par 3 early or one of the best holes near the front. 

And to everyone that keeps reminding me that the land should dictate and rules aren't "hard and fast" when it comes to routing...I get it.  Everyone goes against guidelines to make a better sequence...

SimB,

What took you so long? And why can't you see the error of your ways when I point them out to you?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()