[Mark Saltzman]

I know that the routing of a golf course is a difficult endeavor with unlimited possibilities.  I have read a bit about reading topo maps and that hasn't clicked. I also had a tour of DR2 before much had happened -- if the holes were just waiting to be found, they weren't going to be found by me.  Bill Coore's (I think) description that you just walk the property as the land takes you may work for him, but it doesn't mean we would all find a golf course that way.

The question, "what makes a great routing" cannot be answered in a single sentence or paragraph.  Heck, I know Forrest Richardson even wrote an entire book on the routing of the golf course (which I haven't read... yet).

But, I so often see statements on this site that the routing is good/bad/great/whatever.  Based on what is anyone making this statement?

More often than not I think green-to-tee transitions are the determining factor for many on whether a routing is good.

I also often see statements that x routing was a missed opportunity.  This is a very difficult statement to make, no?  One with a lot of knowledge may be able to comment on the quality of the actual routing, but commenting on what it could have been?

Does routing encompass things like sequencing and flow?

What about interaction with the wind?  I've always thought a constantly changing interaction with the wind is ideal, but that certainly would not meld with out-and-back routings.

One final question, can there be a great (or good) routing that cannot (comfortably) be walked?  Aka a great cartball routing.  I tend to think it's possible.  Here's a quote from Tom Doak that is related: If you want to dismiss any course which cannot be walked, you're entitled to that point of view.  You won't rule out very many of the best courses in the world that way, but you will ignore some very good work.

Any thoughts?

[Adam Clayman]

Does routing encompass things like sequencing and flow?

Mark, Sequencing and flow are the most glaring, and important, elements, when analyzing routing.

IMO, A good routing is a catalyst. It's not even noticeable, as a whole, until you're finished. Unless something goes awry.

If one is going to notice a flaw in the routing it's going to happen immediately.

The majority of golfers are likely oblivious to the routing because they are usually too focused on their score, to feel anything as subtle as a quality routing.

gee whiz, i hope my thoughts aren't too inane.

[Matthew Petersen]

A lot of good stuff to chew on there, Mark. I'll just respond to one of your last questions, about the possibility of a good cartball routing.

I think such is entirely possible under the right circumstances. Of course cartball comes in all different flavors. You've got your housing project courses with 12 road crossings, but you also have cartball in places where the natural features of the land simply make walking unrealistic.

Consider Kapalua Plantation. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that course is not wonderfully routed given the property. Sure, "given the property" is a big qualifier, but the simply fact is that many golf courses are built in less than ideal and if that's the case we should be so lucky as to have some turn out as well as Kapalua.

It would have been a shame to ignore the canyons, which are the site's best natural features, but using them did inevitably mean carts would be necessary (even for the pros). I think it's a fair trade off. The rest of the routing features are really well utilized. you have an excellent mix of uphill, downhill, and sidehill holes without resorting to any kind of formulaic "up then down" type of routing. You get interesting options with the wind. The holes all tie together and feel of a piece, even thought they are spread over quite a large area.

[Phil Benedict]

Varying orientations to the prevailing wind direction.  Shot walks between tees.  Minimizing shots into the rising or setting sun.

[Jason Topp]

This is one area of architecture I have an extremely difficult time evaluating.  I tend to evaluate holes and hole sequences rather than evaluate whether or not the routing is good. Nonetheless, here are some preferences of mine:

I look for a pleasant walk.  I prefer not to go back and forth on parallell holes but recognize that the amount and shape of available land sometimes dictates such a routing.  If there is a cool feature such as the ocean, I like it when the routing visits the feature on the front nine and returns on the back.  Ross' tendency to create fan shaped nines seems to work well generally.  If you fight the same wind for a long period of time, I consider that a weakness.  If a course provides a pleasant walk despite difficult terrain, I thank the architect that routed the course (see Northland).  If the course is on funnels of land between houses on higher ground - I curse the real estate developer.    If I have to backtrack to get to a tee, I see that as a weakness unless there is something about the next hole that makes backtracking worth it.  I do not mind a longer walk between holes if the walk is extraordinary in some respect (4-5 at Barnbougle, 6-7 at Old Head) but generally find such walks to be a detraction.  While I respect the idea of a cartball course, I do not think cartball is real golf.

[Jay Flemma]

Good sequencing, especially if it's asymmetrical, and as long as the holes play into the teeth of the natural features rather than avoiding them.  Complexity - Oakland Hills South is a great example...it's not two simple loops of nine, but two cunningly and intricately twisted knots that mesh together wildly.

Changing direction constantly and   I like it when I'm playing and I have no idea which direction I'm facing.  That makes a round of golf transportive - one of the reasons why we play:)  That helps you take advantage of the wind and natural setting.  Plus you want to visit the most interesting parts of the property often and to play towards the beauty, not away from it.  Good examples include Bandon and MPCC Shore.

A reasonably easy walk.

[Tom_Doak]

Varying orientations to the prevailing wind direction.  Shot walks between tees.  Minimizing shots into the rising or setting sun.

This is how many people decide it.  They don't really know what else to look for, so they have some checklist that they want the course to pass ... which is like fingernails on a blackboard to me.  Most golf course architects UNDERSTAND these boilerplate rules, and when we break them it's for good reasons, but the box-tickers don't understand the reasons and just ignore them and tell us we've done a poor routing.

The main quality of a routing is that the golf course gets the most golf out of what's there.  Everything else is secondary.

[Mark Saltzman]

Tom, I've come to believe, as you say, that the key to a great routing is maximizing the use of the land's most interesting natural features.

I also believe that it is impossible for me to say whether or not a routing made maximum use of the land's most interesting natural features because I do not believe I have the knowledge or the ability to route a golf course.

I do believe I can make a statement on whether a courses uses the land's natural features in an interesting/meaningful/varied way.

[Phil Benedict]

Tom,

I used to belong to a course with an out and back routing. In normal wind conditions there was right-to-left cross wind on 6 of the first 9 holes and the sun was a problem in the morning, particularly late in the season.  The majority of the holes on the back 9 played downwind.

The architect (Ross) started wiith an existing course so maybe there weren't many options on how he routed the course.  It's a good course but fighting the prevailing wind and sun early in the round was a weakness.

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark, I have to think any time you are forced to play a round in a cart means the routing, as it currently stands, is less than ideal, regardless of whether it was necessary or not. That doesn't mean I don't love Dismal Nicklaus - but being able to properly walk those holes would make the experience all the better.

Brian, I understand completely.

The course that I fall back on when discussing cartball routings is The Patriot, which I know unfortunately you have not played.

Aside from maybe Wolf Creek in Nevada, it is the most severe piece of property on which I have played golf.  I guess the question becomes, should they have built a golf course there?

If we accept that that was the piece of land they had and that they were determined to build a course there, can we not ask all the same questions of the routing? In fact, can we not be more demanding in our determinations because we now conceded that fewer concessions had to be made in the name of walkability?

I think RTJ Jr embraced the difficulty of the site and made a golf course that uses the elevation changes in an interesting and meaningful way, but also used the land's more subtle features -- a snaking river, tilted land -- to create interest.

I suppose I am just tired of hearing that an easy walk = a good routing.  There must be more to it than that.

[JMEvensky]

The main quality of a routing is that the golf course gets the most golf out of what's there.  Everything else is secondary.

I think this is why people grab onto other qualities to determine whether a routing is good or bad.Few,if any,non-architects really understand what was possible to begin with.

[Jim Hoak]

It's been mentioned but the number one positive characteristic of a good routing to me is short walks from the greens to the next tees.  And no criss-crossing over or behind other holes.  But not always possible if you're trying to maximize lots for sale, which is one more reason that lot-sale courses are generally inferior to other purer courses.

[Mac Plumart]

Mark...

I believe your question, as posed, is unanswerable.  As the answer is site specific and changes with every piece of land.

I beleieve Tom Doak has put up the best possible answer, however.

Also, speak with Wade Schueneman regarding this topic.  His ability to grasp this concept, frankly, blows me away.

[Niall C]

Mark

Very interesting question. I tend to think of routings being like good football referees in that you shouldn't really notice them. Its only when something doesn't quite work, or it jars, that you know there's something wrong and even then it might still be the best that can be done which I suppose doesn't make it bad even if its not great.

As a links golfer most of the time, I just shake my head when folk try to apply the usual yardsticks like hole direction and length, to judge a links course. Usually they do so on some misapprehension that prevailing wind means constant wind when in reality wind directions and speed vary constantly and can make even consequetive holes on the same line and same distance play totally differently.

Niall

[Joe Bausch]

If I'm made king of the golf world:

I would make it a rule that not only would the routing plan for a course must be on display in the pro shop or clubhouse, but so would all the attempted routings left on the cutting room floor by the architect.

[Jay Flemma]

Rockaway Hunting Club and Bayonne make crisscrosses work quite well.

[Josh Tarble]

I'm not sure I look for anything specific in a routing but it's pretty easy to tell if it's a good one once I've played it.

I say that because there are many times that a long-ish green to tee works or criss-crosses work.  I think the routing is something you can't put any rules to because it seems like the best ones don't follow any particular set.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To me, the most obvious sign of a good routing is that there aren't any holes that make me want to throw up.  18 good holes and by definition,  you have a good routing. 17 takes it out of consideration, at least for me.

That is the first order.

Second order stuff might be the wind, length and sequence variety, etc, close walks, and the like.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I like the first post from Jason Topp.

A pleasant walk is one I would enjoy without hitting a golf ball.  I'll also add I don't like playing a course where the pace is pretty steady and then get to a par 3 and there are 3 groups on the tee (I can't fully explain how this happens but it does).

As far as a cart routing Matthew Petersen mentioned that Kapalua has a pretty good routing.  I generally agree, but when there are long green to tee transitions I want to feel a bit like I'm on an expedition, not driving on the highway like I did at on  Kapalua from 5-6.

[Peter Pallotta]

The main quality of a routing is that the golf course gets the most golf out of what's there.  Everything else is secondary.

I think this is why people grab onto other qualities to determine whether a routing is good or bad.Few,if any,non-architects really understand what was possible to begin with.

Mark - I think JM is right. Also, I think that while Tom's answer ('the most golf out there") and Jeff B's answer ("18 good holes") are obviously valid, both leave out the rubber-meets-the-road part, i.e. what for them actually makes -- hole by hole -- for the most golf. That's not a surprise, that they left that out, since asking them that is like asking a jazz musician why he chose to end his solo with three triplets and a whole note instead of a long and varied string of eight notes. There's no "objective" answer to why, as much as some people want to claim otherwise; the "answer" is that mysterious place where talent and taste and feeling and instinct and practical requirements/constraints come together to produce what we (later) identify as an artist's personal style.

Peter

[Mike Nuzzo]

The main quality of a routing is that the golf course gets the most golf out of what's there.  Everything else is secondary.

Tom I agree when comparing your work to Mr. Coore's.
But not for the bulk of the work out there.
It seems I can tell from an aerial (with high confidence) that a course is poorly routed (and designed).
There is no way for me to know, from an aerial, if the site was well utilized.

Cheers

[Ally Mcintosh]

The main quality of a routing is that the golf course gets the most golf out of what's there.  Everything else is secondary.

Tom I agree when comparing your work to Mr. Coore's.
But not for the bulk of the work out there.
It seems I can tell from an aerial (with high confidence) that a course is poorly routed (and designed).
There is no way for me to know, from an aerial, if the site was well utilized.

Cheers

Mike, help me out here... I can't square the contradiction between your last two sentences.... For what it's worth I agree completely with Tom's post but alluding to yours I will add that I can only really start to tell from a master plan once I've the contour lines, the site boundaries and I've tried to route something over the same property myself... The best routing is more often than not the one that had to compromise least...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I used to belong to a course with an out and back routing. In normal wind conditions there was right-to-left cross wind on 6 of the first 9 holes and the sun was a problem in the morning, particularly late in the season.  The majority of the holes on the back 9 played downwind.

The architect (Ross) started wiith an existing course so maybe there weren't many options on how he routed the course.  It's a good course but fighting the prevailing wind and sun early in the round was a weakness.

Phil:

What you are describing there is a lack of variety in the golf holes, produced very possibly by the configuration and orientation of the property itself, and a fixed site for the clubhouse.  More often than not, those are givens for a project, before the architect does any routings at all.  I guess you can call that a "bad routing" if you want, but Donald Ross didn't do many bad routings, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't have many other ways to go ... which is true of many out and back routings.

[Matthew Rose]

As a player, I iike variety, balance (but not necessarily symmetry), being asked to hit as many clubs and as many shots as possible, getting differing wind directions.

From an aesthetic perspective, one that uses existing land forms and hazards to maximum potential, one that is not too physically taxing to play.

Something that's a little bit inviting from the first tee or from the road.... if I see a bunch of flat, parallel fairways then my enthusiasm might be tempered. If it's done well, then I have more chance of remembering each hole, which also contributes to my experience.

I don't pretend to know the means to an end on this..... just know what I like.

[Tom_Doak]

It's been mentioned but the number one positive characteristic of a good routing to me is short walks from the greens to the next tees.  And no criss-crossing over or behind other holes.  But not always possible if you're trying to maximize lots for sale, which is one more reason that lot-sale courses are generally inferior to other purer courses.

Crossovers in the routing are usually what makes it more possible to balance the number of right-to-left vs left-to-right holes, etc., which most other people think is the sign of a good routing.  If you can manage it without winding up with a bunch of really awkward transitions, you may want to.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()