Can a golf course with poor routing be good?

[Frank Pont]

I ran into this question when recently a friend of mine played a course where he really liked the individual holes (well designed greens, strategic holes, nice bunkers), but thought the routing was a mess (very long walks between holes, poor start and finish, poor clubhouse position, lack of balance in sequence of holes). Nevertheless he thought the couse was a good one. This friend is someone who has played many courses and a has quite some knowledge of golf course architecture.

I was surprised by his verdict, because in my view a golf course with a poor routing can never be a good golf course. I also know from conversations with Tom Doak that he will never cede controll of the routing.

Are we architects putting too much emphasis on routing, and should we instead just focus more on building great holes?

[Kalen Braley]

Define poor routing?

If you have holes where the lines of play cross over each other, is this good routing?  Would anyone get away with building a course like this today?

[Jason Topp]

An awkward routing detracts from the experience, even if it is collectively made up of good golf holes.  I wouldn't avoid playing a public or resort course for that reason but I am unlikely to ever join a club with an awkward routing.  

[Jason Topp]

Define poor routing?

If you have holes where the lines of play cross over each other, is this good routing?  Would anyone get away with building a course like this today?

I don't think you need to define the term in order to have a discussion about it. 

[Jud_T]

Frank,

I'm in agreement with you.  A golf course is more than a collection of holes.  On a great course the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, and I'm not just talking about walkability.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frank,

Yes, define poor routing!  

Even dismissing Kalen's extreme condition, I would say that the best courses with average routings are probably some Fazio courses.  I have seen a few (Flint Hills in KS, Stonebriar in DFW) on gently rolling ground that were basically routed with the idea to build whatever was required, rather than fully use the few natural existing features.  And, they are very nice courses, with Flint Hills in the top 100, at least at one time.  (Having heard some of the discussions at Flint Hills from those involved, I can attest they tried to use the few tree lines, etc. that were there, but there just weren't that many of them to use.  They fought for every one, though)

As to the long walks, I would say that I have designed a few nearly equal golf courses and the ones with the long walks between houses are always rated lower in the magazines than core courses. I think most would always rate a core course higher than an equal housing course.  (I am thinking of my Colbert Hills in Kansas, ranked top public course in state vs my Quarry in MN, also ranked top public course in state, but also 16th best public, and near top 100 in the recent GD rankings)

BTW, its an interesting philosophical question about the close walks, and I have been on both sides of it at different times.  Early in my career, when budgets were low, I would nearly always go for the best and easiest to build 18 holes, regardless of walk.  When I started to get some slightly bigger budgets, I then figured that spending a bit more to cut out a hill, elevate a tee, or whatever it took to put the tee close to the previous green made a better course and was quite doable.  

And more recently, I have emphasized putting the middle tees where most people play close to the previous green, with less emphasis on the back tee being close and walkable, even if the back tee players might be more likely to be walkers than the rest.  I do this because I believe it increases speed of play.  That has resulted in some long walks, artifically elevated back tees, etc. which might have good players downgrading the course, but I guess no design principle can accomplish everything......

[Jeff_Mingay]

Interesting question, Frank.

I go back to my recent trip to Skidaway Island, Georgia. There, Tim Liddy took an Arnold Palmer course that's routed through houses, with a number of long walks between holes and a few road crossings, and made it into an interesting course by (most importantly) redoing the greens; and revising the bunker schemes.

I would normally agree with you that a golf course can't really be that good if it's "poorly routed". (I would consider the routing I've described above as less than ideal.) But Tim's work on the greens, bunkers, etc there, at Marshwood, actually results in what I consider to be a good - if not great - golf course. I had a lot of fun playing there.

[Matthew Petersen]

For me the simple answer is it can be good but not great. A good collection of holes is just that--a great course entails something more.

[Kalen Braley]

Define poor routing?

If you have holes where the lines of play cross over each other, is this good routing?  Would anyone get away with building a course like this today?

I don't think you need to define the term in order to have a discussion about it. 

Jason,

My bad.... I forgot the 1st rule of engagement on GGA.com

"Never clearly define the topic of discussion, so that way everyone can argue in circles, the topic will be void of any logic or reasoning, the thread will last 20+ pages, and nothing is actually learned/resolved"

How silly of me!!   

[Mac Plumart]

To me, this is a great question/topic.

And to go with Jeff, Fazio pops into my mind when I hear great collection of holes...rather than great routing.

I believe I am in the camp that a GREAT course must have great routing.  And, maybe, the routing needs to take place over one contiguous/continous piece of land.  Maybe.  

I've mulled this over in my brain time and time again.  I think of walking Seminole, The Golf Club, even East Lake and the walk from hole to hole is just perfect and the feeling is intimate.  I really think this adds a great deal to the course as a whole.

Other courses where you play a hole, than ride (or take a long walk) to the next tee kills that intimacy...at least from what I've seen.

BUT I haven't seen anywhere close to all the "greats".  In fact, Highland Links has popped onto my radar screen as a must play course.  Doesn't the routing there take you on long green to tee walks?  But, yet, isn't it really well done?

In general, I think routing is a major issue is great vs. good vs. average vs. bad...but not all good/great routings are the same.  It will be dependent on the land the course sits on.  So, we can't make generalizations on what is good routing and, therefore, to define "good routing" is next to impossible.

Slight curve ball...are there any "great" courses that are routed through a neighborhood?

[Kevin Jackson]

All I can think of is another thread maybe a couple months old when everyone was discussing the negative areas between holes and how you go about designing (or not) it.  It was basically a question of is the course design stopping at golf holes or the whole property in general.  I think the general conclusion was that those transitions between holes, whether they are long walks to break up a stretch of holes or just to admire the landscape, are very important to make a great course.  I don't think you can necessarily get that with a poor routing because those transitions will likely be dull and uninspiring.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I find the question hard to understand. Poor and Good, it all depends on degrees off. If a routing is on a vile piece of property with ugly views, the wrong soils, its hard to say that great green design could make up for it. Is the TOC routing good? Are crowded courses with crossing holes defined as poorly routed? Poorly routed to my mind could mean that a better routing was there to be found. I think technical flaws can sometimes add charm and quirk and a degree of uniqueness that is good, perhaps a technically everyting perfect could also be a bit bland. I think the biggest part is great land to start with, great views are backdrops are hard to buy, the rest can be bought.

[Kalen Braley]

Mac,

You would hate Cypress then.

1)  There are homes in view on a few holes, and they even come into play on #2.
2)  The walk from 15 green to 16 tee is long.
3)  One hole plays over a road and shares the fairway with the driving range.

[Jerry Kluger]

I would say that the first matter which has to be addressed is whether the routing is poor or is it all that was possible?  If I see a course where there was better routing available than what was used then I would certainly not consider the course as good.  On the other hand, if the architect had no choice but to make certain concessions in order to build the course then I would not consider the routing as a major factor in evaluating the course.  The best routing I have seen is Ballyneal as the holes look so natural and the walk is comfortable and most importantly, it has a versatility that allows you to easily play multiple combinations of holes.  My most recent experience of less than ideal routing was Jasna Polana in New Jersey with so many blind shots and opportunities to be struck by wayward shots from another hole.

[Don Hyslop]

There  is a course called Eagle Crest located about 1/2 hour from my home. It was originally nine hole and when they added an additional nine, it became a routing nightmare. It looked like they just fit the holes in haphazardly. As a result it has some really nice looking individual holes but is a nightmare to play. If you didn't have a map on your scorecard you would get lost without a doubt. There are so many " This way to the next hole" signs if one ever was taken down you could forget it.
Here is a map of the present layout:
http://www.eaglecrestgolfcourse.com/coursemap.jpg
 My answer to the question is that routing is very important and if routing is poor it leads in my opinion to a drastically less enjoyable game.

[Brad Isaacs]

The weakness of Galloway National is it's routing. It has a wonderful collection of golf holes, including the recently criticized #7 with the tree on the left. Iwill respond in that thread why I like that hole!

[Jerry Kluger]

Brad: As I understand it, Fazio was told that he had to maximize the number of holes on the water and he was given a piece of property that is divided by a road which is also present at some really great courses. 

[Jud_T]

if the architect had no choice but to make certain concessions in order to build the course then I would not consider the routing as a major factor in evaluating the course.  

?  Does this come under the butterface awards or the "slap some lipstick on that pig and sell it to the CCFAD crowd" category.  How about some objective standards and less excuses for a mediocre track.  Which is better objectively, a consensus Doak 7 on a world-class piece of property or a Doak 4 that was a miracle of design and engineering which could only be accessed by mountain goat?

[Frank Pont]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

Maybe to clarify, the property on which the course was built is absolutely flat, all contours on the current golf course were manmade (this is the situation we face most of the timein Holland). So making a good routing then in essence becomes a 2D puzzle, in fact somewhat easier than if you also had to deal with existing contours of the landscape.

For me a good routing in such a situation is one where you choose the best position of the club house leading to a good balance between the two nines, get a relatively easy first few holes to ease the player in, get some drama, rest and again climax during the middle of the round, try to be close to the clubhouse during hole 14-16 (match play) and then finish with a good combination of par 3-4-5 holes that allow all tyes of players to do well.

I find it essential that walks between the holes are less than 50 yards on average, and in the longest case no longer than 100-150 yards. This is the one thing I have learned from architects such as Colt and Simpson, who made a great effort to get their tees and greens as close as possible together. It gives places like de Pan, Eindhoven and Kennemer their unique rythm and charm (funny enough Royal Hague, by many considered the best course of  Holland does not have the best routing, probably because Alison had to end at a suboptimal clubhouse location and went for quite severe green sites).

I feel strongly about suboptimal routings because I have run into so many of them during my renovation work in Holland, and have found that it often is very difficult to improve these routings, not only because it is very expensive but also because the members become very emotional when their routings is changed.

I also think making a good routing requires very different skills than designing a good hole, green, bunker. I think it requires a very analytical/academic mind to deduce great routings, something that probabaly isn't that widely present under many golf architects?

Comingh back to my initial question, my thesis would be that we in this group see and enjoy great routings, but that the average players does not see it and could not care less. They just want eye candy on every hole....    

[Jeff_Brauer]

This is not an original quote, but someone once said that its hard to make a good housing course routing because the frame is more important than the picture.  Not sure I agree, as I have seen and done some pretty good routings in housing, but probably the concessions and the houses basically downgrade the final results.

There is so much to evaluating a good routing - first its that there are 18 good holes, no awkward ones, right?  Add in constant change of direction, a nice mix of yardages, close green to tee walks, taking advantage of views and features, etc. etc. etc. and its hard to make a simple rule.

[Gary Daughters]

I enjoyed reading Tom Doak's recent thoughts on the rhythm of Augusta National.  Nice to hear someone say that it's more than just "finding the best 18 holes."   It's many things really.

[Jud_T]

Frank,

I disagree a bit about the average Joe.  Perhaps he doesn't realize it consciously and maybe can't even tell you what a routing is, but subconsciously he can tell the difference.  Just like getting a good night's sleep versus tossing and turning all night.  You're not sure why, but you wake up feeling better about the world. 

[Lester George]

Most likely NO.

Lester

[Tim Martin]

In every discussion about good golf courses the routing is always a key factor. I don`t know you get to good with a poor routing. 

[Jeff_Mingay]

I feel strongly about suboptimal routings because I have run into so many of them during my renovation work in Holland, and have found that it often is very difficult to improve these routings, not only because it is very expensive but also because the members become very emotional when their routings is changed.

Frank,

This challenge is certainly not exclusive to Holland. Coincidentally, I'm working on two renovation projects right now where the key issue is resolving serious problems with routing (and sequence). Like you, I'm challenged by the expense of making this fix; but perhaps more so by (some) club members' emotional attachment to the existing routing, even though it can be improved. This may prove your last point about average players not really caring about the importance of routing, as long as the individual holes excite them in some way?