[Wade Whitehead]

If you were going to imagine/design/build/own a golf course, what architectural features would you include at a minimum?

I'm talking about idea that could be incorporated in almost any site and under almost any aesthetic.

Mine:

• A relatively easy/straightforward opening hole
• One terrifying short (<135 yards) par three
• A significant centerline bunker (or two) in the layup area on an unreachable par five
• A stretch (three or four consecutive holes) in the middle of the round that allows a player to make up ground
• One large green, hopefully on a long par four, that falls away from the player, maybe even in tiers
• A hole that looks way harder than it plays
• A hole that looks way easier than it plays

Just curious,

WW

[Tim_Weiman]

If you were going to imagine/design/build/own a golf course, what architectural features would you include at a minimum?

I'm talking about idea that could be incorporated in almost any site and under almost any aesthetic.

Mine:

• A relatively easy/straightforward opening hole
• One terrifying short (<135 yards) par three
• A significant centerline bunker (or two) in the layup area on an unreachable par five
• A stretch (three or four consecutive holes) in the middle of the round that allows a player to make up ground
• One large green, hopefully on a long par four, that falls away from the player, maybe even in tiers
• A hole that looks way harder than it plays
• A hole that looks way easier than it plays

Just curious,

WW

Wade,


Holes with shots that one would enjoy playing over and over again.

[Thomas Dai]

Not so much what I’d include more what I’d not include.
No forced carries, no trees, no rough, no rakes, no ponds in play, no fountains, no flower beds, no bins, no yardage indicators, no cart paths.
As to preferred inclusions: three loops in 6-6-6 configuration, evil contoured greens of retro era pace, lots of drainage, even more drainage, yet more drainage, minimal irrigation, grazing sheep. 
That’ll do for starters.
And don’t get me started on clubhouses!
Atb

[Scott Weersing]

What features would I want in a golf course?


1. A driveable par 4, like no 6 at Ballyhack or no. 12 at Rustic Canyon.
2. A double green, so you could have 60 yards putts.
3. Back to back par 3 holes. Just to be different.
4. Some tee boxes next to greens to promote walking.
5. A bridge over a chasm just for walkers, not for carts.

[Bruce Katona]

1. Variety of 1 shot holes - 1 short, 1 medium, 1 long and one (or more) that fits into the flow of the routing........and designed with proper tees so that even the beginner/short hitter can hit a wedge or short iron into the short 1 shotter.


2. A penal hole is fine, but there should be a line of charm around the hazard so all can successfully play the hole.


3. I do like a driveable par 4.


4. I much prefer a course which looks difficult and plays fun & fair.......IMHO that course delivers satisfaction to the user.

[Brian Finn]

If you were going to imagine/design/build/own a golf course, what architectural features would you include at a minimum?

I'm talking about idea that could be incorporated in almost any site and under almost any aesthetic.

At a minimum...
- Varied and interesting greens
- Par 3s requiring different clubs / shots, including one par 3.5
- Tightest feasible routing
- More than one short par 4, not necessarily drivable, but offering options from the tee
- At least one long par 4.5, tough to reach in two for most players
- As much variety in distance and direction as the site allows

Also, while not "at a minimum," but in the spirit of minimalism, few (if any) fairway bunkers and limited (in #) small, strategically placed greenside bunkers. 

[Dan_Callahan]

1. Easily walkable.












2. Flexibility in tee locations.


3. Fun, interesting greens. 

[David_Tepper]

Assuming there is suitable terrain, I like to see a "drop shot" par-3 of less than 150 yards. The couple of seconds the ball hangs in the air while you wonder where it will land can be suspenseful, especially if you think it will land close to the pin.

[Mike_Young]

minimal bunkers, one height of cut for tees, fairways,rough..simple irrigation and 2000 ft clubhouse with weinee machine...

[V. Kmetz]

I think WFE fits your bill

Mine:

• A relatively easy/straightforward opening hole (YES, perhaps the most straightforward of the whole 36)
• One terrifying short (<135 yards) par three (YES, the 13th, which plays daily from 130 - 145)
• A significant centerline bunker (or two) in the layup area on an unreachable par five (No, but the dogleg angle in the layup zone of the 4th is an apt sub)
• A stretch (three or four consecutive holes) in the middle of the round that allows a player to make up ground (YES, I would nominate #s 8 - 12...5 holes that can be done in 21-24 shots regularly)
• One large green, hopefully on a long par four, that falls away from the player, maybe even in tiers (Maybe... while I don't think any WFE green is lower at back than front, several play in the manner I think your wish indicates...and the one physically closest to your requirement would be 7...a long thin green at the end of a 425-450 hole)
• A hole that looks way harder than it plays (#5, the near-90 degree dogleg right...if you can play a medicore or better drive, the hole loses most of its threat)
• A hole that looks way easier than it plays (many of them, but that 13th seems innocuous until you've witnessed fretful 8 foot putts for "5"s win or halve holes)

Just curious,

WW

[V. Kmetz]

• No more than 40 bunkers
• 4 holes that play (white tee yardage) 225 - 285
• 4 holes that play ("  "  ") 420 - 520
• at least 1 hole that plays ("  "  ") under 120
• no more than 1 hole that plays over 525
• where one of #s 8 -11 return to the clubhouse
• with a mix of runway tees and short plazas
• with occasional spots of ample tree shade
• with well-considered cart permissions/paths/tee parks

[Jeff_Brauer]

Someone once asked Pete Dye a similar question and his reply was something like, "18 greens, 18 tees, 18 fairways, and maybe a few bunkers......"


That is the true minimum, I suppose.

[Charlie Goerges]

I've been thinking about this question and I keep coming back to the land. I love half-par holes and other such GCA darlings, but first I want it to be a compelling property. If it's fun and adventurous, I'll give up the cool concepts that I love (like an ultra-short par 3 or a drivable par 4 or a redan and on and on).


I know that's not really in the spirit of the question and I apologize.

[Tom_Doak]

I've been thinking about this question and I keep coming back to the land. I love half-par holes and other such GCA darlings, but first I want it to be a compelling property. If it's fun and adventurous, I'll give up the cool concepts that I love (like an ultra-short par 3 or a drivable par 4 or a redan and on and on).

I know that's not really in the spirit of the question and I apologize.

That IS in the spirit of the question, and why I have not replied otherwise.


More importantly, it is in the spirit of golf, which most of these other answers are not.

[Tom_Doak]

Someone once asked Pete Dye a similar question and his reply was something like, "18 greens, 18 tees, 18 fairways, and maybe a few bunkers......"

That is the true minimum, I suppose.

That's funny, because the only thing that bothered me about Pete's work was how much he tried to design to an ideal balance of holes and an ideal 5,3,4 finish [or occasionally 3,5,4 if he had to].

[Jeff Schley]

The answers won't be used for the next Dormie Network club will it?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Someone once asked Pete Dye a similar question and his reply was something like, "18 greens, 18 tees, 18 fairways, and maybe a few bunkers......"

That is the true minimum, I suppose.

That's funny, because the only thing that bothered me about Pete's work was how much he tried to design to an ideal balance of holes and an ideal 5,3,4 finish [or occasionally 3,5,4 if he had to].

Tom,


Not to mention he tried to almost perfectly alternate dogleg or fw angles left and right, among other design idioms.  Of course, another (early career) was to use railroad ties.  What other things would you say he sought to include as almost standard in every design?


For that matter, this question might be more instructive if we tried to peg every architect of repute with their most commonly used features.


How about you?  What do you consider to be your minimums?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


Not to mention he tried to almost perfectly alternate dogleg or fw angles left and right, among other design idioms.  Of course, another (early career) was to use railroad ties.  What other things would you say he sought to include as almost standard in every design?

For that matter, this question might be more instructive if we tried to peg every architect of repute with their most commonly used features.

How about you?  What do you consider to be your minimums?

When I worked for Pete, it started to bother him that everyone associated his work with railroad ties.  A few years after I went out on my own, he told me, "I haven't used a railroad tie in six years, and no one has noticed."


So, stereotypes are hard to break.


The stereotype of my work is "crazy greens", that's what people want to find, whether the greens in question are a 4 or a 10 on the difficulty scale.  At least I have the comfort of remembering that was also the stereotype of Alister MacKenzie's work up until he traveled overseas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


With your study of Mac, what would you say his minimums were in each (or most) designs?

[Sean_A]

Good property

Good drainage

Good Archie/build team

Archie willing to listen to me if I have something to say

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Good property


Good drainage


Good Archie/build team


Archie willing to listen to me if I have something to say

This reminds me of my old mentor David Postlethwait's three essentials:


The Land
The Owner
The Money

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()