[BCowan]

I think of Indianwood even though I think the 9th is a great example of quirk which is against my principals.  The other course that comes to mine is Grosse ile.

[David_Madison]

Tom,

When you think of Pinehurst #2, do you think of specific holes or do you think of the course holistically? For me, it's clearly the latter. No truly memorable, iconic holes (okay, maybe #5), but taken together they make up a logical, complete examination and golfing experience and it's that complete 18 that is great. Contrast that with Pebble, where I think of holes 6-10, 17, and 18 for sure and perhaps a few others. I'd go through a lot of inconvenience to just walk those let alone play them. And while PB is considered a "great" golf course, I think it's because of those great holes. My memories of the two courses are even different in style. In the case of #2, I have more general images in mind as opposed to visualizing specific holes or shots. Whereas with PB, I can vividly picture specific shots and views. There's a huge difference in the type of focus I have between the two. And the ironic thing is that I live in North Carolina and play in the Sandhills (at Mid-Pines and Pine Needles) all of the time, while I've only been to Pebble twice.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


When you think of Pinehurst #2, do you think of specific holes or do you think of the course holistically?

David:


I almost mentioned #2 when I made the comment about Woodhall Spa earlier.  At Pinehurst, it's the greens rather than the bunkers that are unique, but it's the same idea.  I do think there are a lot of excellent holes there, they just get lost in the shuffle because they look so similar to golfers without an eye for detail and strategy.

[David_Madison]

[deleted]

[David_Madison]

Tom,


I agree that #2 has excellent holes, a whole bunch of them. But I don't think that they stand on their own as much as together they make up a collective experience. Yes, each has its strategy and demands, but they are far better together than as a collection of individuals.

[Garland Bayley]

Northwest definitely falls into this category.
It's one of my favorite courses in the world-just simple, compact interesting golf on a small piece of land.with great movement while appearing overall flat.


Dunfanaghy comes to mind, though there are more indivisual stand out holes there, there are also more that don't stand out but connect  the rest. Every time I've played it there's been SOOO much wind that every hole was interesting

Agree on Northwest, disagree on Dunfanaghy. The whole of Dunfanaghy is more about the few good holes, whereas the whole of Northwest is more about the continuity of the experience and less about the good holes.

[BCowan]

Tom,


I agree that #2 has excellent holes, a whole bunch of them. But I don't think that they stand on their own as much as together they make up a collective experience. Yes, each has its strategy and demands, but they are far better together than as a collection of individuals.

Disagree #3 and 9 are all world. Agree with the rest.

[Garland Bayley]

I'll cite links courses in general and I'll give two reasons why:


1 - Playing Scottish links was instructive in demonstrating the value of open space on a golf course. Open space brings the omnipresent vagaries of wind into play; a more potent, and sophisticated hazard than vertical obstructions.


2 - Although an individual links hole might demonstrate a portion of rumpled land, when one can survey large chunks of the course at one time, it drives home the point more sharply that what happens to the ball on the ground is important.

I think a certain environment can play into the whole, such as we see in links courses with their rumpled land. An environment that comes to mind would the the environment that Wicked Pony would have occupied and nearby Juniper does occupy. Juniper doesn't quite complete the whole with its unique environment, as the 1st, 9th, and 18th holes are out of the volcanic environment of the rest of the course. However, it still comes across to me as a better whole than Tetherow which is not quite as volcanic, but strews these ugly man made ponds through some middle sections of the course ruining the whole. I guess we will never know what the whole of Wicked Pony would have been.

[Garland Bayley]

... I don't understand why weak holes exist unless the land is so severe that the archie simply has to take his lumps and move on. ...

Probably more often, weak holes exist because the land is so plain. Think Westward Ho!

[Sean_A]

... I don't understand why weak holes exist unless the land is so severe that the archie simply has to take his lumps and move on. ...

Probably more often, weak holes exist because the land is so plain. Think Westward Ho!

Flat land is no excuse to produce a weak hole. Flat land is an opportunity for the archie to exercise his imagination.  It doesn't even take a lot of money to produce a good hole from flat land.


Ciao

[Jud_T]

I would posit that a course can't be truly great unless the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.  Obviously a great course must, by definition, have a number of great holes and few, if any, really weak ones.  However, it's the routing, sequencing, variety, ebb and flow, crescendos and quiet passages, and how they come together, that makes it an experience and not merely a good day on a collection of driving ranges and short game areas.  Take Ravisloe as an example- a bunch of really good holes, but the course, in it's current presentation, is significantly marred by the fact that 7 of the last 11 holes are par 4's of very similar length.  Where's the climax?  too early in the round...Pebble is an interesting case, and I hadn't really thought of it in this context before.  Until now I've felt that the course is somewhat overrated as there are too many pedestrian holes amongst the all-world ones and scenery everyone loves.  But perhaps it is precisely the fact that the great holes come in bunches and allow for two movements, if you will, so that the weaknesses aren't as bad as they might be on another course given the sequencing and flow of the round.  It's the journey man....

[cary lichtenstein]

Now I understand a little better why I've liked some courses better than others and my favorites. For me, it was always about the total experience, from the drive in, thru lunch.


As an artist, eye candy was always high on my list. Pebble Beach was always number 1 in my book and their are plenty of weak holes there, but the first 7 holes allowed me to score and I guess ego also counts in the mix.

[Garland Bayley]

... I don't understand why weak holes exist unless the land is so severe that the archie simply has to take his lumps and move on. ...

Probably more often, weak holes exist because the land is so plain. Think Westward Ho!

Flat land is no excuse to produce a weak hole. Flat land is an opportunity for the archie to exercise his imagination.  It doesn't even take a lot of money to produce a good hole from flat land.


Ciao

But, it takes more money to produce a good hole from flat land than it does from land better suited to the purpose.

[Sean_A]

... I don't understand why weak holes exist unless the land is so severe that the archie simply has to take his lumps and move on. ...

Probably more often, weak holes exist because the land is so plain. Think Westward Ho!

Flat land is no excuse to produce a weak hole. Flat land is an opportunity for the archie to exercise his imagination.  It doesn't even take a lot of money to produce a good hole from flat land.


Ciao

But, it takes more money to produce a good hole from flat land than it does from land better suited to the purpose.

Yes so? Are courses being built to be dull or interesting?  Does that mean you spend money to build a crap hole?  To me better suited is ideally a balanced combination of sandy soil, fescue/bent grass some elevation change and some flatish land.  The best land I have seen for a golf course is TOC and I wouldn't call it a hilly course. Hills are over-rated.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

... I don't understand why weak holes exist unless the land is so severe that the archie simply has to take his lumps and move on. ...

Probably more often, weak holes exist because the land is so plain. Think Westward Ho!

Flat land is no excuse to produce a weak hole. Flat land is an opportunity for the archie to exercise his imagination.  It doesn't even take a lot of money to produce a good hole from flat land.


Ciao

But, it takes more money to produce a good hole from flat land than it does from land better suited to the purpose.

Yes so? Are courses being built to be dull or interesting?  Does that mean you spend money to build a crap hole?  To me better suited is ideally a balanced combination of sandy soil, fescue/bent grass some elevation change and some flatish land.  The best land I have seen for a golf course is TOC and I wouldn't call it a hilly course. Hills are over-rated.

Ciao


Ciao

Apparently you don't know flat. The plains of the US west of the Mississippi are flat. There are golf courses that have no undulation, period!

I now understand you to mean undulating level land. Which, it would seem to me that the first and last holes of Westward Ho! are not. They may be level, but they are not undulating.

[Thomas Dai]

Carnoustie is pretty damn flat. Great course though and with a whole load of terrific holes.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

But, it takes more money imagination to produce a good hole from flat land than it does from land better suited to the purpose.

Fixed it for you!

[Garland Bayley]

But, it takes more money imagination to produce a good hole from flat land than it does from land better suited to the purpose.

Fixed it for you!

I guess I have no imagination, because I can't get what you guys are after with the flat land.

I can get perfectly flat lies to hit off of on the driving range. Why would I want to pay to play a course that gives me a driving range experience?

If you are talking about undulating level land, then I completely get it.

[Charles Lund]

I think of the two Talking Stick courses as examples of quite remarkable work on an essentially flat site, with challenging greens, subtle slopes and contours in fairways,  greenside bunkering, and waste areas which add depth and perspective.   

There are many very good holes as I recall, but none which are striking for me.  Nevertheless,  they seem to play on a theme of flatness which becomes visually interesting.  in view of the grand scale of some of the courses in the area, which makes for remarkable holes and some duds, the Talking Stick courses really do more with less.

I also liked the change of pace and welcomed the availability of fun, walkable courses.

Charles Lund

[Peter Pallotta]

I guess some here appreciate the golf course because of the golf holes, and some appreciate the golf course including the golf holes; but none of us appreciates the golf course in spite of the golf holes - especially if they don't drain right!

That could be some young architect's mantra/pitch:
"Come and experience my new course. The golf holes aren't bad, and they drain well too".

Huh? Eh? See - understated marketing. 
 

[Garland Bayley]

When I refer to flat or level land, then I am referring to land that has to have some shaping for "subtle slopes and contours in fairways". If you have to shape, then you are spending more. I would be truly surprised if you were to tell me that 1 and 18 at Westward Ho! had been shaped.

[Sean_A]

When I refer to flat or level land, then I am referring to land that has to have some shaping for "subtle slopes and contours in fairways". If you have to shape, then you are spending more. I would be truly surprised if you were to tell me that 1 and 18 at Westward Ho! had been shaped.

Bottom line Garland, are you saying an interesting, fun, well designed course cannot be made from flat land for a reasonable budget?  If so, the discussion is over because I think you are 100% wrong.  If you don't think so, what are you arguing about? 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I think of the two Talking Stick courses as examples of quite remarkable work on an essentially flat site, with challenging greens, subtle slopes and contours in fairways,  greenside bunkering, and waste areas which add depth and perspective.   

Charles:


The Talking Stick site was flat enough that Bill Coore did have to grade all of the fairways to make it drain; I was on site during construction, and saw the grading plan.  He just did the work with a more subtle touch than most architects would.


Garland:


Talking Stick is a great example of what you are talking about.  Yes, some work had to be done ... we've got to make every site drain.  [Peter seems to think this is some new revelation, but all of us in the business have been grilled about "Drainage, drainage and drainage" by our mentors from Day 1.]  Are you saying courses shouldn't be built on such land?


Meanwhile, many UK courses are full of little pockets that don't surface drain anywhere, and rely on the sandy soil for their drainage.  [The same is true of Barnbougle and Ballyneal; only at Pacific Dunes did we put in a large drainage network.]  People tend to think of links courses as a bunch of sand dunes [the highs], but in fact they better thought of for drainage purposes as a series of pockets.  If the pockets are too big, a lot of surface water will collect to one spot, and you've got a problem ... but if you've got 5000 small pockets, like The Old Course, the drainage generally "works" even though they're all just draining down.*


* Note that St. Andrews DID install an underground drainage network +/- 25 years ago to help speed up the drainage of all those pockets by lowering the water table underneath the course.  When I caddied there, you'd see a lot of puddles for a few hours or even a day after a good rain.

[Thomas Dai]

Flatness.

Alister MacKenzie's words about the Jockey Club courses in Buenos Aires, the site for which was apparently as flat as a pancake -

Atb

"We made the ground extremely undulating by constructing a series of irregular swales radiating to the lowest point, and these swales gave us the following advantages: they cheapened and facilitated the drainage. They gave us plenty of soil for making greens and creating undulating ground, and above all, they gave the place a natural appearance that the undulations appear to have been created by the effects of wind and water thousands of years ago. The course has a greater resemblance not only in appearance but in the character of its golf to the Old Course at St. Andrews than any inland course I know."

[Josh Tarble]

Back to the original question, I think two courses Tom would be very familiar with are my example for this...


When someone asks about the courses at Streamsong, I almost always respond that I like the Blue Course better but I think the Red Course has better holes.  The flow and sequencing of the Blue makes for a much more enjoyable experience in my opinion.  Easy mixed with hard, subtle mixed with wild.  It's really a fun journey through the round. 


The Red on the other had has some fantastic holes, I think my favorite par 3, par 4 and par 5 on property but it doesn't have the same feeling through the round.  It feels like there is no letdown, it's a constant barrage on your senses/skills. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()