[Ran Morrissett]

Yesterday, I was talking to an adventurer (I think that is the right word for someone who has been on treks in Chile, Iceland and Nepal) and he told me that he had lost his enthusiasm for golf the more he got into trekking.

I asked why, figuring that both pursuits put you in the great outdoors in some of the prettiest spots imaginable.

His response was fascinating in that he pretty much said that golf courses were too much alike.

In particular, he citied how he hated that the 1st tee and 18th green were always near the clubhouse and that didn't such a restriction make all courses feel the same? He argued that courses need to be 'unconventional' so that golfer is held in supense as to what may be next. No two hiking trips are the same though I pointed out that in general you start and finish in the same place, and that slowed him down a bit  

Still, golf courses seem too formulaic to him as there is a disconnect from nature by an architect having to follow too many 'rules,' be them practical or otherwise. Conversely, the randomness of nature has him hooked forever on trekking.

I'm curious as to what people think of such logic?

To specifically address his point on the issue of the 1st tee's proximity to the clubhouse, can you think of many courses where it is a blessing that the 1st tee is well away from the clubhouse?

Sand Hills obviously and also Lost Dunes, where having the first tee so far away let Doak start the course  with what turns out to be its best stretch of holes (1-7) on the course. Any other examples?

Also, what courses would you call 'adventurous'? Sand Hills, Cape Breton Highlands, Cypress, Pebble, The Addington, Bandon, PacDunes, I would think all qualify - what are some others (especially inland courses as we could list lots of links)?

Is a sense of adventure one of the big reasons why we like links golf so much?

Cheers,

[Tim_Weiman]

Ran,

Your friend makes a lot of sense.  What makes traveling to see golf courses worthwhile is discovering something you haven't seen before.  This is more likely to occur where minimal dirt has been moved and where it is simply mother nature on display, regardless of the imperfections or perceived shortcomings.

That's why I rarely go out of my way to visit modern courses.  Generally speaking, they are far less likely to have their own character.  They are far less likely to make you feel like a special trip was worthwhile.

It's true that links are more likely to have their own character, but, of course, there are also inland venues worth visiting to see something new.  Just think of seeing the 18th hole at Yale for the first time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

What your friend may have overlooked is that a golf course is a field of battle, a site for a competition or competition and the game is a sport.

Is football less exciting because it's played on the exact same field every time ?

To hike is to wander without a preconceived goal, the same cannot be said for golf.  

Should one fellow play medal play at NGLA and the other play medal play at Shinnecock, and then compare their scores.

Not being there to probe his feelings, one would have to ask is his statement a mask or diversion for his inability to conquer the game.  Does he understand the nature of the competition against the course or against an opponent ?

To take the opposite position, my own course, which I've been playing for fifty two years, has remained almost identical
over those last fifty two years, yet I find the course and every round I've played over those fifty two years different each day.  Even the same course isn't like itself on different days, it contains many personalities depending on the temperature, moisture in the ground and air, wind direction and velocity, lenght of the grass, soft or firm conditions, etc.,etc..  Then that has to be combined with my game, which varies every day, and the varying reason I'm playing,
for fun, for money, tournaments, match play, medal play,

Perhaps it's a lack of imagination or understanding of the game as a sport, played on a field of competition.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Champagne, Sparkling wine, Blues, Pop music, nintendo, playstation, baseball, soccer, picasso, tom kinkaide, IPA's, pale ales, cigars, cigarettes, time magazine, people, brie, cheddar.....

I listed the above items to extrapolate passed pat's Football analogy, everything seems exactly the same to someone else.  (everyone is someone's mentor) It's what you choose to enjoy that allows you to see the intricacies of that subject.

We choose golf, and to that end, everything Pat said, I could say about my home course if I didn't hate everything about it other than the fact that I can play golf on it.

Why go hike another mountain?  I'll never know or understand, i'll be playing golf.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ran,
No two hiking trips are the same until you walk the trail more than once. Even then you will probably see much that is different the second time, very similar to golf courses.  
There is much the same in both endeavors. They both require the proper equipment and the knowledge to use it. Both require staying on the path or else great trouble looms and both prefer one to only attempt the longest, hardest tracks when one's abilities match the task ahead. The best trails showcase nature's finest, so do the best courses. I'll stop there.

The greatest sense of adventure I have had on a course was my first time at Yale in '86. The scale of everything was such that I was a bit overwhelmed. Yardages were nearly impossible to decipher by eye. Even finding the occasional marker did nothing to increase my belief that what I was reading was correct. Hitting a green was only a temporary relief. Thinking myself close then finding the ball 70' from the pin added to the mystique. Then came #9, then #10, AAUUGGHH!!! Thank God the security of seeing asphalt running toward the clubhouse presents itself there! I've played 10 or 15 times since that first outing but the sense of adventure begins soon after calling for the tee time.        
Definitely not a walk in the park:)

[Rich_Goodale]

I'd love to see a course that:

1.  Had whatever number of holes the architect felt were appropriate for the land and his mood (from 5-35)
2.  Interspersed "normal" holes (e.g. 100-600 yards) with a few shorties (a 50 yards chip and runner, a 60 yard lob wedger, a 100 foot Himalyas-type putting hole) and one or two cross-country holes (700-1000 yards)

These modifications would both fit the Mucci test (no reason you can't compete on a 23 hole par 87 course) and the time-tested requirement that any course should start and finish no more than 200 paces from the bar.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Golf is a sport -- and like every interesting sport it involves competition, tactics and strategic thought. But golf is unique in that it is part game, part natural science and part art -- it is the only sport I'm aware of in which they all merge. The fact that no two venues are identical is one of the most interesting aspects of the game. And because each course is unique the experience can vary wildly, from mundane to exhilirating.

[jglenn]

GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT’S TEN COMMANDMENTS.

1 Thou shall design 18 holes, for a Par of 72 and a Yardage of 7,000.

2 Thou shall have ten par fours, four par threes, and four par fives, evenly and equally distributed between both nines.

3 Thou shall never start with a par three, nor end with a par three or a short par four.  Having the ninth or tenth hole as a par three shall also be frowned upon.  Thou shall also lay-out the course in order to have a par three and a par five in the last four holes.

4 Thou shall never place two consecutive par fives or par threes in a row, nor have more than three par fours in a row, nor more than three consecutive holes without a par four.  Aye, these first four articles severely limit thine options, but that is thine problem, not mine.  See article 10.

5 Thine course shall return to the clubhouse after nine holes, and thine eighteenth green, preferably adjoining a water feature, shall sit prominently in front of the terrace.

6  Thine holes shall never have a yardage below 100 yards, between 250 and 300 yards, between 475 and 500 yards, or over 650 yards.  Nor shall any hole have similar yardage, dogleg at less than 250 yards from the tee, feature fairways that are too wide or too narrow, or greens too big or too small or just plain weird, according to each golfer.

7 Thou shall avoid parallel holes, first holes going East, last holes going West, ranges going East or West, or pockets of land from whence it is impossible to add residential components.

8 Thou shall design one island green, one double-green, one cape hole, one bunker-less hole, and thou shall identify one Signature Hole.

9 Thou shall never put a hazard or anything else that may affect the ball in the middle of the fairway or hidden from view.  That’s just not fair.  Nor shall ye ever design a feature that is remotely original or that forces a golfer to stop, think, and figure things out.  For if he does not, ye shall be at fault.

10  Notwithstanding all of the above, thou shall always strive for variety.  And, for extra credibility, thou shall remember and repeat the following as often as possible: “We believe that a golf course should be in harmony with the natural features of the landscape and should provide a beautiful setting that can be enjoyed by all golfers, regardless of ability.”

[Craig Disher]

Comparing golf to football is a stretch. Actually, some people don't find football exciting no matter where it's played . Maybe a better analogy is cross country vs racing on a track. Both provide exciting competition but for me, the closeness to nature expands the experience.

Pushing this analogy, what I find monotonous is the use of identical maintenance and design practices that make courses built on different sites look exactly the same. Bunkers that have had the random edges cut out to a perfect oval, greens that insist on being round rather than following contours, and landing strip fairways are major offenders. Having played a bunch of munis recently, I got irritated over the loss of character on many of them.

[Lou Duran]

One of the things that I enjoy most about golf most is how different and varied it is even when you play the same course repeatedly.   Having played hundreds of rounds during my 8 years at OSU-Scarlet, I can only echo what Patrick has stated.   Playing courses in different parts of the world is extra special.  The RT Jones courses that I played in southern Spain (Sotogrande, Las Brisas, Los Naranjos) had considerable variety even though the design principles were very similar.  Playing the RTJ Trail in Alabama provided different experiences than his courses in Spain, and there was a lot of variety between the courses on the Trail.  Dye's Casa de Campo gives you a totally different feeling than The Golf Club, Crooked Stick, or Mummy Mountain.

As one who loves travel to wild places, I never find the confines of certain standards (18 holes, two loops of nines, par values, etc.) to be detrimental to the enjoyment derived from the activity.  Whether you enjoy wildlife safaris, trekking, mountain climbing, white-water rafting, etc. there are certain standards of play (or conduct) which one must observe.   Golf is played under greatly varied conditions over some of the most beautiful landscapes in the world.  I love nearly every minute of it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I agree with you.

What I was trying to say was that even the same course offers great day to day variety, and that different courses expanded that variety exponentially.

CDisher,

I wasn't trying to compare golf to football, only the disparity in their venues.

[Craig Disher]

Patrick Mucci,
Your point was clear. I should have said "golf courses" and "football stadiums". Thankfully, football is dynamic enough to survive being played on identical playing fields. Although I enjoy golf enough to play over plowed farmland, the potentially infinite variety of courses makes the game endlessly fascinating. Much is lost if the connection to nature (which is by definition infinitely variable) is severed.  It's getting near game time. Think I'll go watch FL/Tenn.

[John_Conley]

I watched a show on TLC tonight about the best roller coasters.  Some people even travel all over to see the newest and best ones.  I thought about their similarities to my golf passion.

For me, golf courses are enough different to hold my interest... although modern courses on similar land tend to yield similar results.    But for your friend... they may not have the love for golf that we do and probably don't get the same feeling we do.

For me, I could make a blanket statement that the movies on Lifetime or all Danielle Steel books are too much alike, but my wife must see a difference!  

[A_Clay_Man]

Ran-Yes most golf courses do look alike as I Have learned from this site. Iv'e learned to blame it on the standardization of the sizes, shapes and depths of almost all aspects of a course.  
Let's hope your efforts to share good info with the rest of the world will wise them up and put an end to the blase' nature of the recent past and create more of the masterpieces craftsman are capable of.

[BillV]

One of the reasons I left Colorado was the mountains got pretty boring to me.  Kind of like Chevy Chase in the Vacation movie.

Grand Canyon, hmmm hmmmm hmmm.  OK, let's go.

Modern golf courses for the most part do have a pablum-like similarity to them, save for signature shaping and bunkering.

The older thoughtful courses are, a little more like the ocean, the surrounds where it all started.  There  is generally more there than meets the eye as many small things imperceptively change to give the whole a different picture.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so maybe there is no one answer.

Most modern ones ae politically correct visually and that may be what the gentleman trekker observed.  Either that or the hypoxemia lends itself to hallucination.

[Neal Meagher]

It seems to me that an interesting excercise for this group to wrestle with would be to come up with golf courses that break every single one of Jeremy Glenn's (tongue-in-cheek) listing of the golf course architects 10 commandments.

I would hazard to guess that each course that comes close to breaking all of these rules are probably within the top 10 in everyone's favorites list.

The scary thing about this listing is how right-on it is in respect to today's modern developer expectation.  

[Craig Disher]

Robert Hunter had a lot to say about this in The Links.

"The standardization of our golf courses has gone on apace in recent years. It has brought us so much of value that few of us have thought to question its utility in all cases. The length of the course, the types of the bunkers, the moulding of the greens, the placing of the hazards, the sequence of the holes, etc. are made to follow certain models. That a course must be either of 9 or 18 holes is one of the most ancient of these standards, and the person who questioned its wisdom in all cases would, I fear, be looked upon as one demented."  

After citing many examples, he goes on to say "... I am always delighted to be invited to play at one club where the members, finding their ground too limited to permit of great length, turned their minds toward achieving perfection in their greens, tees, turf, and other conditions of the play.... The result is one of the most difficult, attractive, and interesting of all our courses, yet there are six one-shot holes and five others which can be played with a drive and pitch."

Anyone know which club he's referring to here?

[Gib_Papazian]

Jeremy Glenn! That was the post of the year. Absolutely brilliant and precisely the reason why the aforementioned adventurer has lost his zest for golf.

The funny thing is that as I read it, it occurred to me that almost every single one of my favorite courses in the world break AT LEAST half the "rules."

Maybe that is the key. Brains Goodale's idea may sound outlandish - extrapolating the idea too far - but there is a real validity to the concept of designing however many excellent holes you can fit onto a piece of property. No more. No less.

It brings to mind our day at Sheep Ranch. Before you lies a  vast golfing ground and you are free to play in any direction you like for as long as you like, criss-crossing the land with your golfing companions.

If the entire point of the game began as playing a ball across an expanse of land, then perhaps it is not a bad idea for some of our courses to reflect the randomness of nature in every respect.

Very liberating thought actually.

[Gib_Papazian]

Jeremy Glenn! That was the post of the year. Absolutely brilliant and precisely the reason why the aforementioned adventurer has lost his zest for golf.

The funny thing is that as I read it, it occurred to me that almost every single one of my favorite courses in the world break AT LEAST half the "rules."

Maybe that is the key. Brains Goodale's idea may sound outlandish - extrapolating the idea too far - but there is a real validity to the concept of designing however many excellent holes you can fit onto a piece of property. No more. No less.

It brings to mind our day at Sheep Ranch. Before you lies a  vast golfing ground and you are free to play in any direction you like for as long as you like, criss-crossing the land with your golfing companions.

If the entire point of the game began as playing a ball across an expanse of land, then perhaps it is not a bad idea for some of our courses to reflect the randomness of nature in every respect.

Very liberating thought actually.

[Scott_Burroughs_]

Back to othe original question, The Ocean Course's 1st and 18th holes are far from the clubhouse.  Stonehouse, Mike Strantz' 2nd solo design has a first tee pretty far from the clubhouse, as is 9th green.

[Gib_Papazian]

Does that make Tom Doak a white antelope or a black child?

[Slag_Bandoon]

Ran,  I tried to defend your trekker friend but wound up supposing a lot of answers for somebody I don't even know.  Any chance you could get him to log on and show us the Tau?  I am a hiker/climber and can really understand why one can feel closer at a spiritual level to raw nature than manipulated natural terrain.  Hiking is freer and less hinged upon ego.  Carne in Belmullet, Ireland is a great hike though with 14 (preferably less) walking sticks.

[Slag_Bandoon]

Oh, and have Adventurer  play the 16th at Bandon Dunes.  

[Bill_McBride]

One question to ponder when thinking about a first tee 500 yards away is, how many players will hike that far to start, or will they just hop in that electric cart to save the hike?  The first and tenth tees at a public access course, Hidden Creek, about half an hour east of Pensacola, are about that far from the clubhouse and the 9th green respectively.  Any doubt that was facilitated by the fact that 90% of play there is via carts?

Another question is would you rather hike 500 yarrds to the first tee or bang away from a tee sited right in front of the golf shop or clubhouse where all your buddies can cackle at your feeble effort?

One of Jeremy's rules, no early eastward holes and no late westward holes, is one which should be followed.  I played the back nine first Saturday, teed off at 1 p.m., and we played #8 and #9 directly into a setting sun.  Impossible to follow the flight of the ball, or even to look in that direction for long.  There are time honored reasons why some of those 10 commandments are still observed!

[Mike Hendren]

Bill,

One of the endearing qualities of The Old Course is the intimacy of the first tee hard against the R&A clubhouse, the caddie pavilion, the starter's hut and any onlooking railbirds - juxtaposed against the open vista of the golf course and land beyond (save the hideous hotel).  

Regards,

Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()