Can a routing be considered great if the landscape is manufactured?

[Ed Oden]

?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ed - Most definitely, but only if that landscape was manufactured by somebody else. 

That's my view, put down in as pithy a way as I know how

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Hey, that's Streamsong in a nutshell.

I would give Bill Coore 65-70% of the credit for it, and myself the remainder.  But Bill DID have a head start on me.

[Lester George]

In my opinion, Yes.

Lester

[Tim Nugent]

Of course.  I've see plenty of bad routings on manufactured landscapes.  The fact that they are on manufactured landscapes makes it even more of a sin.  Remember, there is much more to a routing than just the physical relationship between holes.

[Lou_Duran]

Of course.  I've see plenty of bad routings on manufactured landscapes.  The fact that they are on manufactured landscapes makes it even more of a sin.  Remember, there is much more to a routing than just the physical relationship between holes.

If you beleive as I do that Mother Nature can be improved upon, and that there are architects and construction companies that can build an attractive golf course given a sufficient budget, yes.

But, can a "natural" routing (one where lttle earth was moved) that provides a good progression of varied, challenging holes but is spread out over a large site (long distances between greens and tees) be considered "great"?  Is/Should being able to walk the course be a major determinant of what is considered a great routing?  And the follow-on, can a course be considered great even if the routing is not?

[Tim Nugent]

But, can a "natural" routing (one where lttle earth was moved) that provides a good progression of varied, challenging holes but is spread out over a large site (long distances between greens and tees) be considered "great"?

IMHO No.  It should be considered a great collection of golf holes.
I believe that there needs to be a flow and continuity in the relationship of the holes to have a great routing.

 Is/Should being able to walk the course be a major determinant of what is considered a great routing?

Golf shouldn't be a slog.  An easy transition between green and tee is greatly desired/ needed.
The quality of the routing degrades as this relationship erodes.

And the follow-on, can a course be considered great even if the routing is not?

Depends on your definition of "Course".  The routing ties the collection of holes together.  You could have 18 great golf holes but if they don't relate to each other syergistically, that's all you have.  Look at you basic Tour 18 type courses.  The fact that they are so eclectic, no matter that they are an easy green to tee transition, makes the routing less than desirable.  Also, a routing needs to impart a tempo to the course.  18 ball-busters in a row is, again IMHO, bad routing.  18 Great holes on a piece of land suited for say only 16?  Great Course? I think not.

I don't think that out and back links courses like NB, Troon, Lytham, Dornach or even St Andrews  are particulary great routings with long streches of holes playing in the same direction but I think they are great courses.  The other parts of the routing equation more than make up for, what I think, is a flaw in the routing.

[Ronald Montesano]

A) is there a distinction between "routing" and "course"?

B) who are the judges of "great" and what qualifies them to be so deserving?

[Ed Oden]

Hey, that's Streamsong in a nutshell.

I would give Bill Coore 65-70% of the credit for it, and myself the remainder.  But Bill DID have a head start on me.

Tom, I thought (perhaps erroneously) that both Renaissance and C&C were still largely doing minimalist work at Streamsong, albeit with landforms created by the mining of the site as opposed to by the hand of God.  If so, that isn't what I meant by a "manufactured" landscape since, for the most part, the architects did not create the landforms.  Rather, I was thinking more of projects like Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits, Bayonne, Sawgrass, maybe even Lido, where the land was essentially created by the architect solely to accommodate the design of the course.  It seems to me that under such circumstances the routing is, well, not really a routing at all since, in theory, those courses could have been built anywhere.

[Ross Tuddenham]

Depends what you are looking for and how you think the architect has performed given the constraints of the site and project.  It could be argued that a routing which ticks all the boxes other than the ability to use natural features could be created using large amounts of earth moving and construction.  The missing element in that case is the architects skill or even genius in seeing how to fit holes around what he comes across in terms of natural features. Could it even be argued that there is a different but equally admirable skill in being able to create a great course from a blank canvass?  Can this be considered a routing however, which I think is what Ronald was asking when he said “is there a distinction between course and routing”. When it comes to the overly manufactured course/routing I would be tempted to say it is maybe a course and not a routing.

Given this line of thinking it would not be possible to have a great routing on an overly manufactured course as there was no routing involved rather the construction of a course.

[Tim Nugent]

Every golf course has a routing. They are not mutually exclusive. I think we are experiencing  some different interpretations of just elements make up a course's routing.  Perhap's this should be hashed out first, then the original question an be debated.

[Rob_Waldron]

I have oftened questioned which course is more difficult to design. The one with great topography natural changes in elevation where holes ar "found" as opposed to created. Or, the featureless property which is literally a blank canvass for the architect to manufacture a design. I have played and appreciated courses which were the result of each type of design. The latter would seem to have less restrictions but may require a substantial amout of earth movement. Finding a property that could accomodate the former would seem rather difficult to find. 

[Tim Nugent]

Rob, a blank canvas is much harder. if you "find" natural holes, much of your work has already been done.  And it sets the theme and tone or your design.  A Blank Canvas requires you to come up with what will be seen as a proper theme and then holes to match it.  I believe it is human nature to strive to put things in an orderly manner.  Natural features temper this need.  Without them, it is up the the architets restraint.  And, because everyone will know it was created, any quirk will probably be seen unfavorably. so, Blank Canvas designs tend to be more on the safe side. 
And yes, because there are no natural features, one has to Terra-form the land to create a landscape and this requires a great deal of earthwork and will probably result in several lakes to generate the needed fill material, water storage and stormwater management.

[archie_struthers]

 

Of course it can , I'm not so sure it's easier though. If you walk a sight for a few days some holes would surely jump out at you . The rest of it requires the talent or vision to cut and paste. 

In a manufactured site , although the palette may be blank it requires a lot of work.  You have to factor cutting new elevations into the routing. It's surely not as  not as much fun as discovering it by walking the ground . Imagine how much fun Billl Coore had walking the Sand Hills site. If memory serves me he said it was his easiest and hardest as there were holes everywhere and he had so many options it was crazy .


How about G A Crump , what a job that must have been. Believe me Pine Valley is a lot cleaner now than it was back in 1912 and it's still pretty rugged.  

[Lou_Duran]

Every golf course has a routing. They are not mutually exclusive. I think we are experiencing  some different interpretations of just elements make up a course's routing.  Perhap's this should be hashed out first, then the original question an be debated.

Your definition would be most welcomed.

Rob,

Back in the late 80s, early 90s, we interviewed several GCAs to build a daily-fee golf course which would meet many of the objectives often discussed here (an efficient routing which would promote challenge, variety and superior playing conditions; affordable; and as a the low-cost producer, sustainable during hard times).  As we weren't cemented to a specific site, we posed your question to each and the response was fairly consistent: a rectangular piece of 150+/- acres with minimal flood prone area, moderate movement, a little slope, decent soil, and access to water.  We weren't after a Top 100 (if that is what the definition of "great" is) nor had a budget that could get us there even if MacKenzie was around to help us out, but the opinion was that given these site characterisitcs, our objectives could be met.

[Gary Slatter]

IMHO I would think yes, however not always (Castle Course, Doonbeg), in fact seldom.

[Kirk Gill]

The key word here is, of course, "considered," and so the answer to the question is, of course it can be considered great, depending on who is doing the considering.

That said, I certainly like the idea of a course being routed over existing land, using existing features. In a way, a manufactured course should ALWAYS have a great routing, because it all should be the product of the brilliant architectural mind and not an "accident of nature," right?

[Bill Gayne]

Kingsbarn, Whistling Straits, and Shadow Creek all are manufactured landscapes that I've heard others consider great cpurses.

[Jackson C]

?

You raise a good question.

Would it be fair to rephrase the question as "Can you give an architect credit for a routing a course on essentially a blank slate (no land or resource limitation)?"
If that is fair, then my sense is I could not give much credit to such a routing.

My guess, however, is you may be thinking of something in the middle -- manufacturing some holes, bridging holes and tees, tees and fairways; and not a Shadow Creek example.
Of course, that is a tougher question, and for me, it probably a matter of how much, and how obvious.
Conversely, extra credit should be given to great routing on non-manufactured land.   

[archie_struthers]

 ::)E

If you look at the architects who have answered the question. It appears they would aggree that  routing a totally manufactured course and making  it great would be harder to accomplish. Just a postulate.

[Greg Tallman]

Can it actually be considered a "routing"? If completely manufactured like a Kingsbarns is there any routing involved or is it just brush strokes that come together as a nice work of art?

To me routing suggests taking a raw piece of land and pieceing together the puzzle in a way that showcases the land's prominent features while creating the best possible collection of golf holes that flow seamlessly.

[Carl Johnson]

Can it actually be considered a "routing"? If completely manufactured like a Kingsbarns is there any routing involved or is it just brush strokes that come together as a nice work of art?

To me routing suggests taking a raw piece of land and pieceing together the puzzle in a way that showcases the land's prominent features while creating the best possible collection of golf holes that flow seamlessly.

Just what I was thinking when I got to Greg's contribution.  It seems to me the question is simply one of how you define "routing."  I haven't read it in a while, but my recollection of Forrest Richardson's book Routing the Golf Course is that it includes just about everything imaginable in the design and construction of a course within the idea of "routing."

[paul cowley]

Of course it can....is this a trick question?

[Tom_Doak]

Of course it can.

The site for the Olympic project is very flat and doesn't have a lot of natural golf features -- so do you guys think that it doesn't matter what the routing is and it's only about who moves earth best?  If that's the case, then I've been wasting a lot of time the last week or two!

I think it matters, a lot.  Greg Tallman's mention of Kingsbarns is a perfect example.  Yes, all the earthwork there was created, but the routing determined how the course would interact with the sea, where the views and the "infinity greens" would be, how varied the holes are, and much more.  Someone else with a different routing would have produced a totally different course; but even if one of the contributors had only done the routing plan, he would have set up the guys who built the course to succeed, or fail.

[paul cowley]

Tom wrote..."Someone else with a different routing would have produced a totally different course; but even if one of the contributors had only done the routing plan, he would have set up the guys who built the course to succeed, or fail."

I agree...which begs the question "can good shaping and earthwork overcome a poor routing?"

Only partially, never fully, IMO.