"Maxed Out" Sites

[Ira Fishman]

As a companion to my wildly popular "Wasted" Sites, I offer the question which courses make the best use of a site that is well less than a great site.  My two nominations are Killarney Killeen and Knollwood (Alison in Illinois).  Both are pretty flat and not particularly large, but end up offering a variety of holes and challenges even if Killeen relies a bit too much on water.  I think coaxing a good layout from flat land is a real skill.


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

Don’t know if you could describe it as “maxed out” but Carnoustie seems to make the most of a very flat site without any nice (sea) views.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira - not answering your question directly/specifically or even intelligently, but it struck that (theoretically speaking) there is a 'class' of golf course that may be characterized as 'maxed out', i.e. the *bottom* 20 courses on a list (say, Golfweek's) of the best classic courses in America, given that the quality/drama of the site itself -- or lack thereof -- is what (theoreticallyspeaking) probably separates the highs from the lows for most raters. So I took a look; here's some:

CC of Scranton 
Roaring Gap Club
Charlotte CC 
St. George’s G&CC
CC of Fairfield
Whitinsville GC
Skokie 
Hollywood GC
Ekwanok Country Club

[Tim Fitz]

Interestingly, my mind went to two men's clubs as great courses on rather uninspiring land.

Garden City is a gem, but for the life of me I can't recall the natural land playing much role in how much I enjoyed the course.  Great mix of holes and a blast to play.

In Chicago, Bob O'Link is on a flat piece of property, but CH Alison again coaxed a course full of challenge and fun out of the flood plane.

[Sean_A]

I think the best course I have seen built on a very average, probably less than average site, is Kingsbarns.  Totally manufactured and brilliantly so, but not flat. 

Getting to a flat site...Walton Heath Old for me.  There are pop up features to break up the flatness here and there, but one never gets the sense that WHO is trying to be something different than what the land is...as is the case with Kingsbarns. 

Royal Worlington is another which is on fairly flat land and not enough space for holes at that...so it really is maxed out because somehow there are nine holes.  Totally different design approach to WHO, because somewhat like TOC, the land doesn't seem as flat as it is. 

Kiawah Ocean is quite flat, but like Worlington, it doesn't seem that flat because of the design features. 

Ciao

[Edward Glidewell]

I think Bull's Bay and Caledonia both fit, although I'm not sure what to do with Bull's Bay considering Strantz took a flat site and manufactured it into something with a lot of elevation change. It's a very good golf course, though.


Caledonia is on a very small, flat site and Strantz built a beautifully routed, fantastic course.

[Doug Hodgson]

Some courses I've played on property lacking in significant natural features that I enjoyed and would play again any time include Pine Tree, CC of Detroit, Essex (Windsor), St Germain (Paris)

[Chris Macios]

Wannamoisett hard to beat for me in this category. Not much happening at all on that tiny piece of land and Ross did so much. The best of classic architecture for me.

[Evan_Green]

I would nominate Chicago Golf Club, Carnoustie, Pine Tree, Talking Stick (North) at one end of the spectrum (flatter sites) and Stone Eagle and Nanea at the other end (hilly/difficult sites) - hilly difficult sites can be equally difficult or even more so than flatter ones to "max out"

[Cal Seifert]

Yale, especially for the time when it was built.

[Tal Oz]

Yale certainly comes to mind. I'd like to think George C Thomas maxed out the site at Riviera too.

[Terry Lavin]

In Chicago, I’ll second the suggestion of Bob O’Link and I’ll throw North Shore into the mix. It’s another Alison course on a pretty flat plot of land but the golf course is challenging, fun to play and it has a very intriguing routing. I look forward to seeing the newly restored course later this year. Very underrated, IMHO.

[Phil McDade]

In Chicago, I’ll second the suggestion of Bob O’Link and I’ll throw North Shore into the mix. It’s another Alison course on a pretty flat plot of land but the golf course is challenging, fun to play and it has a very intriguing routing. I look forward to seeing the newly restored course later this year. Very underrated, IMHO.

Judge:



The first course I thought of with this was Beverly. If the goal here is to identify the best "flat site" course, that's not the Bev. But that place is hemmed in, on all four sides, on both nines -- it's really a master class in routing, from where I sit, to get that good of a golf course within the confines of two rectangular pieces of land, with no wiggle room anywhere. It's on good land, in some instances (the ridge on the front 9, the rolling terrain featured in 11 and 15), but I wouldn't call it a great site. The course far exceeds the limits of its site.

[Jud_T]

Talking Stick North.  Dead flat-  a study in bunkering. 

[MClutterbuck]

The Jockey Club (Colorada) has to be way up there on this list. Terrible soil for golf, completely flat and difficult climate for firm and fast conditions. I would second San Andres Golf Club that has all the same against it, plus a very small and constrained site.

[Peter Flory]

Talking Stick North.  Dead flat-  a study in bunkering.

I really enjoyed both TS courses.  I took a very short trip there last year and played only those and Southern Dunes.  They all were surprisingly affordable for how good they were.