Is it a poor use of the routing when

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does it sound economical to route a golf course around an occurrence that is a problem for at most two hours a day for a certain slice of a season?


No? Thought so.


Next.

First, as TD points out, on most sites there is usually a way to avoid it, without adding to cost.  You avoid it because its uncomfortable, perhaps unsafe, and sure hurts speed of play to lose balls in the sun.  Besides, the afternoon golfer pays the same greens fee as others, the early morning golfer pays even more for prime time, only to lose his first tee shot of the day?  If you design for golfers, you try to avoid them looking into the sun.


Not sure it is just a winter event.  Actually, while the sun is higher in summer, it also sets just as long, just a bit more northwest than due west in winter.  Do, it is often worst at months of peak play.


If you have routed enough actually built golf courses, you have surely been criticized for holes playing into a low sun.  Just not sure why there could be much argument over what is basically a good design principle.  Since I am not a course rater, I can't comment on whether you should mark a course down for it.  To be honest, I would probably mark it down a tick, one for every shot playing into the sun.  Not enough to take a truly great course out of the top 100, but enough, given the closeness of the ratings, to drop it a few spots compared to some other course with fewer sun issues.

[Tom_Doak]

  Since I am not a course rater, I can't comment on whether you should mark a course down for it.  To be honest, I would probably mark it down a tick, one for every shot playing into the sun.  Not enough to take a truly great course out of the top 100, but enough, given the closeness of the ratings, to drop it a few spots compared to some other course with fewer sun issues.

But who does that for Pebble Beach?  Do you?


That's my problem when people want to make "rules" of design on Golf Club Atlas:  selective enforcement.  It's the same with balancing doglegs, playing par-3's to the four points of the compass, and the rest.  They're practical ideas, but the way they are brought up is often petty, ignoring the real trade-offs that were the other part of the consideration. 

[Niall C]

“That's my problem when people want to make "rules" of design on Golf Club Atlas:  selective enforcement.  It's the same with balancing doglegs, playing par-3's to the four points of the compass, and the rest.  They're practical ideas, but the way they are brought up is often petty, ignoring the real trade-offs that were the other part of the consideration.”

Wonderful, I’ve been waiting a while for a modern day architect to say that. In the golf world I live in I’ve long wondered whether any of these “rules” have any relevance. I mean to say, I live in Scotland for goodness sake. I’d be delighted to be blinded by sunlight at any time of day. Likewise the four points of the compass par 3’s idea. What use is it when the wind can and more often than not does change frequently during an average round, both in direction and strength.

It seems to me there are much more significant factors such as the size of site, its shape and probably most importantly access to it. What prudent developer is going to build a mile or so of unnecessary road with the attendant services, just so they can route the course to avoid a bit of sunlight ?

Niall   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, not a rater.  I have an informal routing analysis system for my own in house use.  Basically, it is a checklist so I don't overlook something in the heat of the moment, when we all fall in love with our latest routings. 

I do route intuitively, and without formula, only bring out the analysis after several have been done just to make sure my intuition is correct. 

Put it in a drawer, and analyze it a day or two later in the cold light of day.  Sometimes the ratings of each version change, other times not.  I certainly understand the trade offs. 


As to PB, I guess I would rate the last few holes down a point for sun, but then another section of the rating would have bonus points for being visually spectacular, so it would probably come out even or ahead.  I have tried my analysis on some of my best courses, none comes out to 100,  and I make a point of NOT giving my self a break for setting sun, long walks or any other factor.  It is tempting on your own routings, because, as you say, you know why you broke the rules of conventional wisdom.


We have always had a difference of opinion on the role of design standards.  I like them, and believe I can allow for some discrepancies when necessary and the site affords it.  As Dick Nugent said, you have to break a few rules to create a great course, but if you break too many, pretty soon its just goofy golf.  The trick is knowing where that line is.


You prefer to point out the "exceptions that disprove the rule" and use those examples to throw all rules out the window as a bad thing, sort of. 


In the end, I think we are thinking about the same, if not saying it the same way.  For all your iconoclast comments on various topics, for example, you do use multiple tees, avoid blind holes and try not to route holes into the setting sun if you can avoid it.  You might be a bit more open to routing par 69 and 73 courses than I, but also have your fair share of 70-72.


Not sure what you mean by bringing up things being petty?  If you just mean what you say about the second part, yeah, I agree.  Non architects can easily rake the muck not knowing hat they don't know.

[Jeff_Brauer]

“That's my problem when people want to make "rules" of design on Golf Club Atlas:  selective enforcement.  It's the same with balancing doglegs, playing par-3's to the four points of the compass, and the rest.  They're practical ideas, but the way they are brought up is often petty, ignoring the real trade-offs that were the other part of the consideration.”

Wonderful, I’ve been waiting a while for a modern day architect to say that. In the golf world I live in I’ve long wondered whether any of these “rules” have any relevance. I mean to say, I live in Scotland for goodness sake. I’d be delighted to be blinded by sunlight at any time of day. Likewise the four points of the compass par 3’s idea. What use is it when the wind can and more often than not does change frequently during an average round, both in direction and strength.

It seems to me there are much more significant factors such as the size of site, its shape and probably most importantly access to it. What prudent developer is going to build a mile or so of unnecessary road with the attendant services, just so they can route the course to avoid a bit of sunlight ?

Niall

Niall,


Years ago I was going to design a course with a famous golf writer.  He actually proposed building miles of road to get the clubhouse on the east side.  I was sort of against it, as it didn't seem practical, and there was enough land to get a more north south routing that would avoid most of the problems.  Yes, having only the 15th hole pointing into the sun seems a decent trade off for millions in road cost.  On the other hand, a few developers can afford it, and it could be made into the best entry sequence ever.  I get it that this is what TD is saying about blanket rules.  I agree you should never dismiss a seemingly crazy idea out of hand, at least in the brainstorming sessions of design.


But to say we should have never stop learning and improving, or that those lessons have no relevance is, to me, wrong as well.

[Tom_Doak]

You might be a bit more open to routing par 69 and 73 courses than I, but also have your fair share of 70-72.

Watch this space 

[Peter Pallotta]

I know what Tom and Niall mean when they decry the 'rules', but in truth no one here is actually talking about 'rules' in any meaningful sense of that word. While language itself can make our utterances seem more dictatorial than they are/are meant to be, the fact is that we amateur-observers have almost no power whatsoever in this regard, and not much of any influence either. So talking about outside rules, as if an architect is literally compelled to do something he doesn't want to do, is just silly. What we're talking about here is *preferences* and value systems (golf & gca-wise, some more conventional/common and some less so) -- and that discussion is much more interesting to me than the straw-man that is design 'rules', i.e. if so inclined, how do folks try to influence these preferences and values towards the less conventional?
Tom & Jeff reference a par 69 course, and there was a thread a while back about a Par 68 course and whether it would 'work' and be successful in the American marketplace. And currently on the first page is John's wonderful profile of that absolute charmer of a course, West Sussex -- all of 6200 yards and Par 68: for my tastes/preferences & value system, all the golf course any sane golfer would ever need to keep him happily golfing for years to come.
So: my 'rule' is that there are no rules when it comes to total Par; but that there *are* rules when it comes to hitting into the sun, which design feature is an utter abomination....

   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


Captures the essence nicely.  Think Fazio wrote of "preferences" as well.  Once, poking fun at my own defense of "design rules" here, I called them, Rules - Often Broken - of Thumb, or ROBOTS for short.  Yes, if you follow them too closely, you get the same design you got the last time out. On the other hand, if they worked great the last time out, well, maybe there is no reason to change them a whole bunch.


Design principles would also be an apt term, and many architects use that term, a la Mac and his 13 design principles (I think that was his term)


What is funny is if you keep thinking about it, somehow principles turn into more specific items, which look like preferences.  For example, CBM and most of us wrote of variety, rhythm, etc.  Well, if you then drill down into how you implement those principles, you might get things like no stretches of long, hard (or short easy) holes, or even a prescription for perfect par rotation of 4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4 as the ideal embodiment of that principal, even knowing full well, the land will likely dictate something else. CBM went so far as to conjure up his ideal mix of par, hole length and type in his book. 


And, as you say, once you see it in the written word, it kind of looks like a rule, not a preference, good idea, etc. I have no idea if he ever accomplished that exact combo on the ground, but, if you believe in something, sooner or later it leads you to some sort of preference.  I doubt he followed it too closely, sort of like most of us feeling pretty good if we follow 8 of the 10 commandments on any given day.

[Matthew Petersen]

Look, it's obvious you'd rather avoid this if you can.  The questions are whether you can avoid it, and whether you should knock a course down because of it.  So:


Q:  How much do you all knock down Pebble Beach as a great course? 
   Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 into the morning sun, No. 18 dead into the setting sun in the summer. 
   [I played it at twilight several times when I was a kid.  You couldn't see where your tee shot went at all.]


That comes about when the holes have to run mostly east and west, and the clubhouse has to be on the west end.  [It wouldn't have been a problem for Pebble if the clubhouse were in Carmel, but I doubt that was Jack Neville's choice.]  If you're not trashing Pebble for it, then you should be introspective when you see it elsewhere.


Or, you can have a property like Barnbougle, where the dunes also run east and west, but the clubhouse site has to be in the middle, because of access.  There we had the dilemma of which was worse:  opening holes into the morning sun, or last two holes into the evening sun.  We opted for the latter, because I thought playing into the prevailing wind for 8 holes in the middle of the round would be worse than the sun factor, because it affected every player on the day, not just the guys for the last couple of hours.


These choices are called trade-offs.  There are few projects out there where you don't have to make any.  It's possible some architects are just careless about that sort of thing, but I'd bet that most are quite aware of it, and just had to decide that other factors were even more compelling.  Which they very rightly could be.


If you want to let something like that drive your opinion of a course, okay - as long as you're consistent, which almost no one is.  [Lots of people will never notice such things, if they don't play the course at dawn or twilight.]  But just like everything else about routing, it doesn't make sense to criticize the solution until you examine the other possibilities, and most people from the sidelines just aren't good at that.


P.S.  I asked Mr. Dye how come the 18th at the TPC at Sawgrass played straight into the setting sun, when the whole course was a swamp and he could have gone any direction.  He asked me if I'd observed the same thing about Pebble Beach, which I had.  And he said, "Bad for golfers, great for TV cameras behind the green." 

18 playing west is one thing, but really how often is the sun shining early in the morning at Pebble?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matthew,


At $400 or whatever a round, I think they would prefer every hole be pleasant.  Trust TD and myself, its a thing.


Looking at the map, I wonder now how they picked the NW corner of the site for the lodge?  If it was in the middle of the site, or near the eastern end, i.e., 10 green,  they might have gotten the same 18 holes without sun problems. As it happens, it goes NW which is actually the worst direction a closing hole can go.


Whatever, baseball, tennis courts, football stadiums.  Architects of all these facilities consider avoiding blinding sun for participants, and no reason golf courses shouldn't minimize it.  I do recall taking myself out of contention for a job by insisting that their pre picked NW corner clubhouse site was fixed.

[Tom_Doak]

Looking at the map, I wonder now how they picked the NW corner of the site for the lodge?  If it was in the middle of the site, or near the eastern end, i.e., 10 green,  they might have gotten the same 18 holes without sun problems. As it happens, it goes NW which is actually the worst direction a closing hole can go.

Two thoughts:


1.  The 18th didn't play around the corner to the green until Herbert Fowler changed it in 1920.  So they were probably thinking they'd have a bunch of prime "beach" frontage right in front of the Lodge.


2.  Jack Neville, amateur architect, couldn't say no to his client.   

[Niall C]

Jeff

I’m not saying that these rules/principles don’t have some merit but they are way overblown in importance and crucially depend on context. For some, mainly raters it seems, to treat them as being written in tablets of stone is just wrong. As you say, we should always be striving to learn and do better and I don’t think you do that through slavish adherence to design principles that in a lot of instances might not be relevant.

Niall

[Sean_A]

I understand the logic of this but dont think it should be a driving factor in either design or rating. We all seem to value a course that changes direction and therefore constantly challenges us in a wind, so as a course moves around other holes rather than just 1 and 18 can be a problem. For instance my early morning rounds at Notts Hollinwell start with an "ideal" first hole with the sun behind, but by the 3rd we've swung around are heading straight back into that pesky early morning sun, cue hats pulled down, sunglasses on, standing behind partners to watch their shot and lots of "where did that go?". But its only a problem to those few early starters amongst us...

So unless its a classic out and back links that heads west on the front nine and then returns to the east on the back nine, there are always going to be holes where its tricky? 

In my experience the sun issue has really only been a problem for winter golf. In season, its very easy to avoid this problem if it is such a big deal.  In winter, especially in the northern half of the globe, I do think sun should be a stronger consideration.  Mind you, I can only think of one course which I really thought was a problem...Sherwood Forest.  I did tick the course in my eval, but only because there is the opportunity to start on the 5th and eliminate maybe 45 minutes of setting sun issues.  I spose the membership hopes for cloudy days....

Ciao

Sean, you've lost me a bit with Coxmoor? Yes its 18th plays into the setting sun so not ideal but the 5th is some way fromthe clubhouse?

Cheers,

James

Boonie

Coxmoor?  Whatever do you mean my good man?  I clearly referenced Sherwood Forest 

Yes, I think Pietro is right.  We all have our bugbears and wants list.  However, I think playing too much into the sun is something nobody likes or wants.  Still, I don't encounter the problem too often so I have to believe archies pay attention to this.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff

I’m not saying that these rules/principles don’t have some merit but they are way overblown in importance and crucially depend on context. For some, mainly raters it seems, to treat them as being written in tablets of stone is just wrong. As you say, we should always be striving to learn and do better and I don’t think you do that through slavish adherence to design principles that in a lot of instances might not be relevant.

Niall

I think we are saying the same thing.  All of design is compromise, perhaps course rating is not.  I am looking at all my routings as examples, and come to the conclusion that more often than not, its not hard to route a course, place the clubhouse,  etc. to avoid sun as much as possible and still have an equal course. Some here can't envision that and come up with examples, like PB that they like despite the flaw (or other flaws)


As to ratings, well, if a guy has a system where he deducts a point for playing holes into the sun, then he has a system.  As TD says, nothing worse than randomly "enforcing" some rules.  As I alluded to earlier, if I was a rater, I would deduct that point on 18, but in other categories, it would score well, and I would probably give it 2 for spectacular scenery, and another for its cape strategy, another for visibility, adequate width, general playability, good length, good drainage (?) adequate targets, etc. 



So, it would properly come out as a well above average golf hole, all factors considered, which is where it should be, IMHO.  Great holes don't have to be a perfect 10.  Using the Doak Scale on individual holes, 7 and up are really good!  I think one of the problems is we tend to discuss in black and white, not grey (in golf design and politics) when in reality, any given idea has its nuances, which are harder to articulate (especially in a numeric rating system)


Heck, as a par 5, I might only deduct 0.3 points if only the last shot was into the sun.  The further you break down the categories in a system like that, the less likely the rating is to be skewed.  Not a statistics guy, but that would seem to be true.

[Matthew Petersen]

Matthew,


At $400 or whatever a round, I think they would prefer every hole be pleasant.  Trust TD and myself, its a thing.


Looking at the map, I wonder now how they picked the NW corner of the site for the lodge?  If it was in the middle of the site, or near the eastern end, i.e., 10 green,  they might have gotten the same 18 holes without sun problems. As it happens, it goes NW which is actually the worst direction a closing hole can go.


Whatever, baseball, tennis courts, football stadiums.  Architects of all these facilities consider avoiding blinding sun for participants, and no reason golf courses shouldn't minimize it.  I do recall taking myself out of contention for a job by insisting that their pre picked NW corner clubhouse site was fixed.

$400 ha. It's $525 and that's if you're staying at the resort.


But more to the point I too have always been curious about the Pebble routing and the decision to locate the clubhouse where they did. It would seem they could have gone in the middle of the site and had two loops with oceanfront holes. But of course I have no knowledge of what constraints that site had when the course was first built (for example it seems they already couldn't buy the land where the fifth hole is now). I have no idea how much of the other real estate that surrounds the course was already there.