[Patrick_Mucci]

I seem to recall that "Golfweek", had as one of their rating categories, "ease of routing"

I was thinking about some of the more recent courses I had played and how that "category" seemed so important to my enjoyment of the round, irrespective of my score.

At GCGC, most of the tees are close by the previous green.
Some tees are immediatlely, and I mean immediately, adjacent to the previous green.
This seems to speed the round up, but, more importantly it seems to be the cement that binds the continuity of the holes.

I noticed it at Somerset Hills, where with perhaps two exceptions, the tees are close to the previous green and in some cases, immediately adjacent to the previous green.

The same green to tee configuration exists at Mountain Ridge and at Preakness Hills.

All of these courses were built between 1899 and 1929.

All of these courses are a joy to play.

While their respective architecture is outstanding, it's the juxtaposition of the greens and tees that compliments the architecture and makes the play of these courses  more enjoyable.

I'm keenly aware of the alleged "safety" issues, but, if these courses can have tees next to greens and not suffer any legal consequences, why can't modern courses enjoy the same standing ?

Why do modern courses seem to have much greater seperation between greens and tees ?

And, should "Ease of routing" be a more significant factor in the rating methodology ?

[JR Potts]

I find ease of routing to be the biggest common demoninator amongst courses I most enjoy.  You mentioned two courses...how about Pebble Beach?  Not sure it gets much better than that on the back nine.

Edited - my word "mentioned" was IPad autocorrected to Merion....how did it know?  

[Kyle Henderson]

All of these courses were built between 1899 and 1929.

While their respective architecture is outstanding, it's the juxtaposition of the greens and tees that compliments the architecture and makes the play of these courses  more enjoyable.

Why do modern courses seem to have much greater seperation between greens and tees ?

Golf carts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Things are bigger in general - city streets, schoolyards, golf courses, whatever.  Not sure why everything gets bigger, but probably it was found that leaving a little more room and making things bigger just worked better.

In golf, greater tee and green spacing is safer, allows cart paths, and allows more room for congregating on tees and perhaps not being as distracted by players on adjacent areas as much.

There are other elements of "ease of routing" besides spacing. I recently reviewed a course that had different nines by different architects (one a 50-60's practical type, the other a 1990's golf pro turned archie).  The style of the 50-60's guy in routing was to drape the holes on the land.  They felt comfortable.  The newer nine felt "overcooked."  Hey, I am probably guilty of it, too.  However, it just really struck me the differences in mindset that made one side of the course very comfy like an old sweater and the other unlikeable.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I find when a course passes the ease of routing test, it goes a long way in helping the course appear its best or even better. I think of my childhood club Bayou Desaird and even Monroe Muni. Both had seemless flow and green/tee locations.

[Tim Nugent]

Ease of Routing seems to me to be how well the holes fit both together and fit the land.  Unfortunately, people (defined a lawyers) want a set of criteria upon which to establish negligence.  But golf courses exist on non-standard land and terrain.  And that's the rub.  Hence the current "rule of thumb" of about 50 yards from middle of green to middle of adjacent tee grew out of what people felt was acceptable.  Not saying it's right or wrong, it just is accepted.  Sure an architect can place things closer but does so at the risk of being held negligent   

But lets face it, your typical green complex extends about 30 yards from the center of the green (more or less depending on the shape of the green  and a tee is about 10 yards wide so that leaves 15 yards between the two, not a big deal for one who is walking 4-5 miles.

Where routings get uncomfortable is excessive distances or elevation changes between the two and of course, the dreaded "walk-back" especially if it is uphill from the previous green.

I think you will find that many of the courses with poor routings are associated with projects that had overall Land Plans (and housing) done by Land Planners prior to architect involvement.  Often times, these are the same projects that also had a Pro Designer's name on it as they never learned the basics of routing from an OAA (old alive architect).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gil Hanse placed some tees immediately adjacent to the previous greens at Applebrook.

If he could craft that arrangement in modern times, why isn't it more common ?

[Tim Martin]

Mac/Raynor accomplish this perfectly at Yale despite the scale of the property. The only exception being the walk from 9 green to 10 tee but I believe they realized that everyone needs a little time to reflect after this epic hole.

[Joe Bausch]

Pat, what do you think of the routing of this modern course, where the yellow dots represent the back tees of each hole?:

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick. Here's the full category description.

Ease & Intimacy of Routing:
-extent to which sequence of holes follows natural contours and unfolds in an unforced manner

The really good exceptions to this is one of the more interesting parts of a route. Rather the justification for breaking the "ease" rule, for other factors, that exist outside of the game you're playing. Highlands Links on Cape Breton come to mind as an example where the route is broken up with a stroll down a path along a river that is so peaceful and beautiful, it practically re-charges your batteries for the climax of the course.

[Mac Plumart]

It is all about the routing.  I'd say routing is destiny.    

We all look at pictures of golf holes on this site and say what a great hole that is because of how the bunkers look and the green, etc.  And you know what, that is important...but I believe routing trumps all.  Routing in terms of how easy it is to walk the course, routing in terms of how natural the course follows the land, routing in terms of which holes come in what sequence.  Routing is the key.

I remember talking a lot about why natural looking holes are important.  And in those discussions I talked about an unnatural looking hole at Fishers Island.  I was told via IM that Fishers isn't about a specific hole or how bunkers look, it is all about the routing and how darn near perfect the routing was.

And in fact since then I've seen multiple mentions of Raynor as one of the best routers of a golf course in the history of architecture.  So even in light of his geometric, unnatural looking features on a golf course, his courses rank as among the very best.  Why?  How could that be?  Routing!

[Tim Martin]

It is all about the routing.  I'd say routing is destiny.    

We all look at pictures of golf holes on this site and say what a great hole that is because of how the bunkers look and the green, etc.  And you know what, that is important...but I believe routing trumps all.  Routing in terms of how easy it is to walk the course, routing in terms of how natural the course follows the land, routing in terms of which holes come in what sequence.  Routing is the key.

I remember talking a lot about why natural looking holes are important.  And in those discussions I talked about an unnatural looking hole at Fishers Island.  I was told via IM that Fishers isn't about a specific hole or how bunkers look, it is all about the routing and how darn near perfect the routing was.

And in fact since then I've seen multiple mentions of Raynor as one of the best routers of a golf course in the history of architecture.  So even in light of his geometric, unnatural looking features on a golf course, his courses rank as among the very best.  Why?  How could that be?  Routing!

Mac-Your right on the money.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I don't know for sure about Gil, but I suspect each of us architects has a different tolerance or experience for lawsuits!  If there is ever a near miss, or golfer hit there, I wonder if Gil's next project would have tees spaced out further....

That said, in recent years, if a tee is directly behind a green, I have started to place them closer, and closer to the previous greens, especially if its only a back tee, which might see 50 players a year.  The chances of someone being hit in those conditions is very minimal.  I do not place tees any closer if directly right or left of the previous greens, though.

BTW, while not directly related to lawsuits (but kinda) there have been some published studies and writings showing the percentage of stray balls off the next tee.  Most show that the preponderance stays within 15 degrees of intended flight, and all but the really wild shot stays within 22.5 degrees.  Add in various tee locations, etc. and keeping the green, and its attendent cart path out of the shot pattern of the next (or other adjacent hole) moves them further apart.

That is just something gca's learned via experience (and lawsuit) that perhaps the old guys just didn't know.  Or, as play increased, it just became more apparent.  Society has less tolerance for injuries in the post industrial era, especially non essential injuries as most of us would consider golf injuries to be (maybe not Melvyn, who may think holes too widely spaced reduces the appeal of golf!) non essential.  For that matter, larger tees and greens to spread out wear tend to push holes further apart, too.

So, for all those factors, golf hole spacing has increased over the years.  

Mac,

You should credit Brad Klein wth the routing is destiny comment.  He is right, though.

And, as I suspected, ease of routing has more to do with fitting the land than being close together in the GolfWeek ratings.

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,

What are your thoughts on this regarding the Warren Course? Compared to some of the classics, tees aren't necessarily right next to other greens, but on average I would guess they aren't more than 50 yards from the edge of the green to the nearest tee box. The only ones that I can think of where a golfer might end up on the next tee are 8-9, 14-15, and 16-17, and all of those would require a really poor approach or a bladed bunker shot. I think the continuity of the course is still good.

Continuity is an interesting concept as relates to golf courses. I think its important, but I think it only enhances courses with good/great architecture. If the course doesn't have good bones to start with, the effect is minimal at best.  There are some courses with a lot of great holes where this lack of continuity hurts its overall standing at least relative to the greats. I think the quality of the golf holes at Harbor Shores is quite good, but the massive cart rides have an effect on the enjoyment factor to a certain extent. Even at Lost Dunes, I have to wonder if the highway bisecting the course and basically creating one long walk keeps the course further down the rankings than it would be without that issue. It doesn't seem to affect a couple other classic courses with a road crossing, so its tough to say.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

It depends upon the yardage and the actual utilization that those back tees get.

If the course is 7,400 and no one plays the back tees then  they're window dressing.

However, if they get good utilization they seem to be conveniently located

[Joe Bausch]

Joe,

It depends upon the yardage and the actual utilization that those back tees get.

If the course is 7,400 and no one plays the back tees then  they're window dressing.

However, if they get good utilization they seem to be conveniently located

Those back tees are 7800+ (Erin Hills).

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: Here are my two cents: 

My experience has been that most architects design a course from the back tees and it is often the case that the hole's features are best viewed from the back tees. So I like a routing where you go from the green to the back tees and then walk forward to the tees that you are playing. 

I think Wild Horse has really good ease of routing as the course unfolds right in front of you and the walk from greens to tees is very short.  Ballyneal has some holes where the tee box feels like it is an extension of the previous green.

My understanding of the GW rating system has the rater give a numerical rating to each factor but the overall rating is not directly related to those numbers.  You don't total them and then divide by a certain number so there is no reason to assign a greater value to routing.  You assign an overall rating number based upon where you feel it belongs relative to other courses - the question that arises is how many of the other courses you've played.

Jerry

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Ease of routing is one of my primary considerations when evaluating a golf course.
I am very old school in my views on course having grown up playing England's parkland and links courses where the routings are primarily very intimate.
As such Garden City would be one of the best examples of courses I would rate VERY highly in that category.
Some of the links courses at home..those that have added length..have sacrificed this in order to "update'the golf course, as such the courses appear more disjopinted and simply dont flow as well.
As much as I love Royal Brikdale, some of their new tees leave you looking around trying to find them! and when you do, you wonder why there?

[Bill_McBride]

Pat, I'm surprised you didn't mention NGLA in this context.  Some of the tees there are almost part of the froghair!

Thinking of the 2nd tee, 15th, 16th, those were tight to the previous green.

[Peter Pallotta]

I imagine a time when a sane and lovely walk that flowed instinctually from the land was a priority, and when golfers came across wonderful golf holes as if by accident, as if by the side of the road like wild flowers.  As has been said many time before: it was the jouney and not the destination that mattered most; it engendered a grateful acceptance of the blessings one encountered along the way, instead of a grasping and demanding will that needed a fix/jolt 18 times a round like a bored decadent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I wanted to point out courses other than NGLA because I didn't want the Merionettes to get involved

The tees on # 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18 are also tight to the previous green

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

It may be that minimalizing green to tee walks is a factor of overall length, one that the ODG's didn't have to deal with that much because there wasn't the great disparity in distance between golfers.

Today, it's a more difficult issue.

But, I do like two concepts, one which is evidenced at Erin Hills where all golfers proceed in to their set of tees in a progressive manner. (back tees first, forward tees last), and I also like configurations where the back tees are in one direction and the regular tees in another, such that they're almost equidistant from the previous green.

[JMEvensky]

Pat, I'm surprised you didn't mention NGLA in this context.  Some of the tees there are almost part of the froghair!

Thinking of the 2nd tee, 15th, 16th, those were tight to the previous green.

Haven't heard froghair in a while.Thanks.

[Bill_McBride]

Pat, I'm surprised you didn't mention NGLA in this context.  Some of the tees there are almost part of the froghair!

Thinking of the 2nd tee, 15th, 16th, those were tight to the previous green.

Haven't heard froghair in a while.Thanks.

"Apron" sounds so tame!   

[Bill_McBride]

But, I do like two concepts, one which is evidenced at Erin Hills where all golfers proceed in to their set of tees in a progressive manner. (back tees first, forward tees last),

Even though that means everyone walks the full 7,800 yards at Erin Hills?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()