What should all great courses have ?

[Sean_A]

Rick,


Are there any great courses that don't have exceptional greens?


Tyler

Yep, there are.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

Rick,


Are there any great courses that don't have exceptional greens?


Tyler

Bethpage Black

[John Mayhugh]

As it happens, over 40+ years, I actually came up with over 18 good ideas for putting greens, and didn't always have to repeat myself like Raynor who didn't seem to want to think about it too deep.

Which Brauer-designed course (or courses) would you recommend I visit? I would like to see how much better your "deep" thought greens are than those Raynor designed.

You can catch 4 in Northern Minnesota all within a few hours of each other, which I think you will enjoy.  I also have 3 in Kansas that are pretty highly ranked public courses (I didn't do much private work) not all that far west of KC.  Sand Creek Station is not far from Prairie Dunes, so you can make a day of it.  Colbert Hills and Firekeeper are also there.

Jeff,
All of these courses have better greens than the supposedly repetitive greens that Raynor built at places like Camargo & Blue Mound? Wow.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


I guess it is all a matter of opinion.  My guess from your tone is that you have already made up your mind that they aren't, and it would be a wasted trip.  Hey, I'm not sure they are better myself, being a Raynor fan.  I even copied a few concepts of his on a few greens along the way.  I have even built a few Biarritz greens, even though I am convinced that is really the least good template of his.  At least, I have never understood why they were so good on long par 3 holes.  The ones I have built tend to be on short par 4 or par 5 holes.  Improvement?  Step back? Your call.

[Charlie Goerges]

Jeff, in northern MN I know of the Wilderness and the two Giant's Ridge courses, what's the fourth one?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, in northern MN I know of the Wilderness and the two Giant's Ridge courses, what's the fourth one?

We totally redid Superior National in Lutsen.  Great site.  Views of Lake Superior from several holes......and they aren't even the prettiest on the site, since a roaring river (the only one on private land in MN) dumps into the lake, but runs through several holes until it gets there.  Even the "dull holes" have a view of the ski mountain.

[John Mayhugh]

John,


I guess it is all a matter of opinion.  My guess from your tone is that you have already made up your mind that they aren't, and it would be a wasted trip.  Hey, I'm not sure they are better myself, being a Raynor fan.  I even copied a few concepts of his on a few greens along the way.  I have even built a few Biarritz greens, even though I am convinced that is really the least good template of his.  At least, I have never understood why they were so good on long par 3 holes.  The ones I have built tend to be on short par 4 or par 5 holes.  Improvement?  Step back? Your call.

My feeling was that if your greens were better than the supposedly uncreative Raynor's, I would have heard more about them.

In my personal experience, I haven't found actual ideal hole greens to be overly repetitive - the biarritz being something of an exception. While much of Raynor's work repeated hole concepts, there's still plenty of variety in how the holes were fitted to the land. And variety in greens from course to course. Do I think those same holes should be emulated everywhere - no. I like to see designers use their own creativity to build courses. When they are used, the holes should be judged on their merits and not have every redan hole being compared to the original at North Berwick or the 4th at NGLA.

[Ian Andrew]

-

[Michael Moore]

2. A long par 3 ( over 200 yards )
3. A drivable par 4

These are the same.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


Lots to debate here. I am sure most would call a green repeated many times, albeit, with the holes very well fit to the land by Raynor, would not be called creative.  Of course, many would call modern greens, with many limitations, i.e, all pin positions less than 3%, need for access from the cart path and other circulation issues, etc. less than creative in most cases.  I would say many of the greens at the courses I mentioned wouldn't be considered great because they are public courses and I did need to keep them practical. 


As to Redan's, yes they need to be tweaked to modern conditions, i.e., slopes attuned to modern roll outs, etc. and probably shouldn't be exactly as Raynor may have done them, with Shinny 7 being a great example. And they should be judged by how well they work for today's golfers, not how they compare to a similar concept designed in 1925.


Can a green be great if John Mayhugh hasn't heard of it?  Do bears crap in the woods?

[Dan_Callahan]

Having just been subjected to a 6 hour round at Caledonia and a 5+ hour round at True Blue, I would suggest that to be a truly great course, you need to have a truly great ranger and a truly great commitment to not overbooking. Absent those two things, great course design is insignificant.

[Ian Mackenzie]

1. A knowledgeable and expert superintendent.
1.b : A reputable golf course architect on retainer.

2. A membership that recognizes and understands that they have a great course.

3. One "member czar" who replaces the inefficiencies of the "Grounds and Greens Committee".

4. Local and national  amateur tournaments hosted regularly.

5. "Caddy Day" on Mondays where cops, firemen and first responders can play.

Oh, and No pickleball courts within earshot of the coursee....

[Tim Gavrich]

1. A knowledgeable and expert superintendent.
1.b : A reputable golf course architect on retainer.

2. A membership that recognizes and understands that they have a great course.

3. One "member czar" who replaces the inefficiencies of the "Grounds and Greens Committee".

4. Local and national  amateur tournaments hosted regularly.

5. "Caddy Day" on Mondays where cops, firemen and first responders can play.

Oh, and No pickleball courts within earshot of the coursee....

Agree on number 4 (actually, even non-great courses should host some sort of amateur event each year).


But as for number 2 and 3, a golf course does not need to have a membership in order to be great.

[Rick Sides]

Dan ,
That sounds terrible !!! A ranger is a must and as I have preached on this site many times before , play the proper tees . Once again at the range today watching a guy hit his driver 190 at the range and he hops on the 6800 yard tees !!!! SMH

[Pat Burke]

Great leadership

[Mike_Trenham]

1. A knowledgeable and expert superintendent.
1.b : A reputable golf course architect on retainer.

2. A membership that recognizes and understands that they have a great course.

3. One "member czar" who replaces the inefficiencies of the "Grounds and Greens Committee".

4. Local and national  amateur tournaments hosted regularly.

5. "Caddy Day" on Mondays where cops, firemen and first responders can play.

Oh, and No pickleball courts within earshot of the coursee....

I am told by local township workers that #5 while a nice idea in my area the risk is too high as citizens can find fault with anything are are looking for opportunities to criticize and push an agenda.

[Tim Martin]

It’s a misnomer that all the Raynor holes are modeled after templates. There are a variety of freeform efforts across the portfolio where names were given to reflect the natural surroundings.

[Steve_Lovett]

Short green-to-tee walks.

[Ian Mackenzie]

A great logo that looks great on a hat or shirt.


Great logo: Pasatiempo


Shite logo: Whistling Straits


Course/club logos should be its own thread. Or has it been?

[Mark Pearce]

Sunday I got to play my 200th course and I know that’s not a lot compared to others on the site but it got me thinking . Then I read about Mike Trout building a course and thought what are a few basic design features I think most really good courses should have .
1. A short par 3 ( 120 yards)
2. A long par 3 ( over 200 yards )
3. A drivable par 4
4. A very long par 4
5. A short par 5
6. A long par 5
7. A hole with alternate fairway
8. At least 1 green that makes you scratch your head
Any other ideas ??

Hmmm...


Arguably Muirfield is 0/8.  I don't think this approach works.  At all.

[Niall C]

Having just been subjected to a 6 hour round at Caledonia and a 5+ hour round at True Blue, I would suggest that to be a truly great course, you need to have a truly great ranger and a truly great commitment to not overbooking. Absent those two things, great course design is insignificant.

Dan


I understand your frustration but does how a course is used really dictate whether it is great ?


Niall

[Niall C]

Dan ,
That sounds terrible !!! A ranger is a must and as I have preached on this site many times before , play the proper tees . Once again at the range today watching a guy hit his driver 190 at the range and he hops on the 6800 yard tees !!!! SMH

Sounds like the golfing equivalent of paint by numbers.


Niall

[John Mayhugh]

John,


Lots to debate here. I am sure most would call a green repeated many times, albeit, with the holes very well fit to the land by Raynor, would not be called creative.  Of course, many would call modern greens, with many limitations, i.e, all pin positions less than 3%, need for access from the cart path and other circulation issues, etc. less than creative in most cases.  I would say many of the greens at the courses I mentioned wouldn't be considered great because they are public courses and I did need to keep them practical. 


As to Redan's, yes they need to be tweaked to modern conditions, i.e., slopes attuned to modern roll outs, etc. and probably shouldn't be exactly as Raynor may have done them, with Shinny 7 being a great example. And they should be judged by how well they work for today's golfers, not how they compare to a similar concept designed in 1925.


Can a green be great if John Mayhugh hasn't heard of it?  Do bears crap in the woods?

Jeff,

I probably have not played nearly as many Raynor courses as you, but I know there is a lot more variety in the greens than you suggest. I've been commenting in response to this:
As it happens, over 40+ years, I actually came up with over 18 good ideas for putting greens, and didn't always have to repeat myself like Raynor who didn't seem to want to think about it too deep.
You seem to be implying that Raynor only had 18 green designs that he repeated over and over. That's nonsense. Even if he built a "Short" on most courses - any visitor could see that the greens were not the same from course to course.

If you happen to be more creative with your green designs than Raynor, does that make your greens better? Has the Brauer method produced a set of greens better than those at Fishers or Camargo? If so, I would love to see the course. And I bet I would have heard of it before. I might not have heard of a single great green but a collection of them by someone that posts on GCA - yea I probably would know about it. You don't exactly keep your work a secret.

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan


I understand your frustration but does how a course is used really dictate whether it is great ?


Niall

A course is designed to be played, not looked at. That is its sole reason for existence. And so if a course is run in such a way that a round of golf takes 6 hours, I won't ever consider it great. To be great, I would think I would be chomping at the bit to play it again.


If a course had a cool design but was situated next to a pig farm on one side and a paper mill on the other and smelled like ass to such an extent that you got nauseous on the first tee, would you want to go back? If you wouldn't want to go back, doesn't that have to be part of the criteria in determining whether a course is great? A golf course isn't a painting. If no one wants to play it, it's a failure, right?


Obviously, just my opinion on Caledonia. There were (seemingly) a billion people who were interested in playing it on the day I was there. Although I would argue 95% of the people there were more interested in their buckets of beer and blasting music from their carts and snagging Barstool gear from the proshop than they were in the architecture.

[Niall C]

Dan


It seems to me that you are talking about the experience rather than the course itself. What if you had played Caledonia the very next day when there weren't any other golfers ? The course would be the same and in substantially the same condition. Would you rate it any differently ?


Niall