Question for the Golf Course architects

[Andrew Buck]

When designing a hole, how many type of players do you consider?  Do you consider how a scratch, a 15 and senior would play a hole?  Do you factor most heavily your own game, which I assume would be human nature?

If you place a risk/reward fairway bunker, do you have guidelines of how far you expect players from each tee to hit it so the strategy is similar?  

I assume it depends on the hole and job, but I'd love to know your thought process on a given hole, if you start by thinking about a particular teeing ground (middle, back, ladies) and adjust from there, and how many different type of players you consider.

[Jon Wiggett]

Andrew,

I suppose ideally you would design the hole so as to present different challenges from different distances. I have long felt the architect who uses length as the main will end up with a one dimensional challenge. Many of the lesser known courses here in the Scottish Highlands have the same teeing ground for all players and yet still present an interesting yet playable challenge to all regardless of playing ability. You can learn as much about great/relevant design from such courses as the better known master pieces.

Jon

[Lyne Morrison]

Jon - you say "Many of the lesser known courses here in the Scottish Highlands have the same teeing ground for all players and yet still present an interesting yet playable challenge to all regardless of playing ability."

Could i ask you to please share what "an interesting yet playable challenge to all regardless of ability" really means?

Thanks, Lyne

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew:

I like to think that I think about all types of players, but I usually simplify it to two -- Ben Crenshaw, and my mom, who could barely get the ball airborne.  I figure if the course would be fun for both of them, most other golfers will find something about it to like.

Incidentally, Ben is the reason I build them so wide, not my mom.

[Lou_Duran]

Andrew:

I like to think that I think about all types of players, but I usually simplify it to two -- Ben Crenshaw, and my mom, who could barely get the ball airborne.  I figure if the course would be fun for both of them, most other golfers will find something about it to like.

Incidentally, Ben is the reason I build them so wide, not my mom.

I marshaled Ben's group for a couple rounds many years ago at Colonial and the man rattled the trees on both sides of the course all day long.  Surprisingly, he scored well and contended to the end.  What a nice, polite man he was/is.

[Andrew Buck]

Andrew:

I like to think that I think about all types of players, but I usually simplify it to two -- Ben Crenshaw, and my mom, who could barely get the ball airborne.  I figure if the course would be fun for both of them, most other golfers will find something about it to like.

Incidentally, Ben is the reason I build them so wide, not my mom.

Tom,

Thank you for your answer (and thanks for the width).  Does this mean you typically design a hole with a length in mind for the back and front tees, and then fill in between? 

Do you use a rule of thumb for spacing between tees, and are there factors that make you deviate from that rule? 

[archie_struthers]

 


Though my body of work is only 22 holes , I'll opine.

Certainly the client tells you their desires and the architect reacts to this with both a reality appraisal and their own personal beliefs in what they like and want to design. This answer will vary with each site and with the specific goal of the project . Obviously Streamsong was a different job than Hamilton Trails , a nice little 9 hole muni in our backyard here in SJ.

As architects grow in stature and demand , they can exert more influence on what they choose to build. Obviously Coore & Crenshaw and Nicklaus don't need to listen as much to the client ,though they may very well do so. They can pick and choose jobs to a great extent. Their reputation, body of work  and talent has given them this privilege.

From a strict design standpoint ,it seems the best designs allow for lots of players to enjoy , yet can be tweaked for tournaments for the expert players. This typically means fairly wide playing corridors and some variation in tee lengths , say from 5500 to 6700 yards. Greens tend to separate the really good course from the run of the mill. So, time and effort in making them the best your budget allows is critical to excellent design.

When building a course like Sand Hills , Bayonne or  Pacific Dunes however, where the site gives you so much inspiration , the great architects tend to let their creative sides manifest to a greater extent and typically take a few more chances. that's why courses like this are such a treat to visit!  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Thank you for your answer (and thanks for the width).  Does this mean you typically design a hole with a length in mind for the back and front tees, and then fill in between? 

Do you use a rule of thumb for spacing between tees, and are there factors that make you deviate from that rule? 

Fortunately for the world, Ben Crenshaw does not care at all how long a course is, only how good it is.  My mom didn't really care, either; she knew it was going to take her several shots to get to the green, but she just enjoyed being out there.

I don't use many rules of thumb at all.  I locate tees wherever there are good natural locations for tees first, and then try to sort out where to build additional tees to provide options for different players.  Sometimes the best tee location turns out to be the back tee, sometimes the middle tee, and sometimes the very front tee.

[Andrew Buck]

Tom,

Thank you for your answer (and thanks for the width).  Does this mean you typically design a hole with a length in mind for the back and front tees, and then fill in between? 

Do you use a rule of thumb for spacing between tees, and are there factors that make you deviate from that rule? 

Fortunately for the world, Ben Crenshaw does not care at all how long a course is, only how good it is.  My mom didn't really care, either; she knew it was going to take her several shots to get to the green, but she just enjoyed being out there.

I don't use many rules of thumb at all.  I locate tees wherever there are good natural locations for tees first, and then try to sort out where to build additional tees to provide options for different players.  Sometimes the best tee location turns out to be the back tee, sometimes the middle tee, and sometimes the very front tee.

It's interesting, as much as I've dreamed about architecture for much of my life, I've almost always dealt with 100% theoretical, or an existing layout.  With an existing layout, you might think of a couple holes you would route differently, but it's difficult (at least for me) to separate what exists from what might have existed from a routing perspective.  I can think of different strategies, or maintenance practices.

I would have to suspect it's a fun and trying process to puzzle together a routing from scratch on actual land.  I'm sure there are a lot of scenario's where the land suits too many similar length holes in a row, or too few of a certain par.  How regular is it that a hole you really want to build presents itself, but you really can't due to variety of previous holes?  

[Tom_Doak]

I would have to suspect it's a fun and trying process to puzzle together a routing from scratch on actual land.  I'm sure there are a lot of scenario's where the land suits too many similar length holes in a row, or too few of a certain par.  How regular is it that a hole you really want to build presents itself, but you really can't due to variety of previous holes?  

It's pretty rare.  If you really want to build the hole, and variety is the only issue, you can change another hole so it's not so similar to the one you want.  And building a tee at a different length, if you really need to build a tee, is usually not that hard.  So the only time you get "stuck" not building a hole you want is if there is just no good hole to build before it, or after it.  If that's the case, it's usually better to pass.

[Keith Grande]

Tom,

It seems that having over 1,200 yards in difference from front to back tees (on the low side) would require teeing space of 60-80 yards per hole.   How do you balance teeing areas with the overall routing structure of the course?  Does having to add teeing space  compromise your vision for the course or hole? Also, how would you take into consideration playing angles from the different sets of tees, would changing the angles from back tees by staggering horizontally provide an answer, or would you prefer that playing groups from all tees have the same target line?

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon - you say "Many of the lesser known courses here in the Scottish Highlands have the same teeing ground for all players and yet still present an interesting yet playable challenge to all regardless of playing ability."

Could i ask you to please share what "an interesting yet playable challenge to all regardless of ability" really means?

Thanks, Lyne

Lyne,

I am not sure how to answer your question as it has not fixed, defined way of doing so but I will try. Interesting means it has to awake the interest of the player to think about the hole and the challenge it poses. Playable regardless of ability means that regardless of the distance, shot shape and consistency of shot execution a player should be able to play the hole from teeing ground to holing out in a normal golfing fashion.

Jon

[Keith Grande]

Jon,

Please define "normal golfing fashion"...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

It seems that having over 1,200 yards in difference from front to back tees (on the low side) would require teeing space of 60-80 yards per hole.   How do you balance teeing areas with the overall routing structure of the course?  Does having to add teeing space  compromise your vision for the course or hole? Also, how would you take into consideration playing angles from the different sets of tees, would changing the angles from back tees by staggering horizontally provide an answer, or would you prefer that playing groups from all tees have the same target line?

Keith:

As with Andrew's question, the answers to yours depend on whether there is topography present or not.

On flat sites, I'd generally prefer to have players play the hole from the same angle, assuming the angle is important to the design of the hole.  But I don't really like looking over multiple sets of forward tees from the back, so I will vary the angle for as many holes as I can, to improve the visuals.

Where the land is hillier, you have to be more adaptable with regard to teeing angles.  For example, if you're playing a tee shot over the rim of a drop-off, the angle from the forward tees is generally going to get softer as you progress toward the fairway, than the angle from the back tee to the fairway.  That's natural and I don't have a problem with it.  However, you do have to be careful that the forward-most tees aren't offset so much that better players hit across the fairway and off the other side ... a frequent mistake with ladies' tees on some courses, and a pet peeve of any good woman golfer.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Please define "normal golfing fashion"...

Keith,

bit of an oxymoron regardless of how you look at the three words

Jon

[Mike_Young]

Andrew,
I don't really think about the high handicap player or the lady when I route a golf hole.  And I don't think about them much when I place strategies on a hole.  But I do try to make all holes where they can play them and enjoy them.  
What do I mean by this?  Well, let's use a racetrack for an example.  I don't think Daytona is built for the average car or driver and yet as long as one can keep their car running 60 mph they can stay up in the steeply bank curves.  And since most of us don't understand racing strategies we don't know the strategies of a place like Daytona anyway. And I think golf courses are the same.  If a course were really focused on the higher handicapped player I don't think it could stand the test of time.   I think higher handicapped players expect to average at least bogey and so tightly mowed chipping areas etc that can present difficulty for low handicaps may be enjoyed by the higher handicap much more than high rough around a green.  Just make it where they can keep moving the ball forward and they will come back...Please don't consider this pompous..JMO...

[Joe Hancock]

If you'll allow an answer from a non-architect:

When I have some freedom while shaping, I try to create multiple access routes. Not everyone will be flying the ball into the green, let alone having the right spin or trajectory. I also think that by giving the golfer options, it can create a bit of doubt in the better players mind while giving the weaker player a glimmer of hope. Sometimes the way to the green isn't obvious though.

Joe

[paul cowley]

Try to design as many play options for the most levels of play...but without getting formulaic. Formulaic is formulaic.