[Tommy Williamsen]

After I play a course mt first thoughts that comes are about the greens and the surrounds.  It seems to me that the most important considerations in course design are the shots into, on, and around the greens. I drive the ball relatively straight so maybe I don't give that part of the game as much credit as it deserves but when I think about greatness of a course one thing they all have in common is the green complex.  

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tommy,

Don't under-estimate the importance of the routing. It's number one. Green complexes -- the putting surface and surrounds -- is no. 2.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Good point.  Routing may indeed be the primary concern on a lot of sites.

[J_ Crisham]

When you say routing , do you mean the most effective usage of elevation changes, water hazards, strategic trees, OB. If so  I would agree. I think of small parcels like Merion that succeed greatly and large parcels that are so so.

[Jimmy Muratt]

I think Tommy makes a great point....interesting green complexes and surrounds can take a course on an average site and make it extremely interesting and unique.  I find that my favorite golf courses are those that present a lot of short game interest and let me use some creativity.  These courses never get old, they always hold your interest.  

Tillinghast was a master at elevating the quality of a golf course through it's green complexes.  His layouts at Winged Foot, Baltimore CC, Fenway, etc. are on good but not great sites, yet the brilliance in the greens is what truly elevates their stature among the best of the best.

[Kyle Harris]

To tie in the routing argument, the green complex should have a direct influence on the next tee - and I feel that the utilization of the space between them is the most important factor in a quality golf course.

[Joe Hancock]

To tie in the routing argument, the green complex should have a direct influence on the next tee - and I feel that the utilization of the space between them is the most important factor in a quality golf course.

Kyle,

So you believe that areas that aren't even in play are the MOST important factor in a quality golf course?

Joe

[Kyle Harris]

To tie in the routing argument, the green complex should have a direct influence on the next tee - and I feel that the utilization of the space between them is the most important factor in a quality golf course.

Kyle,

So you believe that areas that aren't even in play are the MOST important factor in a quality golf course?

Joe

Joe,

It's more the idea that routings are holes linked together, and how the architect selects and compromises between green locations and tee locations is the bones of the golf course.

One could conceivably have a great naturally buckled site for a green but no great tee location nearby - which leads the architect to a series of choices that affect the entire golf course. I believe that many of the original awkward or blind tee shots developed out of the ethic that the green-site was more important than having a view from the tee.

[C. Squier]

I can't ever say that a green complex is most important when 90% of golfers will ping-pong their ball within 10 feet of the hole after their first putt.  The same person that will Tin Cup 5 balls from the fairway will pretend that putting/chipping doesn't count.  Drives me nuts.  

I think the integration of a great green complex with the REST of the hole is most important.  I don't like to see a relatively easy hole (tee to green) with a boring green complex followed by a hard hole that has a green that looks like its trying to repel an army.  

Clint

[RJ_Daley]

It seems to me that routing is dependent on finding great green sites first.  I believe most archies study the site, topography, orientation of the land and natural slopes, and find as many potentially interesting greensites, then try to route them together.  (think constellation map at SHGC).  This seems to sometimes require that an archie depart from a more naturally good route and utilize a transitional hole through more unremarkable ground in the favor of then getting to a more favorable corridor to a primo greensite.

[Bill Brightly]

Routing may trump green complexes in a vote on this website, but among the golfing community at large, I'd say green complexes would win in a romp.  When playing a course for the first time, golfers almost ALWAYS comment about how the greens were. Thats what I did for 30 years before I started learning more about golf architecture.

[Mike Policano]

Bill,

Before hanging out on GCA, I didn't know what routing was. So, it would seem most of the golfers would pick the green complexes over routing.

Tommy,

You mention looking at the green complexes on great courses. I think all the great courses have great green complexes, but they also are well-routed and have a higher level of interest through strategy and challenge on the tee shots than the good or very good courses.

[Mark_F]

It seems to me that routing is dependent on finding great green sites first.  

That's what I would have thought too.

Unless there may be only half a dozen great natural green sites, and then the architect has to find other natural features to make interesting holes with created green sites?

[Jordan Wall]

Tommy,

Don't under-estimate the importance of the routing. It's number one. Green complexes -- the putting surface and surrounds -- is no. 2.

Jeff,

I thought about this for a while.  Tommy makes a good point that green complexes are extremely vital to the design of a golf course.  However, I just cant get over the fact that a terrible routing on a course with great green complexes could never really be a great course.  However a course with a terrific routing and mediocre green complexes can, in my opinion, still make for a great course.

So I agree.  Routing is probably more key to a great golf course than green complexes.  Of course, I see no reason to have dull green complexes, and generally, on courses with terrific routings, the architects dont tend to make the green complexes dull.  Its always better when the routing and green complexes are good.

[Eric Franzen]

I think Tommy makes a great point....interesting green complexes and surrounds can take a course on an average site and make it extremely interesting and unique.  I find that my favorite golf courses are those that present a lot of short game interest and let me use some creativity.  These courses never get old, they always hold your interest.  

Tillinghast was a master at elevating the quality of a golf course through it's green complexes.  His layouts at Winged Foot, Baltimore CC, Fenway, etc. are on good but not great sites, yet the brilliance in the greens is what truly elevates their stature among the best of the best.

Well put, Jimmy.

Winged Foot West is a really good example of interesting green complexes elevating an average site.

[Dan Boerger]

Count me in the green complexes camp. First, that's where roughly half our strokes are earned. A wonderful green and surrounds poses an infinite number of shots and outcomes. Second, I much prefer great green complexes on a course a play frequently. Changes in pin positions are often magnified.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jordan emphasises my point, above.

Interesting green complexes cannot compensate for a bad routing. As Brad Klein's put it in his book, Rough Meditations, routing is destiny!

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jordan emphasises my point, above.

Interesting green complexes cannot compensate for a bad routing. As Brad Klein's put it in his book, Rough Meditations, routing is destiny!

I agree that routing is certainly important  but if the greens complexes are interesting doesn't that compensate for a less than desirable routing?  It would also seem that a great routing does not always yield a great course.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()