[Jon Wiggett]

Just read a post in another thread about Colt where he states

“The quantity of land required depends very largely upon its shape, as if square it will be very difficult to use up satisfactorily, but a strip two hundred yards in width is easier to deal with, especially if somewhat circular.”

Many of the modern courses are built on squarish pieces. Is this due to the returning after 9 holes design? What do you think is the best shape of land and why?

[Philippe Binette]

depends on land settlement... has stupid has it may sounds...

the british way of land settlement in america was a pattern of square of something around 800 yards x 800 yards... If you go out and buy a land, you'll end up buying square piece of land...

[Mike Nuzzo]

I like a trapezoid (Seminole) and think a square can yield a very nice course.
They lead to more efficient (use up satisfactorily) triangulation.

A circle the right width would lend to nice subtle change of directions - maybe he was describing an arc not a circle - a large circle is usually not efficient - depending on size...

[TEPaul]

Personally, I don't think the actual shape (if looked at from the air) has all that much to do with it. On a property of sufficient size if good and interesting features and ground can be found that essentially produces eighteen good holes with good balance and variety well strung together you can produce a good course.

I think this can be virtually proven if one compares the vastly varied shapes (from the air) of the long recognized really good courses out there.

I also think the flipside of this fact is how different the overall routing shape seems to some people when they do see it from the air even after a long familiarity with the course on the ground. I will never forget, for instance, how suprised I was to see NGLA from the air and how narrow it basically is thoughout (mostly not much more than two holes wide pretty much all along it somewhat winding length). For some reason it doesn't really feel that way to me on the ground and probably because the sequence seems to keep turning.

[Scott Witter]

I could care less what the land shape looks like from the air, not picking on you Tom or any one else.  The 'shape' or configuration means little and has only minor influence on routing a course unless one is given a "smallish" and/or confined/defined property to work with.  Of course if an architect finds remarkable features and contour in a wedged section of the land, but it's only 100-150 yards wide, then this could challenge routing options and some sacrifices may need to be made.  Many of the latest courses built by C&C, Doak, Nicklaus, Norman and even Nuzzo's Wolf Pointe, have had oodles of land to choose from and the focus on the routing involves finding the best contours and natural features to work with the hole sequence the designer feels is the best based on the development model, the market, or the simply the very best golf one can find, irrelavent of the 2D shape of the property.

On the other hand, if the architect is given a set, or confined 200 acre parcel, then sure the shape can easily play a big role in routing options.  Couple that with elevational issues such as steep slopes, ravines, or environmental issues such as water ways or wetlands, etc., then the quality via the shape and character by 3D constraints will often be reflected in the strength of the routing, depending on who is doing the routing.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont think it makes much difference if its a lot of acreage, although if its a smaller parcel then they are better squared. 700yards x700yards is just about 100 acres, although 1000 x500 is a nice econmical slab.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()