[John Kirk]

Tommy Williamsen made this comment regarding course evaluation in the "Comparing Courses" thread:

"Does the routing make the best use of the land?"

Do you agree with this?  Does Golfweek and/or Golf Digest magazine encourage its raters to consider how well the architect used the land when evaluating a course?

I believe the course should be evaluated on what it is, and not what it could have been.  It seems to me an outstanding course could have a less than ideal routing solution.

Any takers?  Naturally, no offense intended, Tommy.

[Norbert P]

 

I evaluate courses with value placed on routing as it gives me a scale of what the architect may have had to work with. In golf architecture there is no such thing as a blank canvas. I'm sure even the highly constructed Shadow Creek, Chambers Bay, and The Rawls Course all had their own untouched uniquenesses about them. When I see a golf course routed well, I see attention by the architect for land worth.

 

[Bart Bradley]

I evaluate courses with value placed on routing as it gives me a scale of what the architect may have had to work with. In golf architecture there is no such thing as a blank canvas. I'm sure even the highly constructed Shadow Creek, Chambers Bay, and The Rawls Course all had their own untouched uniquenesses about them. When I see a golf course routed well, I see attention by the architect for land worth.

 

Slag:

Have you ever been to Lubbock??? --I bet there is not one "untouched bit of uniqueness" other than the totally flat, featureless areas of the course (unique?)

I can't speak for the other two...does anyone have a picture of the Rawls before it was constructed..Nothing man, nothing.

Bart

[Tom_Doak]

Bart:

I think what Slag says is that the architect should use whatever he has.  In the case of The Rawls Course, we had a very subtle tilt to from west to east -- which we had to maintain in order to let stormwater sheet across the property -- and some reliably strong winds.  So, we designed the course around making players play difficult shots in the wind, especially on the downwind holes.

John:

Absolutely, the architect's mission should be to get the most out of the property.  I don't think that's how a course should be rated -- because very few people would be qualified to judge a course on that basis.  

However, I think nearly everyone who's judging a course gives extra points to a course which incorporates the beauty of its setting and the nuances of its terrain.  I sure hope so, anyway.  I hate the guys who come in with a "checklist" of par-3's playing in compass directions and certain preferred types of starting or finishing holes, and deduct points for failing to achieve that ideal.  Indeed, I think it would be possible to design an "ideal" course that was really no fun to play.

[Tommy Williamsen]

John, no offense taken.  But I do think we can make so,e observation about routing.  Certainly an our and back course would not be my ideal course.  Even realizing courses like The Old Course which more or less has a number of holes running in the same direction.  But I don';t know what else to do, given the land.

When I played Red Sky Ranch Norman, I was enthralled at the routing.  Given the land west of Vail and Beaver Creek, the course could have been a mountain goat course but he did a wonderful job in the routing.  

Given that there are somethings that players can not know about why a course is routed.  The 18th hole at my club is a pretty nifty risk reward par five.  The walk from the 17th green to the 18th tee takes us down a little ravine with a creek running at the bottom of the ravine.  The walk is about 100 yards.  Every time I bring a guest, I will hear, "Why didn't they put the tee on the 17th green side of the ravine.  I would make an awesome hole?"  Well the dept of Natural Resourses and the Amy corpse of engineers said, "No way."

Then there are other course that marvel me. When I played Ballyneal this past summer i wondered as I play it, I wonder why Doak didn't do this or that.  When I got further into the course it became very clear why he didn't.

When I spoke about the routing it was less critiquing the course as it was more did the routing leave an impression?  Can I remember how it was routed?  There are some courses where the routing leaves me breathles.

When I played Bayonne I was struck by the creatiave way it was routed.  I don't know how many acres he had to work with but it was a tad limited.  Instead of feeling cramped the course was routed in such a way that holes that ran close to each other were on different elevations.  It was brilliant. It justs knocked my socks off.  

So for me it isn't some much asking, "How could this have been done differently but marveling at the creativity that went into the  routing. There are not many courses that I don't like.  I just like some better than others.

[Norbert P]

Bart, I have been to Lubbock and played Rawls and I think Tom answered your question with a better and more complete answer than I could have.  

 Aside from wind and gradual slope of the land, the land was featureless, (a feature in itself?) but that still requires thoughtful and creative routing within the new construction for the syncopated beats and groovy rhythms to be appreciated.  A golf course routing is not just an arbitrary tossing of a chain of sausage links.  It is a gift or acquired skill to be appreciated.

[Bart Bradley]

Bart, I have been to Lubbock and played Rawls and I think Tom answered your question with a better and more complete answer than I could have.  

 Aside from wind and gradual slope of the land, the land was featureless, (a feature in itself?) but that still requires thoughtful and creative routing within the new construction for the syncopated beats and groovy rhythms to be appreciated.  A golf course routing is not just an arbitrary tossing of a chain of sausage links.  It is a gift or acquired skill to be appreciated.

Slag:

Of course I was not being critical of the routing at the Rawls...I am amazed at the place.. but still have trouble understanding that there was some great pre-existing uniqueness to a nearly flat, featureless, treeless, moundless, duneless, waterless, viewless piece of property.  The Rawls is well routed and I don't think more could have been done at such a place and still have it feel fairly congruous with its environment.  The place is interesting in that the local soil will not drain and that maintaining the slight grade so the stormwater could "sheet across the property" was so important.

Bart

[John Kirk]

Thanks for the replies.  Much appreciated.

[Theresa Stotler]

Althouh we all would like to have the routing in a figure 8, but it seems that all routing usually meets and depends on the food and beverage aspect.  Another aspect in when the owner has decided to reverse the nines.

[Rich Goodale]

John:

Absolutely, the architect's mission should be to get the most out of the property.  

Interesting, Tom, but who defines what "the most" means, and by which criteria?

Rich

[Adam Clayman]

A wonderful example of best use would be to learn the differences between all the different architects routing plans for Sebonack.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think we are missing some pretty clear examples of a routing we would dislike.  It probably is not the designer's fault, however.  In a housing development where there are long distances between green and tee.  If I have to take a cart I generally won't go back to a course.  Sometimes, in order to get the most beautiful holes again there will be long trips from green to tee.  Stonehouse in VA is an example.  

[Bart Bradley]

I have only played Tidewater in Myrtle Beach one time and found many of the holes to be great...but I remember how distressing the routing was...Long, long distances between holes...I do not, however, know the limitations of the land/housing that the architect faced and it is possible that the current routing solution was the best...But it was distracting.

Bart

[Jerry Kluger]

Sometimes an owner/developer mandates that certain features of the property be part of the course even if it means a somewhat forced routing.  For example, look at Galloway -clearly the routing is forced to maximize the number of holes along the water.  The holes are fine but they force you to double back in order to get from one hole to another.  It may not be ideal but if you understand the reasoning then you can accept it.  To me, the holes along the water are okay but the better holes and property are not on the water.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have only played Tidewater in Myrtle Beach one time and found many of the holes to be great...but I remember how distressing the routing was...Long, long distances between holes...I do not, however, know the limitations of the land/housing that the architect faced and it is possible that the current routing solution was the best...But it was distracting.

Bart

Bart, Tadiwater was one of the courses I thought of.  It seemed that Tomlinson wanted water on each nine.  That is pure conjecture though.  But I found the routing very stsrange.

[cary lichtenstein]

Does the routing make the best use of the land?

How would one answer that if that question was asked at Kapalua?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()