[Nigel Islam]

Jim, can you figure out Pinehurst #2?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Nigel,

P#2 is a bit blurry, but cntr. of green to cntr. of back tees adds up to 950.

Pat,

I re-did PV from cntr. of green to cntr. of nearest tee and I get about 805 yards, 122 less than the 927 from cntr. of greens to cntr. of the back tees. Not much of a difference. Remember though, this is just the 'walk' to the tee, not the added added playing yardage.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nigel,

P#2 is a bit blurry, but cntr. of green to cntr. of back tees adds up to 950.

Pat,

I re-did PV from cntr. of green to cntr. of nearest tee and I get about 805 yards, 122 less than the 927 from cntr. of greens to cntr. of the back tees. Not much of a difference. Remember though, this is just the 'walk' to the tee, not the added added playing yardage.

Jim,

Don't you also have to include the walk back, from the new back tee to the old back tee as part of the yardage exercise.
After all, when you reach the new back tees, you have to walk forward to reach the old back tees.
And,  had the new back tee not been constructed, you would have saved the green to tee and tee to tee walk.

# 4 at PV alone is a huge walk, one that pure distance alone doesn't address.

[Sean_A]

I'm with Mark in thinking that this thread has focused way too much on green-to-tee walks and especially on the obviousness of the next tee. My old home course was built in the 20's I think and was very compact but there were a few places where you could walk to the wrong tee if you didn't know where you were going. It wasn't a problem until the course thought that "hole signs' were silly and put plates in the ground instead. As a private club I guess it wasn't an issue 99% of the time, but trying to run a high school tournament shotgun start with a bunch of kids that weren't familiar with the course (or logic in some cases) could be a challenge.

While I agree that Milwaukee CC is a nice routing with good hole variety and a comfortable walk, I'm not convinced by the concept that you should play golf holes in a way that's natural or intuitive. I like hiking well enough, but I've never gone on a hike that even remotely approached a golf course routing except maybe the basic "out-and-back" or "loop" designs. Even using Phil's example at MCC you wouldn't keep walking  back and forth on somewhat parallel holes as you play from 5-10--you would walk toward the river most likely. Yet that stretch works because the holes are interesting and varied--and I guess that's my point. From my perspective to call a routing good it MUST have interesting holes with good variety. Walkability is certainly important but a couple long or odd transitions can be totally worth it if the holes are of high quality. Without interesting holes, the routing is doomed from the start.

Part of the challenge is that pretty much all of the courses we discuss here have quality holes, so to have a routing discussion we start picking at transitions and some details that separate the best from the great from the good, etc. I would argue though that the placement of the holes (mixing short/long, easy/hard, etc.) is far more critical to a good flow than whether you might have to walk backwards a few times to get where you need to go.

Andy

Sure, its great if wonderful holes follow bad transitions, but I think these holes need to be more than wonderful.  They have to be great.  This opinion is working under the theory that an archie worth his salary should be able to build a good hole from a crap piece of land - so the trade-off in the bad transition needs to produce something great and that is if there aren't many or any great holes already (if the course is already chocker block with greatness I would argue the flow is possibly more important than another great hole)...if walking is the goal - which is why I can't get my head around a place like Erin Hills.  This may seem a high standard and probably a bit old-fashioned as I think ODGs more or less took what was in front them to keep a smooth flowing course.  Of course, there are plenty of exceptions because there are plenty funky sites that demand exceptions.  I spose its no different to considering the house is #s 0 and 19 in a routing.  I think it is very important, if possible, to start and finish near the house.   

Jud

Good thing you aren't head of PR at Erin Hills!  Not that Erin Hills was high on my list of courses to see, but you have effectively struck it off the second page. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Long green to tee walks might also be a product of the site, but also permitting.

Are there not several areas that can result in a bad routing ?

Awkward green to tee walks are one since they tend to represent a form of disconnect.

Tom Doak stated another relating to how holes are located on the terrain

Someone else mention the disoriented routing where the golfer gets lost in terms of the rotation/order of the holes.

Some courses, like Atlantic were heavily criticized for having a crossover/s, yet Merion gets a pass for having crossovers.

So how much of a bad routing, for any reason, is forgiven when the quality of the holes is outstanding ?

And does the production of good to great holes make routing irrelevant  ?

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
I expected a bit more disagreement with my post actually! When it comes down to how I end evaluating courses, I'm not sure "flow" in terms of these transitions even registers. I noticed the walk through the woods after #11 at Crystal Downs for example, but it didn't bother me. Ditto the hike to #14 at Bandon Trails. I thought both were pretty walks and both only occurred once. Walking backward (unless its a ridiculous distance) barely even registers. So even though I know it matters to a lot of people I can't pretend to really be one of them.

The exception to my rule tends to be housing development courses--walking through somebody's yard or crossing multiple roads often does get disruptive. I haven't played Erin Hills or Merion so I can't really comment on the specifics of either case. 

[David Ober]

Cross 'Creek in Temecula/Murrieta, California.

Nice piece of land, some good holes, but a few that are just awfully routed, included the 16th and the 18th.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
I expected a bit more disagreement with my post actually! When it comes down to how I end evaluating courses, I'm not sure "flow" in terms of these transitions even registers. I noticed the walk through the woods after #11 at Crystal Downs for example, but it didn't bother me. Ditto the hike to #14 at Bandon Trails. I thought both were pretty walks and both only occurred once. Walking backward (unless its a ridiculous distance) barely even registers. So even though I know it matters to a lot of people I can't pretend to really be one of them.

The exception to my rule tends to be housing development courses--walking through somebody's yard or crossing multiple roads often does get disruptive. I haven't played Erin Hills or Merion so I can't really comment on the specifics of either case. 

Andy

For sure flow makes a difference to me.  For instance, I can forgive Merion for all its disruptive transgressions except for 13 to 14.  I hated that walk and it was the final straw as there were 4 earlier disruptions.  I don't like down time or walking away from the green to the tees.  Its a difficult ideal to realize sometimes, but one I think archies should always be aware of when designing.  How far can disruptions be pushed? 

I recall starting Kiawah in a bad mood because the 1st tee wasn't in sight yet there was plenty of space near the house for a bloody practice ground.  I realize a mistake happened to cause this horrible disruption before the round even starts, but for a place which charges such a high green fee I have zero tolerance for this sort of nonsense. 

Ciao

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
Different strokes for different folks I guess. Neither of those situations sounds like anything that would particularly bother me, but I haven't seen them in person.

[Mark Pearce]

Anyone asking this question should play the Hunting Course at Slaley Hall (and in particular the execrable 8th, 9th (the Signature Hole, no less!), 11th, 12th, 13th and 18th) or, if still in doubt, Ramside Hall and its ever-present internal OOB.

[Phil McDade]

Sean,
Different strokes for different folks I guess. Neither of those situations sounds like anything that would particularly bother me, but I haven't seen them in person.

Andy:

What's your handicap?

I don't mean to get personal, and you're of course under no obligation to tell me (or the board, for that matter). But I wonder if the "different strokes for different folks" philosophy divides along the lines of golfing ability when it comes to routing. Purely speculative on my part, but I wonder if concerns about routing -- of the kind that Sean and I raise -- matter less to a golfer of significant ability, in which the game is largely played on 18 separate holes, from tee to green. I don't view golf courses that way, and I think it stems in part because of my rather modest abilities as a golfer. Curious your thoughts....

[Jason Thurman]

Phil, you obviously didn't ask me, but I'll chime in anyways.

I'm about a 9 handicap and was a 14 when I first played Erin Hills. I'm a pretty average player. I don't think it's a question of how good a player is so much as it's a question of simple preference. It sounds like you and Sean care more about the transition from one hole to the next than finding the absolute perfect section of terrain for each hole. I'd probably prefer that the course maximize the quality of terrain for each hole even if it means an extra 50 yards walking here and there. I don't think either of us is right or wrong, just different tastes.

There's obviously a point where transitions stop being reasonable, but I didn't think the threshold was exceeded at Erin Hills. It's such a unique property that, for me, a lot of the appeal was how it took advantage of its terrain.

I'll also add that I actually like courses with a reasonably long journey to the first tee (somewhere between 100 and 200 yards), as the walk over makes it that much easier to get loose before throwing weight into an opening drive. I might be alone in that, but I almost prefer it to the tee immediately adjacent to the clubhouse.

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

Thanks for your thoughts. But as a 9 handicap, you're far from an average golfer; you're a really good one. (The average handicap of those that keep them is a 20; those that don't keep handicaps are rarely better than a bogey golfer.) Thus, I'm not surprised about your views on maximizing each hole corridor at the expense of the whole.

"It's such a unique property that, for me, a lot of the appeal was how it took advantage of its terrain."

This, to me, is really what the debate is about. Yes, it's a unique property for these parts. But did the architects take the best advantage of its terrain? In certain cases, yes -- 2 is a great short par 4, 8 is a really fine hole, 12 is very good, and 17 (well, before they denuded the esker) is a nice one as well. But could the architects have included those holes and found others that made for an overall course that included a better, more intuitive routing? Maybe not; maybe the land and the other demands of the course -- championship caliber, elasticity, an initial decision to move very little earth -- inhibited that. But I'm not so sure.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
I no longer keep a handicap because I don't play competitively (the occasional friendly match), but would probably be about an 8 currently if I re-established the handicap. I expect I could get it back under 5 if I played and practiced as frequently as I once did.

I'm not sure whether quality of play matters with the distinction, or whether its just a different way of looking at courses. I grew up as a competitive golfer and I expect that still shapes my views. I'm not a fan of courses with huge transitions that dissolve into a collection of holes, but I appreciate that sometimes its worth a 100 yard walk (maybe 200 even) once or twice a round to improve the quality of the golf holes. It doesn't really affect the walkability of the course, so if it improves the experience I say go for it. The walk from the 4th to the 5th on the River Course isn't ideal, but if you find the holes on that part of the property to be worthwhile then its worth doing. I know you don't like that course particularly, so its probably not the best example!

[Phil McDade]

Andy:

I don't mind the walk from 4 to 5 at the River -- I mind the holes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()