Your Ideal Test of Golf....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jay Flemma's recount of Scotland's Gift and my recent reading prompt me to post this gca question, since most of the old guys did write in terms of "the ideal course" and similar....

What types of holes/features would YOU strive to put in your ideal course to create a great test of golf?

For me, I would strive for:

A par 5 where:

A water carry was required to reach in two
A narrow opening allowed a roll up shot to reach in two to help shorter hitters
A Zig Zag par 5 where it took a draw and a fade (or vice versa) to reach in two

A par 3:

Well over 220 yards to challenge long iron play

A par 4 with:

?

Probably double fw since I do a lot of them!  It would have to provide clear benefits each way.

Greens:

A postage stamp to test accuracy
A reverse or at least a side slope green
A large very rolling green to test approach putting (for most)
With Sunday Pins in a variety of positions front to back and left to right (i.e. all over the imaginary tic-tac-toe board)

Tee Shots - At least one:

Angled carry bunker- preferably on a typically downwind hole to encourage players to take that option
Narrow fw (trees or bunker pinch, or both)
Hole with Staggered Bunkers

I have left out some likely candidates (like the driveable par4, which is lower on my list) to stimulate the thoughts of others.

What type of golf holes would you put on your ideal course?

[cary lichtenstein]

I like a variety pack such as you did at Giants Ridge

[Jeff_Brauer]

Cary,

Thank you!  Sometime between the Legend and the Quarry was when I started writing my ideas down for the "ideal course". (later snippets on cybergolf, in Paul Daley's book, etc.) I think you can see the difference in the two courses in that the Legend is somewhat repetitive and the Quarry has a lot of different hole concepts, precisely because I "pre-thought" the ideal mix in the name of variety.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
An important one for me is the 3s, the yardages should be as different as possible from the same set of tees. 

[Garland Bayley]

With water carries and par 3s over 220 yards, I won't want to play it.

Ideal is on great golfing land with a variety of different holes. I.e., each hole must present a different problem for the player.
No ponds! 36 bunkers tops. The rest are just wasted eye candy.
Mostly wide playing areas, but with a few narrow ones thrown in for variety.

[Steve Strasheim]

I think you are referring to the course as a whole. Meaning, it needs to test all levels of player.

In that case, one thing that I've been thinking about is how little differentiation there is between tee boxes on most courses. Sure, there is always one, or two holes with incredible back tees, but for the most part the shots and distances are about the same. My own course has five sets of mens tees and most all of them play the same angle and distance. It's something I've been watching since I started playing with my son who plays from the up tees. He plays a totally different course than someone playing the next 4 sets of tees.

So, maybe my ideal test of golf is a challenging course that has a diverse and eclectic set of tee boxes.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

My view may not surprise you, because I've said much the same thing before, but I'm sure it will surprise some of those reading for me to say it:

I just DON'T HAVE an ideal vision of what a test of golf is supposed to be.

And I wouldn't want to have one.  I think there are way more than 18 great golf holes to be built, so I don't want to limit myself to 18 (or even 50).  And I'm confident there are some great holes out there that no one has managed to build yet.  In fact, I'm more interested in finding those than building an ideal test.

[Bob_Huntley]

Quite frankly, I lam no lover of  water holes that allow no room for error. Admittedly they can be most attractive and cause a flutter of the heart when first played but the penalty for a shot a fraction off line is too severe. The thought of playing some of the courses in Florida with water on nearly every hole is anathema to me,


Bob

[Ben Sims]

The word "test" just puts me off.  Is golf a game, or a sport?  It is very hard for me to understand why one would want to face the stiffest or ideal test in their hobby.  It is akin to the weekend warrior on the 40 and under baseball team wanting to face CC Sabathia every time he takes an at bat in his local league.

I've played a couple US Open layouts now.  And a few other places that the TOUR has been to.  Those courses ask you to execute one shot in my opinion.  Whereas the courses we consider fun have led me to all sorts of different solutions to a given shot.

I think you could make the case that the fun courses are "ideal test" when the golfer is faced with myriad options that require deft execution, than the so-called "ideal" tests of golf that we see at US Open courses.  

[Mark Pritchett]

It is okay to have an "ideal" course in mind, but as Tom mentioned I would hate to see a designer forgo a really cool and inspired hole, let's say a Par 3, because it was a similar yardage to another on the course, or whatever type of hole it may be.

Don't the really great courses break some rules of the "ideal" course?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

No, not surprised at all.  Part of your marketing cache is to make sure you say something different than every other gca out there.......Of course, Tom Fazio has already said "I have no rules" which both sounds similar and false when he says it.  For some reason, you sound a lot more convincing, at least to this group.  I would be hard pressed to believe you don't have some favorite or pet ideas that you don't include on most designs.  If not, you are probably the first gca ever to be able to accomplish this!

I do agree that there are at least 50 - not 18 - good golf hole design concepts out there, and probably a few variations and combos of each, not to mention at least a few that haven't been tried.  I have heard a few gca's say that they have about 20 holes they do over and over, which is far to few for my tastes.

Of course, our difference here might just be a slight difference in our thought processes - I recall a discussion here about placing a fw bunker.  You came up with about ten different ways a single fw bunker might be dealt with by the player.  My take was simpler - I figured they could play near it or away from it. I did allow that I knew the golfer would make up a lot more subtle problems, such as shot pattern, how hard to hit, how close to shade it, etc., but I looked at it as a "basic problem". I am kind of looking at this the same way, i.e., a "postage stamp" green provides a single way to test a single aspect of someone's game - accuracy in both length and direction.

But at some point, I wonder if trying new holes just to be the be all, end all is the goal of gca.  I also wonder if building unique holes rather than building a complete test of golf (as the game is generally played today) is conceptually the right thing to do.

Steve S,

I almost posted something similar.  If I am playing a course everyday, I would guess that building a variety of tees would be the easiest way to make it play a little differently.  That said, whenever I have built tees from two angles, it seems one quickly becomes the favorite, making me wonder if its possible in most cases to build a fw or green that plays well from two different angles. It usually involves some compromise and in many cases, its better to have the narrowly defined angle.

Ben,

I see your point but actually didn't mean to imply that the course needed to be as tough as nails.  So, I don't equate stiff with a test of golf.  But, I still think that the gca makes golf a better game/sport than say, bowling, where the inherent test is about the same, at least on the first roll, over and over again.  Don't you find golf more FUN when you have a variety of shots and challenges to face?  I understand that if a gca put a 300 yard carry that you were forced to make out there, that the FUN would go away.  And, I don't think that is a reasonable test.

BTW, I am also intrigued by the human nature of those who can only comment on what they DON'T like in a golf course when the question really is what you DO like.  That appears to be the mindset of a critic over one of a designer.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Your Ideal Test of Golfers commitment to the game

If you can walk on water you can ride a cart on a golf course otherwise get that piece of junk of this course.

Quote from Chapter 4 verses 240 – 360 (or is that minutes for a round today) – or is it all just too testing from The Book of Morrow

Melvyn

[Mike Nuzzo]

I'm confident there are some great holes out there that no one has managed to build yet.  In fact, I'm more interested in finding those than building an ideal test.

Tom
I think there are way more out there than just some.
I think we built a few.

[Harvey Dickens]

Jeff,
I would like to see options. Risk/reward type shots. Make you think all the way around. My home course has four par 5's and every one is driver then 3 wood, no reason not to. We do have a few par 4's with options.
I would like to see a variety in the length of par 3's also. Make me hit everything from a short iron to a long iron/hybrid.

[Matthew Petersen]

It's a feature that I wouldn't want to see used too often, but I find I very much enjoy holes that play to a very shallow, wide green (think like 12 at ANGC).

It works on a variety of holes and from a variety of approaches and gives the opportunity for multiple hazards that frame the small target in front and behind. It's also an excellent way to add challenge to a shorter shot. So many holes seem to demand accuracy of direction but the shallow green is one of the few that demands accuracy in distance.

[Carl Rogers]

I think super short par 3's are fun once in a while.

I observe that some on the site have some irreconcilbe issues of left brain vs right brain.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I'm not sure why it is hard for you to believe me.  Every once in a while I find that we've slipped into repeating ourselves a bit too much, and I slap myself silly and vow not to build that hole again for five years.  The fact that I'm doing only one or two courses at a time probably helps a lot ... if you were building five every year, it would probably be a lot harder not to repeat yourself.

I guess the pattern for me is more about holes I DON'T want to build ... for example, I rarely ever build a hole with a wide shallow green as Matthew just described.  Someday, when he's older and can't hit the ball in the air and make it stop fast, maybe he'll appreciate that.

[Steve Salmen]

A unique feature is a very large green tucked behind a large, deep bunker.  What would make the shot I'm thinking of interesting is that the player would have no idea how much green there is over the trap.  I believe this feature works best on long par 3s or long par 4s.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Oh, I guess I am busting your chops a bit......

There is that balance of not repeating vs. using good concepts even if you have used them before.  I mean, if you base your design on NOT doing what you did the course before, I gather that eventually, you would HAVE TO get around to doing a wide shallow green, eh?

At the same time, with Jay posting about the old CBM book, I got to wondering just what my ideal 18 would be, not even ever considering that I could actually ever build it on any "normal" site, nor really thinking that there couldn't be multiple versions of certain concepts.  It doesn't trouble me to think in the conceptual, absent the land, and hope the opportunity to build  certain hole comes up someday.  I don't feel like I need to avoid being boxed into any conceptual corners because of something I might write on this website!

Mike Nuzzo,

If you have built some original holes, can you describe them for us and what makes them unique and new?  Inquiring minds want to know!

[Tim Nugent]

Interesting point/counterpoint.  In trying to decide which veiwpoint I favored, I came to the conclusion of, Neither.  I guess at this stage of my career, I have come to the realization that the existing land has to tell you what to put their.  Oh, sure, there are design concepts that can be employed that "fit" within the parameters but I think that subconsciencously, if you have a certain idea, you might try to find a place for it, even though it might be the best fit.

What I find is interesting is, when I was younger, it seemed that the prominent  architects seemed to have settled into a reptition of design.  Like they found a formula that worked and stuck with it.  Fortunately, my father never really found what he was looking for and kept trying new ideas, and it was up to me to try to get them to work in the field - the part most armchair architects can't fathum.  Maybe all architects never really find what they are looking for and some just get worn out and settle, and maybe others get type-cast (like movie actors) into a certain jenre and aremore or less forced by clients to repeat it, who knows?

Hopefully, the more experience one gets doing this, the better equipt they are at determining what is the right fit in each particular circumstance.  When I think of what would be an Ideal Test, I think more in terms of goals not specific holes and/or features.  I've reduced the desire to "get them to use every club in the bag" because I don't think that, with the wide spectrum of players and abilities out there, you can have a course that is "all things to all people".  The only shot I can truely have any control over is the tee shot, because I know where they are playing from.  Therefore, I strive for as much variety as I can achieve while keeping some sort synergy and harmony in the overall  fabric of the course.  I strive to come up with a routing that maximizes what the land has to offer while trying to put the golfer in as many different playing situations as possible.  And I try to be as original as possible (although it's amazing how many times you do what you think is original only to find it somewhere else), while still having a sense of continuity throughout the course...meaning it's easy to come up with 18 holes but to get 18 that fit together without the golfer thinking "didn't I just play this hole" or not being able to remember the holes an hour after finishing, nor an 18 of hole so different that it's jarring - like a quilt.

I think the use and reliance on so-called template holes is trap that allows one to settle for a predetermined formula and almost feels like plagerism.  Sure, they are good for novices, because they can have some sense of confidence that it won't be rejected (and if someone does criticize it, they can come back with "well, it was modeled after the reverred #x at XYZ".  But I think if you are going to hang out a shingle and call yourself an architect, you'ld better be able to do something original.

I also think an ideal

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim....TIM!  Are you out there buddy or did you keel over trying to complete the perfect thought and holy grail of gca posting?  Man, you were almost there!

[Chris Buie]

I am pretty much in agreement with Ben Sims.  "Test" is not my favorite kind of golf.  I always want to find what is the most enjoyable - a course which really elevates ones spirits the most.  I'm not talking about a pushover.  In fact, my ideal is not fully developed in my mind just yet.  I think maybe a challenging course where good play is really rewarded but penalties for bad shots are incremental and not extremely severe.  The player is given a chance to stay in the game and redeem themselves with a good recovery. 
Nothing wrong with people who prefer a strong challenge like say Oakmont.  There are many different ways to play the game.  I occasionally enjoy playing brutal courses but for the most part being severly tested is not the most appealing thing to me.  I guess maybe I'm advocating that easier courses be built.  Yeah, I do think there is a place for easier courses.  I'd still want them to have a naturalistic aesthetic - and have variety.
It seems like the courses I've seen being built for the last 20 years kept getting harder and harder.  I had my hands full trying to deal with them and still don't understand why players who aren't highly skilled and hit it short would sign up to be a member on such a course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

BTW, I agree that there really is a balance and pure template holes kinda suck, although I don't mind playing Raynor courses for some reason.....but I don't think its looking forward to the templates as much as just how unusual the courses look and feel compared to today.  A lot of them have survived in nearly original form and they look weird in a nice sort of way....

I don't know that I was talking about template holes so much as I was particular shot challenges I like to or think that a decent golfer would find fun for inclusion, or at I think should be included.  For instance,

If we lament that the longest players don't have to use long irons anymore (at least to reach in regulation figures) we can respond with a long par 3 where we control the length of shot.  It seems that if we think hitting at least one long iron shot is a requirement (or nearly so, since nothing is firm) we need a long par 3, don't we?

So we want a hole where the accuracy of the tee shot is more important than distance?  Then we need one narrow fw, eh?

It goes on.  I guess we could argue successfully that there is NO specific need to hit ANY kind of shot, other than putts and even those we can parse, from rolling to nearly flat greens, putts over tiers, etc. (but only with a bad iron shot)

BTW, I didn't mention chipping areas and/or a variety of hazards in my opening post and thought someone else would mention those, too.

I actually disagree with your take on holes being so different as to be jarring, at least with one gca doing the design (there are some partial remodels that are jarring to be sure)  for practical reasons your father taught us - we are such creatures of habit that we subconsciously repeat ourselves.  As such, that is why I go out of my way to set up some of these "hip pocket list" of features I would want to include if an opportunity presented itself with the land.  In the course of a design, I might never consider a postage stamp green unless I was consciously looking for that opportunity.

For that matter, I recall my second day of work at Killian and Nugent.  They let me design a par 3 hole to make me feel part of the team but Dick came in and made some changes to my first "masterpiece."  When I asked him why, he thought a while and said, "We tried that in 1967 and got a lot of complaints."  I figure a chef is going to stop putting chocolate sauce on the roast beef if it proves that it doesn't work out, eh?

[Ted Kramer]

Shinnecock is a pretty thorough answer.
You don't post a decent score there without being able to hit a bunch of different shots.
And at the same time, unless the greens are running super fast, you shouldn't have too much trouble shooting around your handicap.
At least that has been my experience during the few rounds I've been lucky enough to play there.
If my job was to figure out who the "best golfers" were, I'd have them play a few rounds at Shinnecock and feel pretty good about calling the ones who scored best, the "best golfers".

-Ted

[Tim Nugent]

Tim....TIM!  Are you out there buddy or did you keel over trying to complete the perfect thought and holy grail of gca posting?  Man, you were almost there!

Like the ideal test, ya gotta keep them wanting more... or I can just blame it on the time change

I'm on the same page w/Raynor's courses, probably because (with the exception of the Biaritz and Redan) his templates aren't exact knock-offs.  And some of his best holes are originals (I can think of 1/2 a dozen at SA).  Maybe it's the original stuff he did that you fancy.

When I referred to templates, I guess I just spotlighted the Famous Hole Template but was also thinking of GCA's personal templates, similar stuff you see them do on different courses.  I think it was easier to get away with this before golfers became more travelled

As for programming for particular shots, what happens when the game changes.  I was playing with Charlton and Huntly at TR and Brucey is just plopping his trusty wooded 3-wood out there and Brian is using a new Hybrid.  Brian turns to Burce on 16 and says, "Boy this thing make the game easy. If I had to hit a 3 iron, this hole would be harder).

Do many people even use long irons any more?

Accuracy? Sure, narrow fairways are one way to demand it.  But strategically placing features on a wide fairway can also achieve it.  Or were you referring to the Straight Ball.

The chipping areas/putting was some of what I was alluding to in "different situations".  Just a little too criptic for a Monday morning.

By "jarring" I meant when your playing a course and all of a sudden... up pops a hole that just doesn't fit and yes, you do get a lot of those on remodels, especially when a membership only does a piece of a Masterplan and stops.

Too bad your 1st original was an original.  Hope you kept it and tried it somewhere...just to see if maybe you were right and they were wrong or you were just ahead of your time  Have you ever tried Chocolate sauce on Roast Beef?  Who knows? Might be good.