The art of creating the every day golf course

[Mike_Young]

Reading the Beverly thread got me to thinking why it is I like Beverly so much.  For myself, it's my favorite in Chicago.  I'm sure most will disagree and give 100 reasons why a few are better but that's not why I like Bev.  I try to play as many of the nationally recognized tracks I can when I am in an area or when I go to an area specifically to play those tracks but it is rare that I find one where I can honestly say to myself that I could play it everyday.  I think one reason Donald Ross was so popular was the intangible factor he designed into so many of his lesser courses of "I could play this everyday" and IMHO there is an art to designing a course one can play everyday.  So many of the courses designed today have that missing.   Where are some of these courses and what factors make them such?

A few of the things I can identify within these types of courses are:
1. walkable with close green to tee transition
2. compact
3. fun shorter par 4's
4. good grill area
and that's just a start..
I can name you three everyday course for me as a start, Holston Hills, Beverly, Belvedere.

What are the others and the other factors?

[Josh Tarble]

Mike,
I totally agree with you about Donald Ross, I feel like a lot of his best designs are perfect everyday clubs.  I am very partial, but I think our club is the best members golf course in Indy for all the reasons you mentioned.  Also:

5.  Great green complexes
6.  Varied set of par 3s
7.  Challenging course without being a) overly penal b) overly long

[Brent Hutto]

I'll nominate Camden Country Club, right up I-20 from where I live. The Par 3's and shorter Par 4's are cool, it is compact and walkable except for that one little trek across the railroad tracks and the grill area is small but convenient with both indoor and outdoor seating. Definitely interesting green complexes on quite a few holes (although I have not been there since the recent re-do, alas).

[George Pazin]

Mike, it sounds like you're describing Mountain Ridge, in north Jersey - you won't be surprised to hear that's Ross, too. (Actually, I'm sure you already knew that.)

Another characteristic I'd throw out for me is a variety of topography, which leads to a variety of stances. This means each shot will be unique and require some thought - it's not simply, "What's my yardage?" golf (which to me is about as low as it gets... ).

[John Kavanaugh]

In a depressed area so all the members have to drive in and play.  This is one of the things I loved about Norwood Hills in St. Louis.  It's a nice form of resort golf, last resort.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - I think the place has to have "life", one that's vibrant and clearly all its own. There are a lot of different kinds of life - the city-buzzy life of Beverly, the free-breathing life of Ballyneal, the historical life of NGLA, the family life of Rivermont. I think the trick is to make sure that the golf course/club you have matches the kind of life it is trying to foster.

Peter

[Bill_McBride]

Your home course, Athens (GA) CC, remains one of my favorites.  It has all the attributes you mention, and is a great walk. 

[Adam Clayman]

As Peter just beat me to the punch... Freedom & Elasticity

Of course if we're talking about the masses, Tom Huckaby summed it up best... " A good soup".

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Love the topic.  I have been focusing on designing a course you could play every day for a while now.  Not that I believe I usually got too far away from it, but realizing that I probably had.  Like most of us, I think we get caught up in the visuals, leading to more bunkers and other drama for photos, awards, etc. 

A byproduct of the age we live in, but not hard to figure that if the main design purposes aren't every day playability, then the course isn't as likely to have that when built.  Of course, it started well before the 1990's, with the RTJ/Wilson "championship course wars" of the 1950's, at least IHMO.

As to achieving that, I can agree with everything written so far.  As for nitty gritty, I would say fewer bunkers, fewer full and partial cross hazards.  When I play courses any of those RTJ and Wilson courses of the 50's, I wish there were fewer green side bunkers, and the ones left had been pulled back just a bit one less player per foursome would find themselves in a troubling bunker - speeding play, reducing frustration, etc.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mike,

I agree. I told my wife when we retire we are moving to Knoxville so I can mow rough at Holston Hills or maybe even join if they let me. Holston Hills is just a perfect golf course in every way and when you analyze it's really not that complicated. I guess you could classify it as an everyday golf course.

And Beverly is one of the most enjoyable rounds in Chicago.

[Jim Sherma]

I would include a maximum distance of around 6600 yards. This allows for a course that a lot of different players can be competitive on. As courses get longer I find that they don't host very competitive larger group games because the shorter good players can't really compete with the flat bellies. Green Pond in Bethlehem and Wedgewood GC south of Allentown both host great action and I atttribute a lot of that to the rather short nature of the course allowing more people to be brought into the game.

[Mike_Young]

I agree on the distance factor for sure.  I also don't think many housing development courses fit the bill.

Now, let me ask a question on top of the initial question.  Can the signature designers/pro golfer types of the modern era design such a course and if they have , tell me where.  I say the old guys approached design for golf and enjoyment much more than the modern era which was so involved in the RE intricacies of their surroundings. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Given the convenience of golfing in your backyard, I would say that it's very possible to design that every day course in a real estate development.  Or, after houses have sold, and the developer no longer needs the wow factor, then you can take out all the toughest parts of the course and design it for playability, a quick round of 4-12 holes before dinner.

As to tour pros designing that, well, most are clueless, but some are better than others.  And, it depends on who their actual designer is in house.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I could live with that if most of the holes were open on at least one side....

[Josh Tarble]

Jeff brings up a good point.  I think it makes a better members/everyday course to have small loops available and the course return to the house a few times.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If there are ever any more housing courses built in the US, I have seen a trend among land planners and developers to double up fairways, creating a longer/better view, while sacrificing the total number of lots on the golf course.  Hope that holds.....

[jeffwarne]

Reading the Beverly thread got me to thinking why it is I like Beverly so much.  For myself, it's my favorite in Chicago.  I'm sure most will disagree and give 100 reasons why a few are better but that's not why I like Bev.  I try to play as many of the nationally recognized tracks I can when I am in an area or when I go to an area specifically to play those tracks but it is rare that I find one where I can honestly say to myself that I could play it everyday.  I think one reason Donald Ross was so popular was the intangible factor he designed into so many of his lesser courses of "I could play this everyday" and IMHO there is an art to designing a course one can play everyday.  So many of the courses designed today have that missing.   Where are some of these courses and what factors make them such?

A few of the things I can identify within these types of courses are:
1. walkable with close green to tee transition
2. compact
3. fun shorter par 4's
4. good grill area
and that's just a start..
I can name you three everyday course for me as a start, Holston Hills, Beverly, Belvedere.

What are the others and the other factors?

Palmetto
Aiken GC
Southampton
St Georges

[David_Tepper]

The Meadow Club would certainly be near or at the top of my list of every day courses in SF Bay Area. 

[Garland Bayley]

If there are ever any more housing courses built in the US, I have seen a trend among land planners and developers to double up fairways, creating a longer/better view, while sacrificing the total number of lots on the golf course.  Hope that holds.....

Forget that! They use that as an excuse to make the whole course OB left.

[Bryan Icenhower]

8. Elasticity.  Ability for the same course to play vastly different depending on the playimg conditions and/or the pin placements on a sometimes-daily-basis. 

Hidden Creek has all 8. Rivermont has most. Love playing both.

[Sean_A]

1. walkable with close green to tee transition
2. compact
3. fun shorter par 4's

I would add
4. Short overall yardage
5. Lovely interior views at least offering the illusion of space on compact properties
6. Short par 5s
7. Not terribly difficult
8. Good, but sensible set of greens
9. Little rough
10. Leaning toward flatter terrain

Bonus
11. More than four par 3s
12. Lovely exterior views
13. Not overly exposed to the elements

Mike, you really grabbed the core of a good everyday course and I agree thaat Ross was a master of the type.  I know I have said it before, but Colt strikes me as Donald's separated twin.  They both manage to provide the same characteristics yet somehow produce courses which look quite different.

It really is a different question, for me anyway, picking best courses, favourite courses and courses where you want to be a mainstay member (thats play everyday/week or whatever). A few of my choices

TOC
Woking
Sunny Old
Brora
Sacred 9
N Berwick
Grosse Ile
Mid Pines
Michigan

Ciao  

[Bradley Anderson]

The "everyday golf course" has no more than two water hazards and limited interior OB.

[Paul Gray]

I'll throw in:

1) No housing - It's just an eyesore and, whilst I appreciate I'm in a very small minority here, I struggle to understand how it is that people can moan about windmills then happily play through a housing estate.

2) Par 68. Six par 3s and two par 5s is my ideal.

3) Loops are always good but they shouldn't be created for the hell of it. I'm not worried about loops falling into sets of three, six or nine. I'll happily play sequences of whatever fits the land.

4) Variety of holes. Flat holes, holes over, round and along the slopes and a good mix of lengths.

5) Not too long. I don't want to tackle 7,000 yards all of the time, mainly because the variety will inevitably be lacking. With my par of 68, 6,000 yards from the tips is quite enough.

6) Regular competitions but not too many of them. Increasingly UK clubs seem compelled to push for a certain competitive ethos. Fine, but preferably not to the detriment of actually getting on the course to play a friendly game.

7) A temporary hole. I love having a spare hole to throw into the mix once in a while.

8 ) No internal OB.

9) And most obviously really, the right turf/soil. If it's going to remain consistently interesting it'll have to be on sand. Moist but not wet in the winter and bone dry in the summer is fine by me. I want a course which changes from one season to the next and allows the intricate nature of the land to shine through.

[Bill_McBride]

If there are ever any more housing courses built in the US, I have seen a trend among land planners and developers to double up fairways, creating a longer/better view, while sacrificing the total number of lots on the golf course.  Hope that holds.....

Forget that! They use that as an excuse to make the whole course OB left.

Or vice versa.  At least there is OB on just one side.  I recently played a Forrest Richardson course in SW Phoenix, Coldwater Golf Club, that had doubled fairways.  With a buffer on the outside both sides, the total corridors must have been 150 yards across.  Most OB was right.  Very playable and fun.  I have played single hole residential courses in Phoenix and Palm Springs, no fun. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill, that is always an interesting question.  Some would put OB left on all holes, others would put it left on 2/3 of holes for variety.

There is always the balance of variety mixed with the obvious fact that more golfers slice than hook (and slice further off line than hook) so it is generally safer to put it on the left.

My original point was that after years of going to these meetings and hearing owners and land planners push for max frontage, regardless of long connections, or whatever, I see those two pushing for double fairways, wider corridors, and fewer road crossings.  Somewhere, someone has been enlightening the development community, maybe the Urban Land Institute or something.

It is a good trend, however, it evolved just as golf and housing is probably reducing in importance.  I believe more future housing projects will be including other things.  I can even see some existing ones removing back tees no one uses in favor of dog parks, gardens, tot lots, or other amenities developers may think will sell lots faster.