How is the good course distinguished from the poor one?

[Joe Bausch]

That is a line I have lifted from this article (I believe penned by prolific Philly golf writer William Evans) from the February 11, 1912 edition of the Public Ledger:



Is this article true today?  Does it need an update?  I encourage any of the architects on the site to modify any of the 8 points, or maybe add a 9th!

[Tom_Doak]

9.  Strike points 4 and 5 from the record.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Makes me think, Joe, of the underlying ethos (then and now) that sees golf as a sport as opposed to a game, both for amateur-recreational golfers and pro-competitive ones alike.
The difference might be that, back then, these two distinct classes of golfers were treated alike in terms of what constituted a good golf course, with the amateur-recreational ones accepting (and accommodating themselves to) this treatment and the high scores that went with it. 
Today, on the other hand, there’s a bifurcation both in golf course architecture and in the expectations held by the two classes of golfers, ie there is now one kind of good course for those who consider golf a sport, and a different kind of good course for those who consider golf a game.
I think the best architects and many thoughtful golfers (recreational & competitive ones alike) are trying to design and looking to play golf courses that bridge this divide, or transcend it altogether.
P

[Dave McCollum]

When I saw the title I thought that this is what 20 years of golfcourseatlas.com is all about.

[Thomas Dai]

Dr Laidlaw Purves of Royal St George’s fame had 14 design principles -
See - https://golfchronicle.wordpress.com/2019/01/31/dr-laidlaw-purves-and-his-principles-of-victorian-golf-course-design/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Atb

[James Brown]

I don’t think you need a whole lot of bunkers to build a great course. 

[Sean_A]

10. Strike 2 and 3.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Point #1 is essentially the ethos of the bomb and gouge mentality.

[Bob Montle]

Strike 1,2,3,4,5
I agree with the rest.

[Adrian_Stiff]

It is just opinion.

[RJ_Daley]

9.  The routing and locations should accommodate the efficient passage of golfers from green to next tee.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I thought a good course was based on the following:


1) holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse
2) difficult, while still being fair, for a scratch player from the back tees
3) varied holes in differing lengths, configurations, hazard placements, green shapes and green contours
4) the design features provide individuality to each hole yet a collective continuity to the entire 18
5) the scenic values of the course add to the pleasure of a round
6) firm, fast and rolling fairways, firm yet receptive greens and true roll of putts on the day you played the course
7) the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game


 

[Peter Pallotta]

I’ve become Captain Obvious, but:
The Tiger & the Rabbit
Grant the Tiger the benefits and privileges befitting his status, but allow the Rabbit a fighting chance — while not making the concessions to his weaknesses so obvious as to offend his rabbity pride.
In my limited experience of golf courses and quality gca, that’s a balance that seems very difficult for architects to achieve.

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,


Whenever you use that analogy, I think about The Hedgehog and The Fox, which I think might apply here too.  There is one big idea: make a golf course that virtually all golfers would want to play many times over, but there are many different ways to produce that result, particularly given the variety of land forms, turf, and weather out there.  And there is no "formula" for doing so--not even MacKenzie's 13 Principles (although they are pretty darn good).


Ira