[Jim_Kennedy]

An exception to a rule establishes that there is a rule. Are the rules with more exceptions less valid, or are they just more fluid?

Are there any immutable rules?

[Jason Topp]

Are there any immutable rules?

Safety was the first thing that came to mind for me but that would eliminate a sizeable minority of my favorite holes in the world so I think the answer is no. 

[Sven Nilsen]

There are immutable rules, they are just hard to define.

Think about things like minimum green sizes (how small is too small), angles of play (what is the maximum angle for a dogleg), excessive carries (how far is to far to ask a player to drive), etc.  The design of a course has to fit the parameters of the play of the average golfer.

Everything else is either style or is a decision based on the allowances of the site.

To ask if there is an ideal style seems to me to be the source of much discord on this site.

Sven

[John Kirk]

I consider "walkable" to be the number one rule, that courses too difficult to reasonably walk are inferior.

[Tom_Doak]

I consider "walkable" to be the number one rule, that courses too difficult to reasonably walk are inferior.

And yet you are a member of Stone Eagle, which many critics have dismissed because it's "unwalkable".

[Mike Hendren]

Based upon this thread one might conclude that the 9th at The Old Course is among the least ideal holes in the game.

Bogey

[John Kirk]

I consider "walkable" to be the number one rule, that courses too difficult to reasonably walk are inferior.

And yet you are a member of Stone Eagle, which many critics have dismissed because it's "unwalkable".

I know!

I walked and carried my bag last Monday, just to see if i could still do it.  It's pretty hard, and I was tired for 2-3 days.

[Jim_Kennedy]

CBM felt that some agreed upon basis of excellence was needed if it was going to be possible to "...enumerate all the essential features of a perfect golf course" when he was trying to arrive at his version of "Ideal", and convey it to others.

His ideal used 100 as perfection and he placed the elements in brackets with a merit value of:

45% allocated for the nature of the soil and quality of the undulations and hillocks.
18% allocated to putting greens for quality of turf, nature of well placed undulations, and variety.
13% allocated towards bunkers and other hazards, with their nature, size, and variety taken into account
13% allocated to best length of holes and the variety and arrangement of that length
The remaining 11% was broken up into 6% for quality of turf of fair greens, 3% to width of fair green of the course at 45 to 60 yards, and 2% for the nature of the teeing grounds and their proximity to putting greens.  
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The "Ideal" boils down to quality and variety of all the parts, "Ideally" laid down by someone who knows what the hell they're doing with them.    

[Andy Troeger]

Alright--I haven't posted in awhile but I like this question.

There are no ideals. All subjective. What makes a course fun for me might make someone else dislike it. Many times we (myself included) like to project our own tastes as being universally desirable, but in the end people play the game for different reasons and that makes consensus impossible.

As an example I will pick on Bart--I don't think substantial contour is an ideal at all. My take on contour is that done right it can be great fun, but not always. Just in general, greens and green complexes are less important to my enjoyment of the game than for many of you.

I like variety and enjoy that courses don't all fit the same mold.

There is an ideal. Contour. Given a flat course with flat greens and no hazards on the flat plains of the plains state, you would have no contour, and the course would recognized as less likeable than almost all other courses. Another course that would be the opposite of ideal would be a swampland course in Florida chocked full of island fairways and greens. So another ideal would be a limit to target golf surrounded by water hazards. I guess Sawgrass gets a pass with only one island green.

If you want to come up with ideals at a 3 year old level, we can add that the pin shouldn't be placed on a 30% slope either. Contour is a term, the quantity of it would change things to an ideal. I could call "distance" an ideal and say that the hole should be placed at least 30 feet from the tee too because otherwise it might get a little dull. In reality, everyone has their own comfort zone with distance and there is no one ideal length.

Some folks might enjoy the swampland example you provide--I would not be one of them. Some desert courses already seem to consist of a bunch of islands surrounded by unplayable areas--and some of them are popular!

[Jeff_Brauer]

For designers, I guess the ideal is to be just enough different than others to get hired every once in a while......

[Garland Bayley]

Alright--I haven't posted in awhile but I like this question.

There are no ideals. All subjective. What makes a course fun for me might make someone else dislike it. Many times we (myself included) like to project our own tastes as being universally desirable, but in the end people play the game for different reasons and that makes consensus impossible.

As an example I will pick on Bart--I don't think substantial contour is an ideal at all. My take on contour is that done right it can be great fun, but not always. Just in general, greens and green complexes are less important to my enjoyment of the game than for many of you.

I like variety and enjoy that courses don't all fit the same mold.

There is an ideal. Contour. Given a flat course with flat greens and no hazards on the flat plains of the plains state, you would have no contour, and the course would recognized as less likeable than almost all other courses. Another course that would be the opposite of ideal would be a swampland course in Florida chocked full of island fairways and greens. So another ideal would be a limit to target golf surrounded by water hazards. I guess Sawgrass gets a pass with only one island green.

If you want to come up with ideals at a 3 year old level, we can add that the pin shouldn't be placed on a 30% slope either. Contour is a term, the quantity of it would change things to an ideal. I could call "distance" an ideal and say that the hole should be placed at least 30 feet from the tee too because otherwise it might get a little dull. In reality, everyone has their own comfort zone with distance and there is no one ideal length.

Some folks might enjoy the swampland example you provide--I would not be one of them. Some desert courses already seem to consist of a bunch of islands surrounded by unplayable areas--and some of them are popular!

When it comes to 3 year old level, how does there are no standards or principles to which people aspire even make it to first grade?

[DMoriarty]

A good way to understand potential "ideals" is to look at the history of golf course architecture and see what, if any, characteristics show up consistently on the best courses.  For example, one such "ideal" might be sandy soil. There are a few exceptions, but, ideally, great courses are built on sandy soil.

On a related note, at one point in time links turf was considered an ideal.  Some might still say it should be, but improved maintenance practices and the proliferation of the game outside of the the traditional links seem to have made it less of a concern now.  Still though, if we are really talking about ideals, then an argument could be made that the quality of the turf (and how closely it replicates links land turf) ought to be considered an ideal.  

Another time tested "ideal" might be that, ideally, great courses should be reasonably walkable.  Are there any Doak 10 cart ball courses? How about Doak 9 cart ball courses?

Although I don't know that it has been explicitly mentioned on this thread, another potential "ideal" that gets thrown around a lot is the idea[l] that a course ought to consist of the absolute best 18 holes regardless of traditional constraints such as proximity of the holes to each other.   Personally, I don't see this as an ideal at all, and I don't think it passes muster historically.  But others not only see it differently, they suggest that he pursuit of the absolute best 18 holes is the ideal to which all other ideals must bend.  
 

[Mac Plumart]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/joshua-crane-part-i/


Joshua Crane already made a list of ideals for a golf course.  The ballot's in...The Old Course sucks.

[John Kirk]

David,

I brought up the fact that there are no great unwalkable courses, but deleted it yesterday.

Ideally, a course will not strongly favor a player who curves the ball left-to-right, or right-to-left.  Ideally, a course should be fade/draw neutral.

[Jud_T]

Ideally, a course will not strongly favor a player who curves the ball left-to-right, or right-to-left.  Ideally, a course should be fade/draw neutral.

John,

That smacks of fairness as an ideal, not something I'd personally put at the top of my list.

[Garland Bayley]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/joshua-crane-part-i/


Joshua Crane already made a list of ideals for a golf course.  The ballot's in...The Old Course sucks.

Ideally a course should be steeped in history and tradition.

[Garland Bayley]

Ideally, a course will not strongly favor a player who curves the ball left-to-right, or right-to-left.  Ideally, a course should be fade/draw neutral.

John,

That smacks of fairness as an ideal, not something I'd personally put at the top of my list.

Ideally, an architect should not make an effort to favor a certain ball flight, but instead follow what the land gives him. This of course means there are a lot of non ideal courses out there as architects do favor right handed slicers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ideally, a course will not strongly favor a player who curves the ball left-to-right, or right-to-left.  Ideally, a course should be fade/draw neutral.

John,

That smacks of fairness as an ideal, not something I'd personally put at the top of my list.

Fairness, or merely a balanced, complete, breakfast....I mean challenge?

One thing I have always found a bit odd about the prevailing group think here is the notion that designing to fit the land is the be all/end all of golf design.  While I consider it worthwhile to do so, to accomplish many other goals, I never forget that I am designing a place for golfers to play golf.  Therefore, lowering considerations or even ideals as it relates to golfers, while elevating "fitting the land" to the top (and in some cases, the only absolute) consideration doesn't seem wise, even it if is a great ideal.

In any case, I doubt great golfers who influence architecture will likely never fully agree with the idea that playing of golf is secondary to fitting the land.  Perhaps the ideal would be "providing great golf while/and maximizing the natural use of contours and features.

David,

Interesting take.  It seems obvious that golf decided it was ideal - or at least necessary - to put courses where they could be played, usually near towns, etc., and figure out the rest.  The "distant destination golf course" is still 1% of total play or less and golf would never have spread as it did. 

As such, I wonder if sandy sites is too specific an ideal?  I was thinking in terms of actual design principles here, and I would broaden the sandy site ideal a bit to say only something like "pick the best available site within a given region/locale.

[Garland Bayley]

...
In any case, I doubt great golfers who influence architecture will likely never fully agree with the idea that playing of golf is secondary to fitting the land.  ...

I've just read the book Driven about the Leadbetter school and its students. He can't get his students to play golf, because they prefer to hit balls on the range and practice areas all day long. It seems that some of the present and future "great golfers" will have an adverse reaction to playing golf on courses that fit the land, when the land is anything other than as flat as a driving range.

[John Kirk]

He's dead, Jim.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

You have a strange sense of humor.

I've been taking a few days to think about this topic while reading, instead of responding to the hectoring of others.  [Everyone should try it.  It's refreshing to think instead of arguing.]

In the end, I think there is one and only ONE ideal -- for the golf course to make the most of the land it sits on.  Jeff objects to this, because he has oversimplified it.  "Making the most of it" implies not just that it is the least disturbance, but that it is the combination of environmental sensitivity and economic sense AND providing the most interesting golf.  If anyone believes I've been leaving that last part out, they are sorely mistaken [or perhaps they are deliberately misleading].

I know that's too vague for many here; but it seems to me that every additional rule that people have offered just complicates the simpler goal, and leads us astray -- which is the nature of modern life.  Our government today never just writes a simple one-page document -- whether to balance the budget or to protect the environment -- they write 2,300-page laws full of loopholes, to be exploited later by the people who helped to write the law.  The key is to have so many laws that you may selectively prosecute anyone who crosses you, while giving a pass to your friends.  [After all, we can't put EVERYBODY in jail.]

One can draw many other conclusions from my simple ideal -- but those conclusions almost always have exceptions, so to rely on them as rules is to miss the point.  For example, if you make the statement that it is "ideal" for a course to have four par-3's playing in four compass directions, then you criticize and demean any course that does not follow this rule.  But many of the very best courses do not follow this rule, because their designers found that other things [mainly the topography of a specific site] outweighed the rule in those specific cases.

The other problem I have is that most of the commentators who want to propose their rules, have nothing to lose from them.  If Jeff Brauer wants to follow a bunch of rules he sets for himself, I'm fine with that -- if his rules work, his courses will be popular, if they hinder his creativity, his courses will be boring and he won't get more work.  But if Bart Bradley or David Moriarty make rules for us, what do THEY stand to lose if their rules don't work?  They can talk endlessly, but they don't have to live with the consequences of applying their rules, unless they are going to commit never to play any courses that violate them.  [If they did so, we would listen with more interest, though it could just mean they're stubborn.]  That's where that Teddy Roosevelt quote about "the man in the arena" comes into play.

Ideals should be simple:  Honesty.  Integrity.  Heroism.  "Rules of thumb" are not ideals.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

When you see a course and deem that it has drawbacks, what are you using to make that judgement?  It is a drawback compared to what?

This is not about ratings.  This is about analyzing, evaluating and discussing golf course architecture:  something that we claim to do here everyday.

Bart

Bart, this is a good question.  Tom, just for the sake of making the discussion more directed, many have wondered about your take of the quality difference between Deal and Rye.  I realize you have since revised your opinion, but I assume there is still quite a discrepency in how you see both courses.  I have always put some of your favoruing Rye down to the routing taking a bit more to figure out compared to Deal's which is fairly straight forward because of the limiting factor of the land.  Can you try to explain your thoughts on why Rye is superior to Deal? 

Ciao 

Sean:

Your question is one of the ones I've been pondering and which helped to bring clarity.

My opinion that Rye is superior to Deal is, of course, nothing more than my opinion.

What lies behind it is my belief that Rye got the most out of the land.  The land is a series of ridges, and the course explores those ridges every way you could:

1.  The first couple of holes play along the base of a ridge, one of them offering a chance to use the ridge on the approach to the green.
2.  The fourth hole is a two-shorter along the top of a ridge.
3.  The fifth hole plays from the top of one ridge to the top of another.
4.  The sixth hole plays over a ridge diagonally from the tee, and then along the ridge.
5.  The thirteenth hole plays diagonally over a ridge on the second shot.
6.  The tee shot on the 16th takes on a ridge head-on.
7.  The eighteenth hole plays up onto a ridge, then along it.

In hindsight, they did miss one possibility:  playing up to the ridge and then down from it, like the 13th at Hunstanton or the 4th at Royal Melbourne.

Deal, of course, is on gentler ground so this metric is not as easily applied.  It has an excellent variety of greens and I have always commended it for that.  But there were things it clearly did NOT do.  It did not take advantage of water views, though I've been told there are a couple of new back tees that rectify this a bit.  There are TEN holes between 390 yards and 460 yards, leaving not so much room for other types.  It doesn't change directions as often as one would like [especially from the 12th coming home], considering there aren't a lot of big dunes in the way -- although with the magic of Google Earth, I see that the property is much more linear than my memory of it, so perhaps I was applying a rule that I would be better off not thinking about. 

Anyway, I don't mean to pick on Deal, a course that I like a lot [and I don't want to give you and Noel Freeman indigestion].  Perhaps it is precisely the sort of course that would be judged better if I stuck to my one proposed rule [making the most of what's there] instead of critiquing it for what it's not.  That's really what I wish everyone would do for every course, instead of finding "faults" in them.

[Ian Andrew]

John:



In the end, I think there is one and only ONE ideal -- for the golf course to make the most of the land it sits on.  Jeff objects to this, because he has oversimplified it.  "Making the most of it" implies not just that it is the least disturbance, but that it is the combination of environmental sensitivity and economic sense AND providing the most interesting golf.  If anyone believes I've been leaving that last part out, they are sorely mistaken [or perhaps they are deliberately misleading].

...

One can draw many other conclusions from my simple ideal -- but those conclusions almost always have exceptions, so to rely on them as rules is to miss the point.  For example, if you make the statement that it is "ideal" for a course to have four par-3's playing in four compass directions, then you criticize and demean any course that does not follow this rule.  But many of the very best courses do not follow this rule, because their designers found that other things [mainly the topography of a specific site] outweighed the rule in those specific cases.

The other problem I have is that most of the commentators who want to propose their rules, have nothing to lose from them.  If Jeff Brauer wants to follow a bunch of rules he sets for himself, I'm fine with that -- if his rules work, his courses will be popular, if they hinder his creativity, his courses will be boring and he won't get more work.  But if Bart Bradley or David Moriarty make rules for us, what do THEY stand to lose if their rules don't work?  They can talk endlessly, but they don't have to live with the consequences of applying their rules, unless they are going to commit never to play any courses that violate them.  [If they did so, we would listen with more interest, though it could just mean they're stubborn.]  That's where that Teddy Roosevelt quote about "the man in the arena" comes into play.

Ideals should be simple:  Honesty.  Integrity.  Heroism.  "Rules of thumb" are not ideals.

Tom,

Very well expressed post!


I watched a very well known golf architect routing a course using the four compass points as one of his rules.
It was crystal clear to me that the rule compromised the layout.
It created connector holes on a site that shouldn't of had one.

I asked he and Doug why this was so important, when places like Merion benefit by avoiding this "rule."
He told me that it was a weakness in Merion ... 

It took me a few years to be sure where the real weakness lay ... it was in the stupid self imposed rule.


My favourite holes in golf are largely (so called) irrational choices that clearly avoided a standard approach or self imposed rule.
They had the gall to run counter intuitively.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Every time I read this, I catch something.  Earlier, it was TD pointing out the title called for measurement.  Just now, I realized the word "consensus" is in the title.  I had been reading it from my own very narrow perspective.

Simple answer - no consensus will ever be reached.

Even if we adopt TD's very good suggestion of broad goals, and his 4 ideals are good, then the debate about each course will be whether they compromised to much on say, golf in the name of environmental sensitivity (actually, a very common situation and debate, modified somewhat by the fact that such enviro stuff might have been strictly mandated via law, or public hearing where someone's emotional opinion can become law as it relates to that project.

It's a tough subject because in part, every architect does want to have at least a slightly different set of ideals they are known by.  And, while different, rules resulting from those ideals and experience, do tend to form.  Whether you fight those and think of every project from scratch, or embrace those, leaving yourself open to change when warranted is two sides of the same coin, and not that far apart.  Plus, does any of us really know what we have ingrained in our subconscious?  Who has time for golf architecture philosophy therapy?

Lastly, it does occur that most architects have penned articles and such describing the "ideal" course in their terms.  From a purely technical point of view, we can all arrive at ideals (sans the land to actually apply them) as CBM and others have.  In essence, I have played the gca version of "100 questions".  If you combine the answers, you have a pretty good idea what your ideals (and potential design rules) are, again all things being equal, and when designing on a real site, not all things are equal.

Think about some simple single issue, yes/no questions, all prefaced with the phrase "all things being equal and if the land allows."  To use TD's examples above:

Would you prefer all par 3's to play to different directions regarding wind?
Would you prefer all par 3's to play to the same or different lengths?
Of 3 or 4 par 5 holes, how many should be reachable?  How many not?  How many as "tweeners?"
Do you include one driveable par 4 (yes/no)
Green size - Small, medium, large, mixed?
Tees - square, round, free form?

You get the idea.  Not that some of these opinions can't also vary over time, or among different sites, such as a preference for rectangle tees, in addition to the site (I just couldn't find a site for a short 4....)

And I do disagree with TD's last post, that if you have an ideal of 4 compass points for par 3's that you automatically have to "demean" any course that doesn't.  I don't see it as that black and white.  In essence, if ( a big if) you have answered your 100 questions, the course will probably only match 50-75 of them anyway, reality being what it is.  Missing on any one of your ideal criteria shouldn't take the course right down to the dumpster in anyone's opinion. 

Maybe you mentally grade your ideals in 4 levels of importance.  So, 4 great par 3's gets a higher point balance than 4 different length/direction par 3's because that is a third level ideal, or whatever.  What if you get 3 directions out of 4?  Not bad, if the two same direction holes are quite different in how they use the wind.  I just use that kind of thing to evaluate the many prelim routings we do, but for me it's a third level importance.  You check the 3's, 5's, long and short 4's, but I never expect perfection.  From time to time, it makes me select one routing (or portion of one routing) over another as slightly better, if the holes all work.  (and that is the biggest misconception here, that on almost any site there is one "best routing." In reality, "best" is subjective, too, depending on what your personal design preferences are.

Side story, back when we designed courses for Jim Colbert's firm he firmly insisted on those 4 directions for par 3's (but even he had to acquiesce sometimes due to site)  One day we are working on one of our projects not his, and my staff is obsessing about par 3 direction.  I tell them this isn't for Jim, so don't worry so much about it.  We all laugh, and it freed them up for some pretty good routings without that par 3 balance.

Now, I'm just rambling.  But, see the 100 questions part.  If you ask (and answer) yes/no questions on very specific topics, you probably get an idea of where your mental ideals/rules will probably take you on most projects.  Check that.  On most project and sites you might dream about and never actually get to design.  I think we all agree the real world is a different animal.

[Garland Bayley]

Every time I read this, I catch something.  Earlier, it was TD pointing out the title called for measurement.  Just now, I realized the word "consensus" is in the title.  I had been reading it from my own very narrow perspective.

Simple answer - no consensus will ever be reached.

...

No unanimity, or no consensus?

Do you not think that the best course possible for the land given wouldn't reach consensus? Are you the only dissenting vote?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()