Is routing the most Important thing to get right?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Bunkering changes with technology and contemporary preferences. Green shapes, undulation, and slope change with the demands of agronomy and speed. Length changes because of technology. Routing is more difficult to change and brilliant routings are rarely changed. Is it the most enduring architectural element?

[Wade Whitehead]

Tommy:

It would certainly seem to be the most "set in stone" component of design.

There are plenty of great courses that have changed grasses, tee locations, green sites, bunker style/placement, etc.

What great courses have seen major changes in their routings (not including switching front and back nines)?

WW

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy - while the conventional answer to your question is undoubtedly "yes", and while the defining characteristic of the golden age greats was precisely this ability to route a course in an ideal way (given the site and its features), I think the answer must be more complicated than that.

When we say that an architect has gotten the routing right, do we mean that the flow and pace from start to finish is a satisfying one? If so, what do we feel about a course/architect that managed to have 18 excellent holes but only at the expense of 2 or 3 exceedingly long green-to-tee walks?

When we say that an architect has gotten the routing right, do we mean that -- as best as we can tell -- he managed to utilize to maximum golfing effect the site's natural features and topography and maintained a distinct sense of place? If so, what do we feel about a course that was flat and nearly featureless and/or an architect that instead of utilizing anything actually created everything?   

Just two of the many questions that come to mind...

[Tom_Doak]

What great courses have seen major changes in their routings (not including switching front and back nines)?

Merion is the first one that jumps to mind in the U.S.  Hugh Wilson's original routing hit over Ardmore Avenue on the 2nd, 10th, 11th, and 12th holes.  When auto traffic started to get busy, the club bought the ground for today's 11th green and 12th tee, and William Flynn re-routed holes 1-2-10-11-12-13 to fix the problems.


In the U.K. routing changes were much more common:  Muirfield, Royal County Down, Royal Dornoch, and Ballybunion were all changed drastically from their original routings, some more than once, before they arrived at the routing that made them famous.  It was easier to do because of two factors:


1)  The open links terrain makes it much easier to re-route than on tree-lined U.S. courses; and
2)  The Brits are not so precious about who designed their courses, since many of them were initially laid out before golf architecture was seen as a profession.


Also, as Peter alludes, on some sites the ability to shape and create is more important than routing, because there aren't so many features to take advantage of.

[Brett Wiesley]

I'd certainly think so.  The best courses are blessed with the most intriguing terrain, but it still requires the best routing to coax out the most vexing course and best walk.  The terrain used for courses which require a cart due to severity can be excluded from the discussion b/w with motorization I think there is less skill in routing given the amplified acreage available (ie. Wolf Creek, NV - Black Rock, ID and others).

[BCrosby]

Interesting thread.


Routing is also important in the sense that, if wrong, it is the hardest thing to fix.


Bob

[Sean_A]

Tom is right, in GB&I it is much more the case that great links evolved compared to inland designs.  Interestingly, I wonder because links evolved if some of these courses couldn't be better routed if started from scratch today. 

Many of the best inland designs were done by the best archies out of the gate.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom is right, in GB&I it is much more the case that great links evolved compared to inland designs.  Interestingly, I wonder because links evolved if some of these courses couldn't be better routed if started from scratch today. 

That sort of routing "evolution" you see overseas is just another iteration in the normal process -- the only difference is that they built a preliminary version of the routing before they decided on a better one.


As mentioned, it's much harder for the routing to keep evolving as trees grow up [or worse yet, houses!] and these other factors start to reinforce the original routing.  For example, if the course is routed full of parallel North-South holes, it's pretty tough to change them all to East-West holes once you've planted trees in between!

[Sean_A]

Tom is right, in GB&I it is much more the case that great links evolved compared to inland designs.  Interestingly, I wonder because links evolved if some of these courses couldn't be better routed if started from scratch today. 

That sort of routing "evolution" you see overseas is just another iteration in the normal process -- the only difference is that they built a preliminary version of the routing before they decided on a better one.

...or more/different land becomes available.  My point was many links were not created as a finished product...they just got started and worried about the future in the future.  The idea of creating the best course on the land wasn't nearly as important as getting started.  A far larger percentage of the great UK inland courses were created as a properly finished product in terms of routing because they were better thought out projects from the start.   


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

...or more/different land becomes available.  My point was many links were not created as a finished product...they just got started and worried about the future in the future.  The idea of creating the best course on the land wasn't nearly as important as getting started. 

Very good point. 


The same was true for Crystal Downs, incidentally; they just developed a small nine holes to get started, then quickly realized they should try for something better when the developer read Robert Hunter's book!

[Thomas Dai]

A good routing can utilise the natural features present on the site, maybe even at no or minimal cost, and thus accentuate the overall playing experience. But...even a good routing requires good maintenance practices.
However, would it be reasonable to suggest that routing an awkward site well highlights the real skill of the architect/constructor/maintainer?

Atb

[A.G._Crockett]

Drainage.

[Niall C]

Sean


Don't agree about links versus inland. I don't think that whether they were inland or links made any difference to the intent. Even as late as the 1920's courses were being "laid out" and the bunkering done after depending how the play went. As much as Dr MacKenzie banged on about finality courses were still getting rerouted and redesigned on a fairly regular basis.


Niall

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well, I am certainly under-qualified to give anything else but a well-intentioned reply....


...but, I would think that the LAND (site selection) is the most important thing to get right.

[Matt_Cohn]

Routing seems to be the very definition of "necessary but not sufficient".

[Kalen Braley]

Is Sand pines the exception to this?  I'm not familiar with the details leading up to course design, but it seems like it wouldn't have mattered what the course routing was out there, it was how they put the course in the ground that made it such a missed opportunity.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Strongly agree with posts by Matt and Ian.  Routing is certainly "necessary but not sufficient" (a very important concept) and Site Selection is probably just as critical (and also probably "necessary but not sufficient").

And by the way...if both routing and site selection are both "necessary but not sufficient" if will be hard (if not impossible) to define which is more important.

[MCirba]

Merion is the first one that jumps to mind in the U.S.  Hugh Wilson's original routing hit over Ardmore Avenue on the 2nd, 10th, 11th, and 12th holes.  When auto traffic started to get busy, the club bought the ground for today's 11th green and 12th tee, and William Flynn re-routed holes 1-2-10-11-12-13 to fix the problems.

Tom,

Sorry to be a stickler for details here but Hugh Wilson was the one largely responsible for the changes to those holes in the 1922/23 timeframe.   Hole number 1 was changed by Flynn at a later date after Wilson's death in early 1925, and prior to the 1930 US Amateur;

The following article found a few years back by Joe Bausch lay it out pretty clearly.   We have a few more in a similar vein if you're interested but didn't want to clutter up this thread, thanks;

[MCirba]

I would also suggest that the answer to Tommy's question on this thread is very site dependent. A site with great natural features would need an excellent routing to make sure those features are maximized effectively and efficiently while a dead flat site needing to be shaped by an architect to create visual and functional interest is less routing dependent for any perceived or actual excellence.

[BCowan]

I would also suggest that the answer to Tommy's question on this thread is very site dependent. A site with great natural features would need an excellent routing to make sure those features are maximized effectively and efficiently while a dead flat site needing to be shaped by an architect to create visual and functional interest is less routing dependent for any perceived or actual excellence.

Mike,

   What about courses like Metacomet that WPJ routed and Ross came in later and Re routed a few holes?  Ross did re route a fair amount of courses probably more or less local/region Archies routings. 

[Sean_A]

Well, I am certainly under-qualified to give anything else but a well-intentioned reply....


...but, I would think that the LAND (site selection) is the most important thing to get right.

In theory that is wonderful, what happens when the site is given as a must?  Lots of sites are not going to produce a top course, but a good routing on an average site can produce a good course.  Regardless of the site, somebody still has to do a routing which is good for all functions concerned. 


Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

I think that sometimes the routing itself can/should have a sense of place, much like a golf course should. If the site is not a large one, and if it is in/near an urban centre, one key goal should be a compact and easily walkable routing with very close green to tee walks and no gaps, starting and ending right by the house. But on a massive site out in the middle of nowhere, a routing that mirror/reflects that great expanse is much more acceptable, its aim being to find and highlight as many majestic golf holes as possible even if it means starting or ending a mile from the clubhouse or having gaps in the green to tee walks.

[Sean_A]

Pietro


I am always going to want a good walking course that starts and stops at the house unless the terrain dictates that this is impossible. There are plenty of very fine courses to play and I find that no matter how good a course, if the walk isn't up to scratch then I will eventually tire of it. So of course I agree about your urban course theory with the proviso that all should be done to block unsightly exterior views and enhance interior views. 


The holes themselves are important, but the journey is the experience of the design and I you simply cannot go wrong by making the journey a good walk. Archies may know that with an extra mile of walking there are five better holes or whatever, but few others would...especially if the current journey is special. 


Ciao

[MCirba]

Mike,

   What about courses like Metacomet that WPJ routed and Ross came in later and Re routed a few holes?  Ross did re route a fair amount of courses probably more or less local/region Archies routings.

Ben,


I'm not as familiar with Metacomet but quite a number of historical reroutings we're like the case of Merion above where additional land was acquired by the club. For example, Muirfield's evolution was based on a series of land acquisitions over time. 


Of course the opposite is true as well. For instance quite a number of clubs lost land due to highway expansion or other encroachment of civilization. In my neighborhood the loss of original acreage caused the rerouting of both Cobb's Creek and Torresdale Frankford in the fifties.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brad Klein provides the pithiest quote ever on this subject: "Routing is Destiny."  I have used it often.


And, as noted, while it varies, it is the hardest thing to correct since so much gets set around it.  Even without housing, trees, etc., the old "knee bone connected to the thigh bone" theory applies.  Even in core golf courses, I have sometimes found situations where every good natural hole possible was missed by just a few yards (using hills rather than valleys).  In others (including two I am working on right now) basically, a non architect designed it, and we saved only 2 and 6 holes, basically a total rebuild, but not quite.