The most underrated part of golf course design

[Michael Huber]

Drainage is almost too obvious to be under rated.

I have always thought it was the fw approach areas to greens.  With the advent of bulldozers and the aerial game, these areas got smoothed out and generally fell out of the main though process of many gca's for too many years.

On a similar note, I'd also think the deicions surrounding quirky landforms/bumps/little hills/etc would be pretty interesting.  On one of the course reviews that Ran did (I think for apache stronghold?), he spent some time discussing the architect's decision to leave a hill in tact instead of bulldozing it flat.  The result was a blind teeshot, and I wonder how many golfers were bothered by the hill and the blind shot, and how many would appreciate that the feature was left in tact instead of plowed over. 

So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm interested in the decision between bulldozing and leaving mother nature alone.

[Ian Andrew]

I think its restraint.

Some architects may look for the most extreme when walking a site, but I think trying to incorporate the most extreme part often leads to a poor routing. I find the “photo” hole has usually cost the routing three or fours crappy holes to incorporate. When I think of my favourites, I’m amazed how often they don’t go to the most dramatic spot on the property and stay down below where there is far better terrain to play over.

It continues on to features. I find a lot of courses have way too many bunkers, shapes, features….just too much to ever be called elegant. Everything is so in your face.

[Dan Herrmann]

Ian - nicely said!  It's what's NOT there that makes the difference...