A blinding flash of the obvious - it’s the site!

[Mark_Fine]

I am talking about courses that would get a Doak score of at least 7 and above.  After two recent golf trips and interviewing for a couple new renovation projects I am more convinced then ever the quality of a golf course has almost everything to do with the site.  And if you don’t have a great site you better have a great budget if you want to build anything approaching a 7!  Pete Dye got some of the worst sites and “built” some great golf courses but the key word is built and he had a budget to do it.  Also you can’t be a minimalist and find golf holes if the site is poor and doesn’t yield them. 

Any exceptions out there that are 7 or above on poor sites with low budgets?  One of the Talking Stick courses might qualify but I don’t know the budget. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

In general Mark, I think you are right.


But I do believe you can build (almost) great minimalist courses on average sites by concentrating on the strategy and green design.


Sometimes even leaving an average site as natural as possible can give it a real sense of place.


Ally

[Peter Pallotta]

I like mentioning Garden City in this context, and maybe Sunningdale and Maidstone. Also, the Old Course. I don't know their budgets, nor am I certain they were built on 'poor sites' -- but I don't think they were 'great sites'.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

But don't forget about Sand Pines aka Florence Golf Links where you can build a DS 3 from a DS 8 site! 

[Ira Fishman]

Woking is not a great site. Some here argue that Pasatiempo is not a great site. But yes of course site matters. The real question is the ability of an architect to maximize the site whether great or something else.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
I think you would agree, most courses have been built on less then, God wanted this to be a golf course, sites.  And most courses are not 7s or above.  I am just wondering how many exceptions there are that didn’t include huge budgets?  And by the way yes there are some nice courses out there that were built on average sites and mostly left alone but they aren’t 7s or above.


Kalen,
Yes it is possible to screw up a great site but that is another topic for discussion 


Peter,
I guess it is hard to say if those were great sites or not but I wouldn’t call any of them average or poor that is for sure.  They all seem great grounds for golf and I am guessing there was good reason they were all chosen back then.


Ira,
I agree about the architect’s ability to maximize the potential is a true talent.  I was just thinking about how much the actual canvas they are working on comes into play.  Unlike artists who can take a blank sheet and paint a masterpiece, for golf courses, most all of the 7s and above needed some help from Mother Nature (or from someone with deep pockets) to do the same.  Again are there many exceptions?  Go down the various Top 100 or Top 200 lists and tell me which ones.  Like everything else we talk about here it will be very subjective but is worth giving some thought. 


Note:  What triggered this was a recent project. Unless the club steps up with a lot of money, there is only so much they will be able to do.  But that said, going from a Doak 3 to a Doak 5 with a modest spend is a huge improvement.  But a Doak 7 isn’t going to happen without major work and expense.  Has any architect here taken a marginal course and/or a marginal site and pushed it over that level without a massive budget. 


I know architect’s like Tillinghast passed on The Cascades site, said it was impossible to build a great course on it.  Flynn took the challenge but the budget was likely significant at least for back then.

[Tim Martin]

Maidstone is a site that most architects would love to have. Seaside, dunes, and sand encompass a good part of the property. C&C unearthed some terrific natural features that had been lost over the years.

[Thomas Dai]

Mark,
Are you including the views from the property, off-course scenery if you like, when you reference site?
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
We all have our views, no pun intended, of what makes for a great site.  I am just saying how many 7s are out there (roughly a Top 300-400 in the world design) that are built on a marginal site and/or didn’t have a huge budget to knock it into shape?  I can’t think of too many.  Obviously for the old ones it is hard to always know the budget.  The newer ones we might be able to guess. 

[Ira Fishman]

Ally,
I think you would agree, most courses have been built on less then, God wanted this to be a golf course, sites.  And most courses are not 7s or above.  I am just wondering how many exceptions there are that didn’t include huge budgets?  And by the way yes there are some nice courses out there that were built on average sites and mostly left alone but they aren’t 7s or above.


Kalen,
Yes it is possible to screw up a great site but that is another topic for discussion 


Peter,
I guess it is hard to say if those were great sites or not but I wouldn’t call any of them average or poor that is for sure.  They all seem great grounds for golf and I am guessing there was good reason they were all chosen back then.


Ira,
I agree about the architect’s ability to maximize the potential is a true talent.  I was just thinking about how much the actual canvas they are working on comes into play.  Unlike artists who can take a blank sheet and paint a masterpiece, for golf courses, most all of the 7s and above needed some help from Mother Nature (or from someone with deep pockets) to do the same.  Again are there many exceptions?  Go down the various Top 100 or Top 200 lists and tell me which ones.  Like everything else we talk about here it will be very subjective but is worth giving some thought. 


Note:  What triggered this was a recent project. Unless the club steps up with a lot of money, there is only so much they will be able to do.  But that said, going from a Doak 3 to a Doak 5 with a modest spend is a huge improvement.  But a Doak 7 isn’t going to happen without major work and expense.  Has any architect here taken a marginal course and/or a marginal site and pushed it over that level without a massive budget. 


I know architect’s like Tillinghast passed on The Cascades site, said it was impossible to build a great course on it.  Flynn took the challenge but the budget was likely significant at least for back then.

Mark,


You always crack me up. I suggested a couple of courses that did not fit your thesis, yet you just chose to repeat it.


Ira

[mike_malone]

For links the wind is part of the site. Uninteresting land with no wind is tough to make exceptional.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
What did I repeat?  Didn’t mean to if I did.   I have only played Woking once and a long time ago.  You may be right about the site.  Pasatiempo I know well.  Didn’t comment on that one.  Was just asking for more examples. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

If Woking or Maidstone or St.Andrews or Pasatiempo are classified as poor sites, then I’m more than happy to work with poor sites for the rest of my life…


The majority of modern golf courses are built on 180 acres of featureless farmland that doesn’t drain and has no interest in the topography.

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
I agree but didn’t really want to debate certain course’s sites.  More just curious what people think.  I am really trying to think hard about a 7+ course I have played on a mediocre site with little in the way of construction budget.  There has to be one out there where we at least can agree it was low budget.  We still might debate the quality of the original site. 

[Tim Martin]

If Woking or Maidstone or St.Andrews or Pasatiempo are classified as poor sites, then I’m more than happy to work with poor sites for the rest of my life…


The majority of modern golf courses are built on 180 acres of featureless farmland that doesn’t drain and has no interest in the topography.

Ally-I would reaffirm my position that Maidstone is a good/great site. Holes 4 through 16 encompass land that is great and the collection of holes in that stretch only needs to be walked or played to realize same. I guess it could be argued that 16 doesn’t qualify but I like the contrast to the holes that precede it. I’ve always been a fan of Ran’s Courses by Country write ups and if you respect his opinion I don’t think you can come away with an opposing notion after reading the Maidstone critique.

[Don Mahaffey]

Wolf Point
Flat, clay soil site.  I believe it garnered a couple of 7's in the CG.

[Philippe Binette]

Garden city is a good site, sandy soil and great vegetation cannot be called a poor site


Oakmont has the weakest site among the best courses in the world... poor site


Weak site a good course : Essex GC in windsor, ontario. (Home course of Jeff Mingay) Flat site, pretty sure it's not sandy, but Donald Ross did a great job
I doubt it was a big budget

[Peter Pallotta]

I mentioned Garden City, TOC, Maidstone and Sunningdale solely because they are relatively flat sites, and on the chance that Mark was equating 'great sites' with 'dramatic' ones (i.e. ones with much movement and topographical variations). I agree it is questionable/debatable whether a flat site, in and out itself, makes producing a great golf course more difficult...but I can't imagine it making it any easier.

[Tom_Doak]

Well if we do a great job then you retroactively declare it was a good site, or tell us you wish you had budgets like that.


I’ve spent the weekend working on a plan for a new course in SE Florida - it’s a long, skinny flat site and you wouldn’t spend more than a few hours looking it over for natural features before giving up.  The goal is to build a course second to Seminole and I think that is possible (or I wouldn’t say so here).  We will move a lot of dirt to do so, but I think we could move half as much and still create something special, if the stakes weren’t so high in that neighborhood.


The site does have one big advantage over the other courses around there, though I have promised the client not to reveal it for now.  But it’s not something you would say made it a great site if you were anywhere else.

[Tim Martin]

I mentioned Garden City, TOC, Maidstone and Sunningdale solely because they are relatively flat sites, and on the chance that Mark was equating 'great sites' with 'dramatic' ones (i.e. ones with much movement and topographical variations). I agree it is questionable/debatable whether a flat site, in and out itself, makes producing a great golf course more difficult...but I can't imagine it making it any easier.

I don’t know if you have played Maidstone or what your definition of drama is as it pertains to a specific site but for me there is plenty created by the sea, dunes, and sandy areas.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe Tom’s new course will be another good example like Wolf Point that it can be done (not sure of either course’s budget) but the number of great ones seem to be limited.  Even Tom said he will have to move a lot of dirt so it doesn’t sound minimalist (how could it be if there are no natural features there to work with).  I expect it will be great but it will be manufactured and not found and usually that takes money doesn’t it?


As Ally said most courses aren’t built on great sites and in golf course design, that makes for a big challenge to design something truly special unless you get a budget like Fazio did at Shadow Creek.  It is not a trick question, it is the truth (with a few exceptions) 


Look at the cost of restorations these days.  They all seem to be eight figures.  Can anyone name a great one on a 7+ course for only a million or two?  Why is that?

[Stewart Abramson]

Talking Stick North and Wolf Point have been mentioned above. Caledonia and the Dunes Club in Myrtle Beach are on very ordinary pieces of land and they each received at least one seven in the CG if I recall correctly. I'd be surprised if either of those courses had huge budgets when they were built.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Mark--


I totally agree about the importance of the site...I think it is the single most important factor in the entire mix.  But I also would guess that the site is (or at least should be) part of the consideration when the architect agrees to a deal...and a great architect I think should be willing and able to tell the client the potential and or limitations of the site.


An architect who tries to build a Doak 7 or 8 on an average or below average site is almost guaranteed to fail (unless the the architect's name is/was Pete Dye).


Related to this, I firmly believe that Dick Youngscap has had an impact on golf architecture that has been as great or greater than any architect born past 1930.  I believe the period of relatively poor architecture from say 1950-1990 was more a function of a lack of quality site availability.  When WWII concluded, hundreds of thousands of GI's came back to the US looking to get married, start a family, buy a home etc etc etc which triggered a huge housing boom that gobbled up most great sites near major cities.  Additionally, starting in the 1970's environmental regulations eliminated many sites. 


Then Youngscap, knowing the potential of the Nebraska Sandhills, decided to take a chance and find out if you build a great course 50 miles from nowhere, whether golfers would come.  Its membership role filled almost instantly and a early member and fan of Sandhills named Mike Keiser realized this concept can work in a resort setting.  He finds land near Bandon OR for sale.  As they say, "the rest is history". 


But take way Youngscap and the almost none of the great courses happen...or they happen much later.  What he did meant that there were a ton of great sites available to build great courses.  He should be in the Golf Hall of Fame!  Monstrously positive contribution!

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas,
We all have our views, no pun intended, of what makes for a great site.  I am just saying how many 7s are out there (roughly a Top 300-400 in the world design) that are built on a marginal site and/or didn’t have a huge budget to knock it into shape?  I can’t think of too many.  Obviously for the old ones it is hard to always know the budget.  The newer ones we might be able to guess.

How many say 7's would be 6's, or 5's a 4 or whatever if they didn't have terrific/nice off-course views? Surround a golf course with a chemical plant, a steel works, an oil refinery and it's got to have some adverse effect on what folks think of the course same in reverse as if the course has gorgeous views out over the ocean or of unblemished countryside?
atb

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
We agree!  See my post in the thread It’s only a matter of time. 


Thomas,
Some will tell you that the views outside the perimeter of the course don’t matter.  To each his own.  I happen to think the  land AND the setting of a golf course matter but even then it is very subjective as to the impact.  When they built the Old Course Hotel did it hinder the quality of the course and the rating of St. Andrews?  I still give it a 10.  The PA turnpike cuts through Oakmont, you hit your first tee shot blindly over a hedge that screens the road (17 mile drive) at Cypress Point, you look over a trailer park at Royal Dornach, …, despite this I still think they are all as good as golf gets.  Others may disagree. 


But then some courses haven’t faired as well. Troon in AZ used to be recognized on most lists as a Too 100 desert design.  I loved it but the last time I was back, on some of the holes your aiming point was now a gas grill on someone’s patio vs a mountain peak in the distance    I still rate it highly but others see it differently as the home development does take away from the design. Again some agree some don’t think it matters. 


I said on this site years ago, what if Pebble Beach had a corn field to the left of 18 instead of the ocean?  They are both flanking parallel hazards.  What if Ben’s porch at Sand Hills was replaced with a Burger King and the course surrounded by development.  Sand Hills is probably still a 10 for me or is it?  Pebble Beach I am not so sure but both were blessed with amazing off course views and the architect knew it and so does everyone who plays there.  Lucky them. 


We all know aesthetics matter, how much will always be debated.