News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom_Doak

Ben Sims' post on the importance of consensus [in the Groupthink thread] has frustrated me, because the very nature of Groupthink is that it's safer to stay with the consensus than to stick your neck out and disagree.


This applies not just to opinions of individual courses, but to one's general philosophy of golf course design.


Dr. MacKenzie's Thirteen Essential Features of Golf Courses [published in 1920] have been hailed as the fundamentals of good design by modern writers, and especially by modern designers trying to get consulting jobs.  So, if you're willing to go out on a limb and be different, which of his Features would you be willing to throw out in trying to build something new and different?


Here's the list:


1.  The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes. 
     [Nearly everyone except Jeff Brauer will pick this one, but MacKenzie himself repudiated it in his later book, so Rule 1 doesn't count here.]


2.  There should be a large proportion of good two-shot holes, two or three drive-and-pitch holes, and at least four one-shot holes.


3.  There should be little walking between the greens and tees, and the course should be arranged so that in the first instance there is always a slight walk forwards from the green to the next tee; then the holes are sufficiently elastic to be lengthened in the future if necessary.


4.  The greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating, but there should be no hill climbing.


5.  Every hole should have a different character.


6.  There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots.


7.  The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all the artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself.


8.  There should be a sufficient number of heroic carries from the tee, but the course should be arranged so that the weaker player with the loss of a stroke or portion of a stroke shall always have an alternative route open to him.


9.  There should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes - viz., interesting brassy shots, iron shots, pitch and run-up shots.


10.  There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irrigation irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.


11.  The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play.


12.  The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player, or even the absolute beginner, should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact that he is piling up a big score.


13.  The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect, and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.




Go for it!  I will check back tomorrow.


P.S.  Off the top of my head, I can think of only one golf course which fulfills all of these principles.  Bonus points to whomever names it first.


Edit:  had to correct a funny typo in point #10.  Not sure if that was a spell-check thing, but many in the golf business will get a kick out of it.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:16:43 PM by Tom_Doak »

Rob Marshall

Will be making my first visit there in April so I haven't seen it yet in person but doesn't #4 rule out Augusta National. (no hill climbing)
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Ira Fishman

Royal Melbourne West.

Kyle Harris

#9 is a relic of a bygone era. My quibble is with the word "infinite".

And at least three other points cover it.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

“Split fairways are for teenagers.”

-Tom Doak

Ben Sims

Pretty clearly #7 for me. Theres just so many places where it doesn’t work.


(I’m sure I’ll get thudded in the noggin for suggesting this.)


As for your first paragraph, I’ll quote it and expound back on the consensus thread.

Padraig Dooley

Maybe the question is what points would you add to the 13 points?
There are painters who transform the sun to a yellow spot, but there are others who with the help of their art and their intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun.
  - Pablo Picasso

Charlie Goerges


Agree with Ben, I'd excise the second clause below


7.  The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all the artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself.


I feel like it's painting yourself into a corner. If you've got cool, neat-looking, clearly manmade features, use them. Things like quarries etc.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Kyle Harris

Pretty clearly #7 for me. Theres just so many places where it doesn’t work.


(I’m sure I’ll get thudded in the noggin for suggesting this.)


As for your first paragraph, I’ll quote it and expound back on the consensus thread.

Interesting. There are entire Max Behr articles on this. And Tom Paul agrees with you!
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

“Split fairways are for teenagers.”

-Tom Doak

MCirba

I'll toss out 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 13.   
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Sean_A

7 gets chucked for me.

Ciao
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 04:56:56 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

zachary_car

Tough to choose but I'll toss out #4, since too many architects now seem to equate "sufficiently" with "tremendously" or "madly"

Tim Martin

2-If the idea is to let the land dictate the sequence and type of holes then at least four one shotters shouldn’t be a requirement.


4-Elevation changes which afford the routing variety may require some hill climbing. Not exactly sure where the demarcation point was in relation to grade and length of ascent for Dr. Mac.

Andrew Harvie

This is a cleverly-timed thread!


I'm going to go 6, I think, and only to be contrarian against everyone in the thread. There's a fair bit of clinical trials with blind shots that work and are a blast to play, and living in those confines could restrict some pretty awesome holes. Could you imagine a world without North Berwick's 17th green or NGLA's 3rd? Not me!
Managing Partner, Golf Club Atlas

Tom_Doak

Royal Melbourne West.


Yep, that's the one.

Kalen Braley

I'm thinking 4, 10, and 13

Edit, this is wrong;)  Bonus Question:  Ballyneal?

Tim Martin

This is a cleverly-timed thread!


I'm going to go 6, I think, and only to be contrarian against everyone in the thread. There's a fair bit of clinical trials with blind shots that work and are a blast to play, and living in those confines could restrict some pretty awesome holes. Could you imagine a world without North Berwick's 17th green or NGLA's 3rd? Not me!


Andrew-Used in the right spots blindness is a compelling feature. “A minimum of blindness” is a somewhat nebulous parameter so it’s easy to hedge on this category.





« Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:12:46 PM by Tim Martin »

Mike Nuzzo

That is Wolf Point (minus #1 per your suggestion)
Al was an average player when we started, he bettered his age regularly after playing hundreds of times, always with a home-field advantage and never having to search for his ball.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Matt Schoolfield

I really appreciate his writing, and I've pretty much read everything he's ever written, but I'm still Team Simpson:

Quote
2.  There should be a large proportion of good two-shot holes, two or three drive-and-pitch holes, and at least four one-shot holes.
I like the old course. I think there should be more par fours, and fewer par threes. I think two par threes is sufficent, but four if you want to do the whole every-wind-direction thing, and more than four if you really want to slow down pace of play.

Quote
6.  There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots.
I like a bit of blindness here and there, but not everywhere. It increases randomness, which card-and-pencil folks don't like, but I think is fun. Where I disagree with Mac is his hatred of semi-blind holes. I've always found semi-blind areas of the fairway as an optimal hazard for mid-handicappers.

Quote
7.  The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all the artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself.

I've always disagreed with him the most here. It's nice when the course blends in with nature, but I genuinely don't care if I'm playing a constructed course if it's fun. I've found that there are plenty of things that are artificial about a golf course that people excuse because they "feel like a golf course": raised tee boxes, fairways cut through forest, etc.

Quote
11.  The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play.

12.  The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player, or even the absolute beginner, should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact that he is piling up a big score.
While I don't disagree with these, I see them as platitudes. I don't know how realistic it is to have a course designed for a 30 and a +5 handicap. Maybe it's just a failure of my imagination. The plus handicappers that prefer a penal grind and punishing bad shots and the high handicappers that are spraying it all over the place are going to disagree on a lot stylistically.

Quote
13.  The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect, and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.
I mean, this is a nice rule for folks who live in the UK, Coastal CA, and the Melbourne Sandbelt. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that that is where he did most of his work. God forbid you build a fun course in Michigan.

Stewart Abramson

I'd like to better understand #8. What's "a sufficient number of heroic carries from the tee"? How many is sufficient?  Is the consequence of not pulling off the heroic carry a lost ball (e.g. carry over water or marsh) or is it something that allows a recovery (e.g. a central bunker or not reaching a dogleg)? If the former I'd cut #8, if the latter, I'd live without #7

Niall C

Pretty clearly #7 for me. Theres just so many places where it doesn’t work.


(I’m sure I’ll get thudded in the noggin for suggesting this.)


As for your first paragraph, I’ll quote it and expound back on the consensus thread.


That's the one I went for. Why limit yourself to sites with beautiful surroundings. What about the great courses with adjacent factories and caravan parks. And as far the nature part, again why limit yourself. A squared off benched green can look just as amazing as some hairy eyebrow style bunkering.


Niall
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:38:07 PM by Niall C »

Thomas Dai

Given that deletion of Number 1 isn’t permitted then Number 7 would be my deletion.
As to the course question, Royal Melbourne West comes to mind. The walk from the clubhouse to the 10th tee isn’t exactly particularly convenient though although maybe it was before the 7th was revised?
Atb
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:37:16 PM by Thomas Dai »

Simon Barrington

This is a cleverly-timed thread!

I'm going to go 6, I think, and only to be contrarian against everyone in the thread. There's a fair bit of clinical trials with blind shots that work and are a blast to play, and living in those confines could restrict some pretty awesome holes. Could you imagine a world without North Berwick's 17th green or NGLA's 3rd? Not me!
I'd agree, and in fact I was going to comment that The Park @ West Palm embraces blindness and semi-blindness to a greater extent than I have seen on any new course (in fact post WW2 course) anywhere...and it was hugely enjoyable for it...

I genuinely enjoy the apprehension and reward (or otherwise) that is found beyond the blind approach.

The 1st on The Roost at Cabot Citrus Farms also has a blind approach...so perhaps there is a seeking to return to the occassional thrill of blindness (too much can be detrimental I think we may all agree)?

Niall C

Actually, after further thought, chuck them all out and just go freestyle.


Niall

Niall C

P.S.  Off the top of my head, I can think of only one golf course which fulfills all of these principles.  Bonus points to whomever names it first.


If it's not TOC it should be. I'll bet that was the course the doctor was thinking about when I dreamt up his design principles.


Niall

Simon Barrington

Semantically I would also suggest he modify (not throw out) 5.


I think "character" is the style, aesthetic, feel and soul of a hole/course, and I prefer one that is consistent across the course (9 or 18) rather than forcing together of differing characters.


I would suggest the Good Doctor replace "character" with "Strategy" perhaps...but that would proabably make it redundant versus 9. anyway...so it possibly gets removed or combined...


But if Dr. Mackenzie disagrees that's fine by me too...

Tags: