Your Golf Course Brief

[Tim Gallant]

My mother sent me a link to an island for sale in Scotland and said 'You can build your golf course here'!


That made me think: The site is ideal for building a golf course. You have the exact architect that you want to work on your site, with the best team.


What is your brief to them?

[Tom_Doak]

Have fun !

[Sam Krume]

enjoy.....what ever floats your boat...

[Ira Fishman]

Build the course that you (the architect) would want to play every day if her or she could.  But make sure that the bar overlooking the 18th does not face the setting sun.


Ira

[Jake Marvin]

I trust that if I have the exact architect I want, he'll produce the best course he can on the site. So I'll second the thought of having fun and producing the best course possible without constraint.

[George Pazin]

No lost balls or penalty shots!

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - I've often toyed with this idea when I can't fall asleep. So far I have this:

- 9 hole course
- 9 tees (ie one set for each hole)
- The one same mowing height / cut.....everywhere
- About 3500 yards long
- 1 Par 5, 1 Par 3, 7 Par 4s
- Lots of totally untouched nature *around* the course; but move whatever earth you want *for/within* the course
- No irrigation system
- No ponds
- A few bunkers, maybe one or two per hole...all of them sod-faced, round and deep
- Use only one type of grass everywhere, and one that requires literally no inputs
-- FYI: the course would not open until a year or two *after* grown-in was complete, and grass/turf would in the interim never be artificially watered and thus be forced to grow deep roots and die and come back to life, stronger than ever
- You can make the fairways as wide as you think appropriate and necessary and fun, and then even a little wider...because outside of those corridors it will be lost ball/no trespassing death. It'll be planted with rye or barley or wheat or wild flowers
- FYI: I'm going to have a solar power array/system somewhere, providing the electricity to light one golf hole for nightime play
- FYI: as noted, there is only one set of tees, from which everyone plays; but there will be *two* cards, ie
"Tournament Par" of 35, and
"Members Par" of 40
Every one who plays will be free to choose the card/par they want, and match play would be based on that, not handicaps

After all those specifics maybe no architect would want to take the job...but there it is. They'd be free to build what they thought the best and coolest greens possible 

[Cal Seifert]

Copy and paste sweetens cove onto the island

[Kalen Braley]

For me it would be, not necessarily in order of importance.


1)  Find the best 18 holes you can that all link up together logically.
2)  The more quirk the better
3)  While some conventional things like returning 9s would be a bonus, not needed.
4)  Build an out-of-the-box course as much as legally possible.
5)  Template or non-template holes, no preference, just the best holes that can be found/fit
6)  Small loops are always good for fitting a few extra in....

  I'd leave the other smaller worries to the architect like drainange considerations, tee box size, playing width for the site, etc...

P.S.  The only input I'd want to have is some kinda final thumbs up, similar to how they did on the courses at Bandon according to Dream golf.

[Tim Martin]

Tim - I've often toyed with this idea when I can't fall asleep. So far I have this:

- 9 hole course
- 9 tees (ie one set for each hole)
- The one same mowing height / cut.....everywhere
- About 3500 yards long
- 1 Par 5, 1 Par 3, 7 Par 4s
- Lots of totally untouched nature *around* the course; but move whatever earth you want *for/within* the course
- No irrigation system
- No ponds
- A few bunkers, maybe one or two per hole...all of them sod-faced, round and deep
- Use only one type of grass everywhere, and one that requires literally no inputs
-- FYI: the course would not open until a year or two *after* grown-in was complete, and grass/turf would in the interim never be artificially watered and thus be forced to grow deep roots and die and come back to life, stronger than ever
- You can make the fairways as wide as you think appropriate and necessary and fun, and then even a little wider...because outside of those corridors it will be lost ball/no trespassing death. It'll be planted with rye or barley or wheat or wild flowers
- FYI: I'm going to have a solar power array/system somewhere, providing the electricity to light one golf hole for nightime play
- FYI: as noted, there is only one set of tees, from which everyone plays; but there will be *two* cards, ie
"Tournament Par" of 35, and
"Members Par" of 40
Every one who plays will be free to choose the card/par they want, and match play would be based on that, not handicaps

After all those specifics maybe no architect would want to take the job...but there it is. They'd be free to build what they thought the best and coolest greens possible

I want to be a member. Well played!!!!

[Peter Pallotta]

Excellent!
That makes two of us, and as the buzz grows more will jump on board as 'founding members'.
I'm pretty sure that there would be a few architects willing to work within those parameters.
So, what else? Let me think....
Oh yeah, the land and the finances.
Rats!

[Sean_A]

A great walk...I don't want to hear excuses about a better hole over there blah blah blah...make the walk great and don't tell me about the other possibilities

Small and big boozers loops within the design...not too fussed if the course isn't 18 holes

Very mild rough for a good ways from the centre of fairways and then add 10 more yards

Spread tee boxes...I want different angles on offer from the tee

Evenly spread man-made features...bunkers, hollows and humps...placed somewhat randomly

Fairly short yardage, but a good representation between 100-150, 220-325 and 430-475

Variety of green styles with no fear of building severe front to backers and fairways which flow smoothly into greens

Cool trees which are mainly there for show

Small house with a good view and a serve yourself fridge, a good tv and comfortable chairs, q outside, a shady porch (veranda) and a hammock

Thats a good start...anything more is just plain greedy 

Ciao

[MCirba]

I want to play at Peter Palotta's Place.

[Kevin_Reilly]

- FYI: as noted, there is only one set of tees, from which everyone plays; but there will be *two* cards, ie
"Tournament Par" of 35, and
"Members Par" of 40
Everyone who plays will be free to choose the card/par they want, and match play would be based on that, not handicaps

I don't understand your point about match play being based on the choice of either par 35 or 40.

[Peter Pallotta]

Kevin - first off, as an aside: I've often thought that for many average/amateur golfers the way handicaps are used in match play is a bit flawed. Since in match play 'cumulative scores' don't count, the 3 strokes a side I might get from a better golfer doesn't seem quite right. In my experience, I routinely shoot higher total scores than he does not so much because I'm making so many fewer pars, or even so many fewer birdies -- but because twice a round, like clockwork, I blow-up badly with a triple or a quad...which 7 extra strokes equate to only 2 'holes' in match play.

About my idea/approach: I called it 'match play' but it really isn't -- it's a different way of leveling the playing field in a head to head match. I just thought it nice, and befitting a small, casual club with only 9 (often long) holes, that when a 5 and a 13 meet up at the first tee, they simply agree to play off different cards: the 5 off the tournament card and the 13 off the member card, the former having a 'target' of Par 35 and the latter a target of Par 40...and at the end if the low capper shot 41 (i.e. +6) and the high capper a 45 (i.e. +5), the latter wins. Similarly, two good players with smaller differences in their handicaps could agree to both play the tournament card, sans handicaps (as per my aside, above); and average golfers can agree to both play the members card, sans handicaps.

Beyond that 'explanation' I can't really defend/promote this approach, except to say that I like it, and that on a 9 hole, one-tee-box-per-hole course, it 'feels' somehow right.     

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike -- thanks, that's excellent. That makes three of us.
It'll be called "Pete's Place". Plenty of coffee and bacon baps always available, a card table in one corner, a library of the essential golf classics in the other corner, by the fire, a serve-yourself bar, lots of club-chairs and table lamps....and the phone number of every nearby quality restaurant that delivers written on a pad next to the wall-mounted land-line.

Okay - so all we need is an architect, land, and finances.

[JMEvensky]

Mike -- thanks, that's excellent. That makes three of us.
It'll be called "Pete's Place". Plenty of coffee and bacon baps always available, a card table in one corner, a library of the essential golf classics in the other corner, by the fire, a serve-yourself bar, lots of club-chairs and table lamps....and the phone number of every nearby quality restaurant that delivers written on a pad next to the wall-mounted land-line.

Okay - so all we need is an architect, land, and finances.

Smoking allowed throughout I assume.

[Peter Pallotta]

No, J -- for better or worse, nowhere inside, only outside on the far end of the wrap-around porch. Several people I like have told me that, while any other nods to the 60s are great, that one is bad and a non starter. What can I say? Even I know they're right.
You still in?
We just need an architect, the land and the finances.

[JMEvensky]

No, J -- for better or worse, nowhere inside, only outside on the far end of the wrap-around porch. Several people I like have told me that, while any other nods to the 60s are great, that one is bad and a non starter. What can I say? Even I know they're right.
You still in?
We just need an architect, the land and the finances.

In--but if smoking is prohibited then I have to insist on clubhouse music featuring a heavy Billie Holiday/Duke Ellington/Frank Sinatra rotation.


And the dress code will have to require all sweaters tucked in.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thank you - this dream feels like it's becoming a reality!
The financing and the land are the only problems.

[Sean_A]

Kevin - first off, as an aside: I've often thought that for many average/amateur golfers the way handicaps are used in match play is a bit flawed. Since in match play 'cumulative scores' don't count, the 3 strokes a side I might get from a better golfer doesn't seem quite right. In my experience, I routinely shoot higher total scores than he does not so much because I'm making so many fewer pars, or even so many fewer birdies -- but because twice a round, like clockwork, I blow-up badly with a triple or a quad...which 7 extra strokes equate to only 2 'holes' in match play.

I assume this is partly why matchplay used to be 75% the difference.  This approach always struck me as reasonable even though in the US its an alien concept.  I assume the new 90% the difference is part of the grand global handicap system they we are promised.

Additionally, I always thought it ass backwards to give the shots on the roughly hardest holes rather than the easiest.  The 5 capper usually bogies the hardest holes as well so it strikes me as odd as a holes to give a stroke away.

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

I would design the course myself and personally supervise the construction.


My brief to an architect would be to sort out the mess I'd made.


 

[Tim Gallant]

Really interesting to read the responses so far! I am reminded of a story that I was taught during University about briefing individuals to do work for you. The story was about the brief that Michelangelo was given to paint the Sistine Chapel. It illustrates how important a brief can be to ultimately getting exactly what you are looking for.


Here are the possible briefs that the then Pope could have given to Michelangelo:


Brief 1: Paint the ceiling


This leaves all the decisions to the painter, and while he is talented, has no direction or inspiration. Why is he painting this ceiling and who will see this ceiling? Does anyone care? More than likely, because Michelangelo was an extremely talented artist, he would have painted something incredible...but would it have been the Sistine Chapel? Maybe not.


Brief 2: Paint the ceiling using certain colours


This could likely be worse than the first brief. Not only does it not give direction or inspiration, but the person briefing then hamstrings the artist and potentially limits his creativity.


Brief 3: We've got cracks in the ceilings - can you fix them?


Yikes! Not only are they not providing direction, but they are devaluing his painting to mere patchwork. I don't think you would get the best painting possible with this approach - do you?


Brief 4: Please paint biblical scenes that includes some or all of these elements: God, angels, demons, Adam, Saints, the Devil.


Closer - The brief provided direction, without necessarily telling Michelangelo what to paint. It gives him a territory to work within and a subject, but then you leave the creativity to him.


Those are all possibilities, but then this is the brief that Michelangelo was actually given (allegedly).


Please paint of ceiling for the greater glory of God and as an inspiration and lesson to his people.


This brief is both inspiring and provides direction for what he should paint. They didn't limit what or who he should paint, but contextualised it and gave him an area to paint within. Additionally, the second part gave him inspiration that his painting mattered because it would be a lesson for people who came to see the chapel.


Take the story with a grain of salt - more of a learning exercise than anything, but reading the above, I wonder how many would brief in vague ways, in excruciatingly detailed ways that neglects the overall purpose, or in uninspiring ways that leaves the designer unaware for how precious the job actually is!


Why don't we brief golf courses (and judge them for that matter) based on what purpose (hopefully grand) they fulfil, rather than defaulting to micro-detailing (or no detailing!). Surely WHY a golf course is built is more important than WHAT is built?!


Two notes: I'm working on my brief at the moment


Also, I took a lot of the details from the Michelangelo brief here: https://www.slideshare.net/stevenstark/the-brief-for-the-sistine-chapel

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Peter, you could be referring to Jon Wiggett's Brahan golf course except it's not on an island and has 2 par 5's and 3 Par 3's, which is also my preferred layout. I would even drop a Par 5 for a Par 34 layout.

[Scott Champion]

Tim,


We've just finished working on an island off the west coast. Happy to also help out with your island ;-)


To answer your question, I would want a course that embodies the parcel of land on which it's built. Then apply the principles of RMW and TOC, and you're a long way down the right track.


I would also limit the budget (whether $$$ was a concern or not), enough to get a good result, but one that requires creativity to make the most of the natural features of the property. But then if you've selected the right architect, they should be doing that already!