[Jerry Kluger]

In reading the thread about Old MacDonald I was wondering if there is such a thing as the perfect golf course and is that what the architect should have as his goal in designing a golf course? I was fortunate to play OM and I loved it but apparently my view is not universal.  I gave this quite a bit of thought and my conclusion is that there is no such thing as the perfect golf course.  There are great designs for any number of reasons but there is no way to achieve perfection.  We may not agree with the reasons that a person might give for not considering a course as perfect but even requiring those reasons to have a justifiable basis would still not disqualify those opinions. 

I would welcome anyone to point to a course as perfect gca and then ask for the reasons why others view it as less than perfect architecture.  For example, a course may be less than perfect because it is too difficult for average golfers or it may be that longer hitters can simply overpower the course. 

If we all agree that perfection is not a reasonable goal nor is it achievable then I wonder what the architect should use as his priorities in designing a course and are there any mandatory features that must be incorporated in the design?

[Anthony Gray]

  I think variety is extremely important. It plays to all levels of golfers. My belief is that every hole should be memorable in some way. Whether it be because of its angles,length,an unique architectural feature etc.. The perfect course would have 18 memorable holes. After playing it for the first time you should be able to recount the experience hole by hole later.

  Anthony

[Jerry Kluger]

Anthony: But should the architect make that his goal?  Maybe the land does not allow for that but he somehow tries to create it instead of making the best use of the land.

[JC Jones]

I think the goal of the architect should be to give the client what he/she is looking for, in budget and to do so while ensuring the course fits with its land and surroundings.  Given those constraints, I think an architect has the obligation to produce the absolute best course possible.

I agree with Dr. Gray that the great courses are those that one can remember every hole but that doesn't mean the course has 18 spectacular holes.  A little pacing is a good thing, otherwise the golfer becomes overwhelmed.

Given the above, I think Pacific Dunes is as close to a perfect golf course as I will ever see as it reflects all of the above and all that is perfect to me.

[jeffwarne]

  I think variety is extremely important. It plays to all levels of golfers. My belief is that every hole should be memorable in some way. Whether it be because of its angles,length,an unique architectural feature etc.. The perfect course would have 18 memorable holes. After playing it for the first time you should be able to recount the experience hole by hole later.

  Anthony

I would disagree and say that goal is in fact what is wrong with many of the courses designed in the last 10-20 years.
Everybody needs bigger and better, long"er", bett"er",fast"er" firm"er".
way too much "er" for me.
whatever happened to enjoyable?

[Jim Franklin]

  I think variety is extremely important. It plays to all levels of golfers. My belief is that every hole should be memorable in some way. Whether it be because of its angles,length,an unique architectural feature etc.. The perfect course would have 18 memorable holes. After playing it for the first time you should be able to recount the experience hole by hole later.

  Anthony

I would disagree and say that goal is in fact what is wrong with many of the courses designed in the last 10-20 years.
Everybody needs bigger and better, long"er", bett"er",fast"er" firm"er".
way too much "er" for me.
whatever happened to enjoyable?

We got that with Rock Creek. There have been some enjoyable courses built and some architects get it. Others are like what Jeff said, making it longer or harder or whateverer. Funner should be the goal.

[PCCraig]

This may not be directly related to golf, but I believe it applies:

"When you acknowledge, as you must, that there is no such thing as perfect food, only the idea of it, then the real purpose of striving toward perfection becomes clear: to make people happy, that is what cooking is all about."
— Thomas Keller (The French Laundry Cookbook)

[Philippe Binette]

The goal is to make the best course for the specific site, with the ressources you have.

As far as course with perfect gca... to me Muirfield comes to mind, the use of the site, bunkering strategy etc... but a bunch of people see Muirfield as a series of solid holes but pretty hard and plain looking.

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony: But should the architect make that his goal?  Maybe the land does not allow for that but he somehow tries to create it instead of making the best use of the land.

  Nice thread Jerry. I believe despite the land you can always throw in a quirky bunker or interesting green here and there. Its that kind of stuff that makes Pete Dye great with uninteresting flat land.

  Anthony

[Anthony Gray]

  I think variety is extremely important. It plays to all levels of golfers. My belief is that every hole should be memorable in some way. Whether it be because of its angles,length,an unique architectural feature etc.. The perfect course would have 18 memorable holes. After playing it for the first time you should be able to recount the experience hole by hole later.

  Anthony

I would disagree and say that goal is in fact what is wrong with many of the courses designed in the last 10-20 years.
Everybody needs bigger and better, long"er", bett"er",fast"er" firm"er".
way too much "er" for me.
whatever happened to enjoyable?

  I think you didn't get what I said. Memorable is all about fun. Cruden Bay is the best example. The onle "er" there is funER.

  Anthony

[Jeff_Brauer]

In actual practice, no, the architect should make it the owners idea of a perfect course.  And if that vision is a muni course with no bunkers, then it will be hard to attain anything near perfection in "pure design" terms, but to the owner will appreciate the cash flow.

In reality, about 1% of the worlds new designs should attempt perfection.

[Tom_Doak]

This may not be directly related to golf, but I believe it applies:

"When you acknowledge, as you must, that there is no such thing as perfect food, only the idea of it, then the real purpose of striving toward perfection becomes clear: to make people happy, that is what cooking is all about."
— Thomas Keller (The French Laundry Cookbook)

Pat:

I think that's a very good analogy.

I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect golf course anymore than there's such a thing as perfect food.  Each has a great variety of ingredients, and there's no room to include all of them in any single experience.  You can build a perfect hole, maybe, like you can cook pasta to perfection ... but the perfect COURSE is more a matter of individual preference.

So then you get to Keller's second goal, which is pretty much the same as mine.  You take the ingredients you've got, and make the most of them so that people really enjoy it.

Of course, you want to tailor it to the client's goals, too, but sometimes that aspect is overplayed by architects.  The client's goals are usually pretty generalized, and there are times when they ask for something you're better off not trying to deliver -- if you let them talk too long, they'll eventually ask for "hard par / easy bogey" and that the course is all things to all people.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

That is an interesting point. Many beleive that it is no longer possible to design a course for all folks.  I would love the "championship course" label to be replaced by "tourney venue course" "recreational course" "family course" and the like.  It would be much simpler to attain perfection for a more limited set of goals and/or labels.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

You can design a course for all folks ... the only problem is that it winds up being passable, but not optimal for any of them.

Sort of like those restaurants which try to feature 30 different entrees from around the world!

[Ben Sims]

Seperating the perfection of the art (art doesn't mean aesthetics by the way) of golf architecture with the perfection of the technical proficiency of golf architecture are two seperate things.

Keller could probably artistically present raw chicken in a way that challenged conceptions and provided a tasty bite.  But the ill affects from eating raw poultry could be catastrophic.  

Same with golf courses, there are technical proficiencies that must be darn near perfect for a golf course to be effective in operation.  Drainage, irrigation, bunker maintenance, native control; these are all things that require technical proficiency whether the art of the architecture is good or not.  

[Jerry Kluger]

I think the analogy to food might be better if it were the perfect menu with all the items within all of the courses being perfect.  You might be able to say that one particular dish is perfect but not every item on the menu.  I would imagine that it is possible to build the perfect hole but not the perfect course. 

So what then should be the architect's priority in designing a hole - should it be that it is enjoyable for every level player or do you have to sometimes recognize that a really good player won't like it or a high handicapper won't like but it is the best hole for the piece of land.  But what if you decide that you can build a better hole but it will require bringing in yards and yards of dirt or digging out an enormous amount of dirt - should your budget be the only consideration in determining whether to build the hole? 

[PCCraig]

Seperating the perfection of the art (art doesn't mean aesthetics by the way) of golf architecture with the perfection of the technical proficiency of golf architecture are two seperate things.

Keller could probably artistically present raw chicken in a way that challenged conceptions and provided a tasty bite.  But the ill affects from eating raw poultry could be catastrophic.  

Same with golf courses, there are technical proficiencies that must be darn near perfect for a golf course to be effective in operation.  Drainage, irrigation, bunker maintenance, native control; these are all things that require technical proficiency whether the art of the architecture is good or not.  

Ben,

One could argue that the type of cooking that a chef of TK's ability is more technical then the technical aspects of building a golf course!  

[PCCraig]

This may not be directly related to golf, but I believe it applies:

"When you acknowledge, as you must, that there is no such thing as perfect food, only the idea of it, then the real purpose of striving toward perfection becomes clear: to make people happy, that is what cooking is all about."
— Thomas Keller (The French Laundry Cookbook)

Pat:

I think that's a very good analogy.

I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect golf course anymore than there's such a thing as perfect food.  Each has a great variety of ingredients, and there's no room to include all of them in any single experience.  You can build a perfect hole, maybe, like you can cook pasta to perfection ... but the perfect COURSE is more a matter of individual preference.

So then you get to Keller's second goal, which is pretty much the same as mine.  You take the ingredients you've got, and make the most of them so that people really enjoy it.

Of course, you want to tailor it to the client's goals, too, but sometimes that aspect is overplayed by architects.  The client's goals are usually pretty generalized, and there are times when they ask for something you're better off not trying to deliver -- if you let them talk too long, they'll eventually ask for "hard par / easy bogey" and that the course is all things to all people.

Tom:

You make an interesting point. If you ever decide to build a golf course in the Napa Valley and visit The French Laundry, you'll find that the menu 1) changes every day, 2) consists of a dozen+ courses which no other choices made by the customer other than wine pairings and vegetarian/non-vegetarian, and 3) he and his staff never uses the same ingredient twice. 

Of course then the customer is at the will of chef, and every diner may or may not have the same taste for the chef's menu that night. But unlike golf course architecture, the chef has the advantage of changing the menu the next day if enough people don't like something in particular

I also suppose the main difference in customers chef vs. GCA is that there is a more visible owner who's tastes should be met in between the GCA and the eventual client, the "end user."

[Peter Pallotta]

But please don't make it French cooking from the 1980s - it was too darn busy and complicated. It's amazing how good a meal you can make with just some fresh pasta, a simple tomato sauce, and some quality reggiano cheese grated on top. Like the "average English golf course" it provides much enjoyment for very little cost.
 
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

You make an interesting point. If you ever decide to build a golf course in the Napa Valley and visit The French Laundry, you'll find that the menu 1) changes every day, 2) consists of a dozen+ courses which no other choices made by the customer other than wine pairings and vegetarian/non-vegetarian, and 3) he and his staff never uses the same ingredient twice. 

I also suppose the main difference in customers chef vs. GCA is that there is a more visible owner who's tastes should be met in between the GCA and the eventual client, the "end user."

Pat:

We did do a course in Napa Valley (Aetna Springs) and I drove by The French Laundry at least 20 times while staying in Yountville.  But I couldn't make reservations a year in advance, so I never got to eat there.

Thinking more about what owners ask for, it dawned on me that one thing not so many of them have asked for was to have a golf course that makes money!  Instead, they ask for golf features which they think will make the course popular, and they don't like to talk about the bottom line so much.  Perhaps that's why so many owners [and not just mine] got their wish in the past few years ...

[Lou_Duran]

TD,

That is an interesting point. Many beleive that it is no longer possible to design a course for all folks.  I would love the "championship course" label to be replaced by "tourney venue course" "recreational course" "family course" and the like.  It would be much simpler to attain perfection for a more limited set of goals and/or labels.

I'm among those.  I like the qualifier "club course" to differentiate the Cypress Points and Shoreacres of the world from the big tournament venues such as Winged Foot-West and Oakmont.

I think the Old Mac thread "proves" that there is no such thing a perfect course or one that can appeal to all types of golfers.  For example, whereas John Bernhardt finds its large scale unsettling, I find it attractive and exciting.  Others fault OM for its large greens and, perhaps, undefined green complexes.  I would think it is the type of course that should be welcomed by all types of golfers because it allows one to choose the club and approach according to his strengths to negotiate the challenges.

Ultimately, the architect's goal is to please his client.  If his client is financially motivated and prudent, he will have identified the correct market segment (the type of player/consumer) and its needs to enable the course to succeed.

[PCCraig]

Tom:

You make an interesting point. If you ever decide to build a golf course in the Napa Valley and visit The French Laundry, you'll find that the menu 1) changes every day, 2) consists of a dozen+ courses which no other choices made by the customer other than wine pairings and vegetarian/non-vegetarian, and 3) he and his staff never uses the same ingredient twice. 

I also suppose the main difference in customers chef vs. GCA is that there is a more visible owner who's tastes should be met in between the GCA and the eventual client, the "end user."

Pat:

We did do a course in Napa Valley (Aetna Springs) and I drove by The French Laundry at least 20 times while staying in Yountville.  But I couldn't make reservations a year in advance, so I never got to eat there.

Thinking more about what owners ask for, it dawned on me that one thing not so many of them have asked for was to have a golf course that makes money!  Instead, they ask for golf features which they think will make the course popular, and they don't like to talk about the bottom line so much.  Perhaps that's why so many owners [and not just mine] got their wish in the past few years ...

Tom,

I had no idea you had reworked a course in the area! Maybe perhaps Napa is one of the few places where golf is far from my top priority! However, after a quick Google search Aetna Springs does look like an interesting place to stop in for a quick nine holes (maybe next time).

[PCCraig]

But please don't make it French cooking from the 1980s - it was too darn busy and complicated. It's amazing how good a meal you can make with just some fresh pasta, a simple tomato sauce, and some quality reggiano cheese grated on top. Like the "average English golf course" it provides much enjoyment for very little cost.
 
Peter

Peter,

It all depends on what goes into the pasta and sauce (or sometimes called "gravy" by some Italians I know ). Nothing peeves me more than bad Italian food though. It's not that hard to make a good pasta and sauce from scratch.   

[Jerry Kluger]

I heard from someone who visits Napa quite a bit that there is a restaurant in the area which is even more highly acclaimed than the French Laundry.  Preparing different dishes with different ingredients everyday does seem to negate the analogy to a golf course.

Tom: Whether you are directed to do so or not you still have to consider the fact that the golf resort needs to be a financial success to continue operating - at least to the point that the owner will keep it open - so a gca must consider what is necessary for the course to be well accepted by golfers and a reason to go to the resort.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom: Whether you are directed to do so or not you still have to consider the fact that the golf resort needs to be a financial success to continue operating - at least to the point that the owner will keep it open - so a gca must consider what is necessary for the course to be well accepted by golfers and a reason to go to the resort.

Jerry:

I do always consider the finances of a project before I take it on, and I think most clients would vouch that we're watchful of their money.  However, sometimes it's clear that the owner really does NOT care about whether he will ever make his money back on the project, and it is not my position to question them on that topic.  And there were times a few years ago where nobody was doing anything with their money that made any sense to me -- as it turned out, I was more right than they were, but who could say for sure?

For that matter, no feasibility study would have told Mike Keiser to go ahead and build Bandon Dunes because it was too remote and he'd never get the customers to show up in numbers.  So should David Kidd have turned that project down, or dumbed down the design to try and keep costs low?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()