How much can an architect sacrifice walkability for a better hole?

[Gib_Papazian]

Putting aside housing projects where the developer gave the golf architect whatever was left over, sometimes it comes down to a lack of courage. Some of the most interesting holes I have ever played are routed over unusual ground that would normally be unsuitable for a traditional golf hole. We seem to value “quirk” here in the Treehouse, yet original golf holes are often the result of an architect - pursuant to the creation of a walkable layout - being forced to break the envelope in order to get to the next tee.

I’ll agree with Tom that courses in areas where everybody takes carts due to weather constraints perhaps ought to be evaluated with a different standard. However, a cartball track is still a cartball track - which means five demerits right off the bat. A golf course should be a sequence of arrangements that follow one another in as natural a form as possible. There is a difference between a golf “course” and a collection of holes - strung together by a cement path like a Disneyland ride.

It reminds me of the Haunted House attraction. Walk in, take an elevator ride, walk some more, stand on a moving ramp, get into a pod and passively experience the stimulus. That is fine for amusement rides or movies, but courses that force a disconnection between the player and the natural contours of the land quickly come off like a series as artificial, disjointed and episodic.

If you’ve got to gouge something out to beat quality into it (paraphrasing Ross) so it can stand up to the rest of the course, fine and dandy. But if you don’t have the budget to move a lot of dirt, instead of sacrificing the whole to avoid creating something controversial, think outside the bun! Nutty is almost always at least memorable; what if somebody suggested we route the fairway around Klondike Hill? There would be people laying front of the tractors, yet nobody would design a hole like that today.

Why? COWARDICE! The Road Hole? Sea Headrig? #15-#17 at Prestwick is the most interesting stretch of holes imaginable, yet I struggle to think of a single modern designer who would have the guts to present that as their finished product. Maybe Professor Doak - given the sequence of holes at Pac Dunes, but I’m not sure *even he* would have the juevos rancheros to cough up some of the stuff at Cruden Bay.    

  

[cary lichtenstein]

I love eye candy and great holes...so that's my answer

[Gib_Papazian]

Well Cary, maybe we can combine Ted Robinson and Bill Coore. The result ought to meet your standards.  

After Jack and Tom at Sebonack, anything is obviously possible.

[Peter Pallotta]

It strikes me: we note (probably with some reason) that there is no singular and constant "ideal" in gca.  I won't quibble with that too much, but will say that there is no "ideal" for a pen either, or for a bicycle -- save that the pen and bike serve their primary functions without any significant (and constantly repeating) breaks. A pen that wrote out only one word before going dry for 5 minutes would be a lousy pen, even if it was made of gold and trimmed with platinum; and a bike that you rode to the corner store but then had to carry back home on your shoulders (because it didn't 'peddle' uphill) would be a lousy bike, even if it weighed less than a pound and had a seat made of corinthian leather. If a golf course's primary function is to allow golfers to play golf, how can it be an ideal course if after every hole the golfer is forced to wait and walk five minutes before he can play golf again -- even if a few of the golf holes he'd get to play were dropped from some Plato-Coltish-Mackenzian plane of reality and existed now as examples of perfection?

Peter  

[Gib_Papazian]

Peter,

Salient point laddie. Taken as an individual expression in a vacuum, it is certainly possible a single golf hole can be a "10." Again, assuming you ignore a golf COURSE is supposed to be more than a collection of holes strung together whose only connectivity is a cement path and electric buggy.

But a cartball course with 18 sequential, but disjointed, "10's" cannot be a "10" when evaluated in total. If NGLA - which I believe is the single greatest golf course on the planet - had each hole separated far apart, connected with cement, it would not be a 10. It would be an 8. That is the highest an unwalkable course can go in my book - because it is like a Greatest Hits album . . . . . a bunch of stuff thrown together out of context.   

Let's say I drive to Yountville and have dinner at the French Laundry. It is reasonable to compare that to having my wallet lightened a cool G for me and my best friend to play Pebble.

Pebble Beach is a sequence of 18 holes, fairly easily walked, with only small delays between greens and tee. Now, let's say of the 12 courses served on the tasting menu at the French Laundry, four of them require a wait of 20 minutes -  completely destroying the culinary momentum of the experience.

There is something to be said for the visceral anticipation when walking between #15 and #16 at Cypress, but the delay is not torturous (like a natural pause between the final course and desert) and the payoff an unbelievable final act.

Golf course pacing is like a piece of music and disjointed cartball tracks are like a looooong arbitrary silence in the middle of an orchestral piece. In the same way how irritating it is to wait a long period between the appetizer and main course. The French Laundry - although it is a lengthy meal - mixes in some extremely unusual (borderline bizarre) creations in the sequence of offerings.

You may like them or be lukewarm, but you'll remember them no matter what. That is the problem with architects who shy away from the occasional head scratcher - believing the average punter won't bother (or incapable) to take the time to try and understand a creative architectural solution.

   

 

     

[Tom_Doak]

Peter,

I was surprised by your analogy.  I think of a golf course as a book, not as a pen.

[Shapers are the pens.  Some of them dry up after 5 minutes, too  ]

Gib's analogy is better.  The flow from one hole to the next is like a piece of music.  There are some great pieces of music that have long transitions from one movement to the next, but in general, a long pause is hard to sustain, and several of them are sure to ruin it.

[Steve Lang]

  T Doak,

Since you are involved here, advise me about Black Forest... my home course in the summer.

Other than the 500+ yards from the clubhouse to 1T and the mile from 18G to Clubhouse distances... I know you have regrets (or used to ) about the 2nd and 3rd greens, and would redo them.  Would you redo the routing to eliminate the downhill hike between 2G and 3T and perhaps the uphill hike between 4G to 5T?  I've always liked #3/4 and #5 so I'm glad you did things that way!  

Were you maintaining the cross country ski trails or some future home spots?  Or was it to give one the experience of ithe Black Forest

Walked it twice in the very beginning, never again!

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

Regarding Black Forest:  the property had the same remote start and finish issues as our course at Dismal River.  The land near the clubhouse was all sold off, the nearest starting point was at a high elevation, but most of the course would be in the valley below, and it didn't look practical to play a hole back up the hill near the finish.  I figured nearly everyone would take carts, but the best we could do was make it walkable for somebody who wanted to start on #1 tee and finish at #18 green, and be shuttled back home from there.  I thought that might keep the course in play for in-state tournament play of some kind or other ... back then I had several friends who were club pros around here and who insisted that was an important consideration, although Black Forest has never hosted such an event.

We considered playing a hole downhill into the valley after #2, a drop of more than 100 feet ... my preference would have been to play a par-3 hole part of the way down, and then a par-4 from there, but there was no ledge to play to, and the drop all the way into the valley was pretty extreme, plus it was far enough that a lot of people wouldn't carry to the bottom.  I decided it was better to walk down.

The walk up to #5 was hard to avoid ... you are getting up to the top of a ridge at #5 green that the rest of the course plays on top of and then down around [if there were no trees, there would be a hell of a view from #7 and #8 greens down into #16 and #17].  Believe it or not, hole #5 is the gentlest way to get up there.  I suppose I could have reversed most of it, and played up the valley on #11 and #10 and then back down into the valley on #4 ... but there were several holes I was fond of the way we did it, so I never considered the reverse routing seriously.

Now, of course, I build them forward and reverse ... you should come see what we're doing at Forest Dunes when you get up here this summer.

[Steve Lang]

  Tom

Thanks for info, very interesting...  for folks wondering here's subject Black Forest layout



 p.s. I believe I met either Mike or Brian on a dozer during the initial clearing of the driving range ... not surprised no tourneys there, high school tourneys always held at Highpointe in the fall!

p.s.s.  I'll be looking for you to see your latest reverse routing in July.. here's last look I had at things there at Forest Dunes


p.s.s.s.  Always enjoy playing from 16T up to 17 G..

re: dismal, its no big deal, enjoyed it last year very very much

[Mac Plumart]

Of course, it is true that "outsiders" don't have all the information about a course's routing options.  But that doesn't mean they can't notice if something isn't ideal.  There may be an excuse for something not being ideal on a golf course, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't ideal.

But in the end, we play courses in the state in which they are in their current place in time.  And with that there are certain things that are preferable, if a compromise is made...then so be it.  But golfers aren't going to ignore it and give it a pass.  It is there and it is real.

Mac:

I guess my problem with having these discussions on Golf Club Atlas is just as you say ... that everybody has their own definition of "ideal," and that I am somehow making "excuses" for my design decisions if I don't try and hit YOUR ideal.

Sure, the ideal would be for every tee to be right next to every green.  Of course, that is pretty much impossible because we don't all play from the same tees, and then topography sometimes has something to say about the matter.  The bottom line is that NO course is EVER ideal, so to me, comparing them all to some ideal and judging them by how they've failed is ridiculous.  You should take courses and routings for what they are, and not work so hard on criticizing them for what they're not.

I think I'm as big a proponent of walkability as almost anyone on this site, yet the two projects where my routings have caused the biggest arguments on GCA are Dismal River, where my very tight green-to-tee routing clashes with some people's ideal that the 18th green should be next to the first tee, even if neither of them is anywhere near the clubhouse, and Streamsong, where the inclusion of the 7th hole and the routing of the other 18 holes necessitated a long green-to-tee walk that some find offensive.  Both courses are quite walkable, yet they have been loudly criticized for not being walkable ENOUGH, and these are not instances where I passed up a perfectly good tee to set you up for a view; the reasons were fundamental to the project we were assigned.

I do agree with Ian, there are many examples on modern courses where architects opt to stretch out the green-to-tee rides to make the view from the next tee more dramatic, when the hole would have been fine if it had been played from closer to the previous green.  But, that is not ALWAYS an option, and to set the ideal that it should be just ignores the realities of real-world design.

I've been wrestling with this very question as I write reviews for Volume 2 of The Confidential Guide.  In warm-season climates, there is much more temptation for designers to ignore walkability, because there are some months when nearly every golfer is going to ride, and even in the rest, the local standard is for most players to take carts.  So should I judge courses differently based on this reality?  I've come to the conclusion that I should, at least a little bit.

Tom:

Regarding "ideals"...That's the beauty of golf and golf courses.  We all have our own ideals.  Some people love your courses, some people love Strantz, some people love Ross, some people love Fazio.  If everyone loved one singular thing in terms of golf courses, what would be the fun/point of traveling, seeing different ones, and talking about them?

Regarding your statement, "You should take courses and routings for what they are"...I agree 100%.  And what if a specific course's routing isn't someone's cup of tea, then they won't seek to play there again...they'll keep looking for something that is more their style.  Again, that's the fun of it.  Looking for what you like, finding it, and then enjoying it.

Regarding your points on your work, I find many of the criticisms of your courses (especially the one's your listed) to be absurd.  But as we've been discussing, they are absurd criticisms per my ideals and experiences.  The 7th at Streamsong may not be a truly ideal walk, but the hole appears to be worth the walk.  That's kinda the point of this thread...to discover what is worth deviating from the ideal walking path.  Okay, you have to back track on 7...is the hole worth it?  I'm pretty sure most people think it is.  On Dismal River Red, I think I've made my point of view known many times over on this site...I think it is one of the very best courses I've ever played.  I think it is a great walk.  Ok, 1 and 18 are kinda far apart.  It doesn't bother me and I've played it a bunch.  Is it even important for 1 and 18 to be close?  Not in that setting, IMO.  But, people can discuss it if they want.

Your last two points are interesting and seem dependent on site specific and job specific mandates.  Again, it seems trade offs might need to be made.  And that seems to be the point of this thread...which makes interesting discussion...IMO.

 

[Phil McDade]

This issue came up when I played Erin Hills earlier this week with a group of friends. It's a walking-only course; take a caddie or carry your bag. As the name of the course implies, there's plenty of elevation change. The management suggests a 4:55 pace of play, so you know it's going to be a trek.

Things were fine until we finished the 400-yard par four #4, then turned around and walked back almost the length of the hole to the hit a blind tee shot on #5. There were some other long walks between green and tee on later holes, but nothing quite that puzzling. Nobody could figure out why Hurdzan, Fry and Whitten came up with that routing for a walking-only course -- especially given that they had over 600 acres to work with, and the 5th is not one of the most memorable holes on the course. But, as Sean and Jeff have mentioned, we weren't privy to the construction details. It just seemed odd.  

Rick:

Of all of the somewhat odd and awkward transitions at Erin Hills, the one between #4 green and #5 tee easily takes top honors in my estimation. My first time on the course, I actually went the wrong way, and started down the 17th hole corridor before realizing my mistake. The other odd thing about that transition is that the walk off the #4 green to the championship tees for #5 doesn't involve a walk-back, but a back-breaking trek up a steep hill.

#5 in my view was a better hole in its original incarnation, because it featured a true principal's nose bunker. Now that bunker frames the fairway as something to avoid if you go too far right with your drive. I liked the hole better when that fairway wrapped around the right side of that bunker.

The routing of Erin Hills will always be one of the great speculating games in golf architecture, for the reasons you suggest -- so much land to work with, and so much interesting terrain out there. It's been subject to quite a few threads here on GCA, and as to the routing of #5, my guess is that Hurdzan and Co. (perhaps led by Whitten! ) wanted to find some way to get the original, natural Dell Hole (originally #7 in the first routing) after moving through what most people view as the wonderful, natural corridors of #s 2-4. Thus #s 5 and 6 served as the transition holes to get to the Dell -- ironically, a hole that no longer exists (much to the dismay, it's been said, of Whitten, an early champion of the blind par 3). One wonders if the blandness and odd transition between the current 4th and 5th holes would've been duplicated in a different routing -- one of which (maybe Doak's version?) used the same 2-4 hole corridor, but in the opposite direction.

Links here for a tour and links to earlier threads about EH; I continue to think EH is a course full of good-to-great holes that is an awkward and not terribly intuitive (for a walking mandatory course) walk.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45966.0.html