m-GCA: Mini-Golf Course Architecture

[Tim Gavrich]

I guess this is a little OT, but not entirely.  Are there any hardcore minigolf aficionados among us?  What makes a minigolf course good or great?

I think the main necessity is that each hole should have a somewhat realistic possibility for a hole-in-one.

Any thoughts?

[Doug Sobieski]

Tim:

A guy I work with is a member of the PPA, Professional Putters Association. He competes across the country in professional events on Putt Putt golf courses (Putt Putt being a trademarked, franchised entity). He would probably have a great time explaining the difference between miniature golf and Putt Putt!!!

I wonder if Putt Putt would be the Raynor stepchild of regular golf, since most of the holes are templates that are used at most venues.
Regards,

[Ryan Farrow]

Putt Putt is no fun unless there is money on the line. Last summer i had some pretty intense matches with my friends.

As far as a realistic hole in one on every hole. I disagree. I perfer courses with pars 4 and 5. A lot more strategy involved. Options are essential for a mini golf. The course we usually play at has some great risk-reward holes.

[Phil_the_Author]

Doug,

Not only was there an explosion of "mini-golf" courses in the 20's & 30's, it became very popular to build them indoors in office buildings and to get big-name designers to design & build them.

Tillinghast did one in Manhattan.

[Ryan Farrow]

Pictures?

[JeffTodd]

I prefer golden age mini golf architecture. It’s best described as generally flat, linear strategy, predictable angles, and traditional use of the clown’s mouth and windmill. It lent itself to pure execution and, in some cases, masterful timing. Modern mini golf architecture is more about framing and aesthetics than designing a course that simply rewards the finest and most skilled players. Typical of this school, probably started by Tim Frazio at Route 35 Golf-A-Rama in Seaside Heights, NJ (NLE) is the fake volcanic mountains, overuse of waterfalls, elevation change for the sake of elevation change, abandonment of the clown, and uneven breaking greens which are impossible to read and allow the lucky player to prevail.  

[Ryan Farrow]

This is a real Golden Age Putt Putt course. I am not seeing a clown anywhere, where is it?

[JeffTodd]

I think we all know that the clown is hidden from view behind the trees. With that obvious answer out of the way, your compelling photograph does raise some doubts about the claims that aggressive tree removal is needed in order to fully restore the classic courses.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ahhh...the Golden Age of Mini-Golf Course architecture is certainly over, and alas, I have to admit that I took part in the demise.

It was the summer of 1981, and I was fresh out of college with a less than marketable liberal arts degree in Journalism.  I took a job working at a factory that built...miniature golf courses.

Today we fault Fazio and Palmer and Hills and Jones and some of the big-name international architects for all too often producing the same product over and over, as if mass-produced in some sort of golf hole factory, wherein the final product is simply forced upon the land, whether the natural environment is desert, or mountain, or linksland, or parkland.

In comparison to what we did, those folks are original Masters.  Yes, we built everything to very demanding specs, and it didn't matter the least whether the course was going to be homed in the dairylands of Wisconsin, the ridges of West Virginia, the beaches of Long Island, or the woodlands of Minnesota.  

Did we consider any of these unique natural attributes?  No, not in the least.  Instead, we stamped out a standard course with the requisite farmhouse, bridges, rock mountain, and yes, even the infamous clown face, with the hole (and free game) right in the nose.

I'm not sure I'll ever get over my shame at what I did at a low point in my life for simple sustenance and a few pieces of silver.  I'm not sure the game has ever recovered, and today, when I see a miniature golf course, I turn my back and shun and rue the day when I participated in such unconscionable activities.

[Tim Gavrich]

Ryan Farrow--
   I'd argue that that picture does not depict a mini golf course, but what is commonly referred to as a "putting course," which is great fun as well.  Mini golf, to me, must have borders, brick preferably, and must be made of artificial turf with various obstacles.  I believe that mini golf transcends putting, while a putting course is simply a slightly more interesting version of a putting contest held on any given putting green in the country (yes, I have given it some thought).  
    For any CT avid mini golfers, I'd like to cite Farmington Mini Golf as an example of the "Golden Age" of mini golf.  In truth, I do not know when it was designed, but it has certain charateristics which indicate some age.  It is very low-profile, minimalist, almost (compared to the hugely built-up courses of the Myrtle Beach school).  It is Raynoresque in that is possesses some template holes (the Windmill is all-world, and the Over-the-Pond hole is extremely exciting).  However, there are some very interesting holes which are to my knowledge unique to FMG.  There is the befuddlingly difficult penultimate hole, the Hills, where one must conquer two hills but keep from going over a third, because the neck which leads to the hole area is in the valley between hills 2 and 3.
   An example of "modern" mini golf architecture would be Riverfront Mini Golf in Unionville, CT.  It incorporates a lot of water (not just the one novelty hole, as Farmington has).  Some would argue that it is not sound mini golf architecture, because most of the rebound structures are boulders which can give inconsistent bounces.  I enjoy it, if I'm feeling like seeing aome Fazio versus Raynor on a given night (I actually held the course record of 32 among 8-12 year olds back in the day ).

[mike_beene]

Seems like 18 is always up hill so there is a place for the ball to disappear.