News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2011, 03:52:47 PM »
Isn't it possible that there were even better holes out there but that he just couldn't use because they didn't work with the routings?

Now that is a scary thought...even better holes out there than currently exist

Patrick_Mucci

Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2011, 03:54:42 PM »
Isn't it possible that there were even better holes out there but that he just couldn't use because they didn't work with the routings?

Now that is a scary thought...even better holes out there than currently exist


That's what the constellation routing is all about.

There are 82 undeveloped holes, some of which may be superior to holes that comprise the current 18.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2011, 04:00:30 PM »
Patrick,

When did the composite course at TCC first happen? I guess I always thought it was done for the US Open, not for rankings initially.


Sean,

Whenever you see TCC ranked, in parentheses you'll see (composite course)

Rarely, if ever do you see any two of the nines (18) ranked.

While the composite may have been created for the Open, it's the course used for the rankings.

And, it's NOT just a composite course, but a mongrelized course where a par 4 and a par 3 are combined into one hole.
You play from the tee of one hole (par 4) to the green of another (par 3).

How can you justify ranking that kind of hybrid ?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2011, 11:50:32 PM »
Does anyone have a reproduction of the constellation routing that they could post ?

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #54 on: June 10, 2011, 08:58:24 AM »
Patrick. I would be very surprised if that could, or even should happen. Somewhere recently someone lamented the lack of pictures of Friar's Head. Similar principle here, if you want to see it, you must go there. Its only fair to the members and owner who pay for that privlidge. Tom Doak has made similar comments stating that there's a point where the tease of pictures goes to far and if people want to see, they must go.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Andy Troeger

Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #55 on: June 10, 2011, 09:18:51 AM »
Patrick,

When did the composite course at TCC first happen? I guess I always thought it was done for the US Open, not for rankings initially.


Sean,

Whenever you see TCC ranked, in parentheses you'll see (composite course)

Rarely, if ever do you see any two of the nines (18) ranked.

While the composite may have been created for the Open, it's the course used for the rankings.

And, it's NOT just a composite course, but a mongrelized course where a par 4 and a par 3 are combined into one hole.
You play from the tee of one hole (par 4) to the green of another (par 3).

How can you justify ranking that kind of hybrid ?


Patrick,
That's not really true. Only GolfWeek uses the composite course. Golf Magazine and Golf Digest use the Clyde/Squirrel combination for their respective lists.

Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #56 on: June 10, 2011, 10:04:26 AM »
To me, "ease of routing," and specifically the closeness of the next tee to the prior green, is one of the main distinctions between old architecture and modern.  I think that it is explained primarily by the fact that many of the modern courses are designed at least in part as housing projects (or, at least, were until the recent collapse of the  housing market).  Modern architects have been using about twice the total acreage that old course designers did--at least in part to allow for housing lots.  If you accept the fact that architects like Fazio and Nicklaus have been designing primarily for housing developments, then maybe we can say that they have done a reasonable job toward that objective; it's just that they can't be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to the old guys.  When a course is designed on a stand-alone basis without housing, such as Bandon Dunes, some of the modern designs hold up pretty well.
Certainly, I generally prefer the old courses to most of the modern ones, but is that a fair comparison given the constraints the modern guys have?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #57 on: June 10, 2011, 10:16:40 AM »
Adam,

You can't be serious.

The constellation routing is a framed diagram on the wall

In addition, Sand Hills is a private club, you have to be invited by a member, you just can't just decide that you're going to visit on your own.

As to Friar's Head, I doubt that you and many others really understand the underlying dynamics related to the photo ban.

Fortunately, I have some great  pictures that Ken Bakst took of me and a good friend, with some marvelous holes and vistas in the background.

As to the constellation routing, the only people I know that went on site and visited and viewed some of the constellation routing holes were some schmucks who piled into the back of a white pickup truck and paid a worker to give them a tour while Ran and I played another 18 holes. ;D

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #58 on: June 10, 2011, 10:37:14 AM »
Pat. That's my point. The diagram is on the wall and should not be reproduced and posted here. Were you serious when you ask for someone to do just that?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Patrick_Mucci

Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #59 on: June 10, 2011, 10:41:25 AM »
Adam,

Absolutely.

The constellation routing isn't a state secret, it' existence is in the public domain

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #60 on: June 10, 2011, 10:42:13 AM »
Jim Hoak. I disagree with giving the moderns a pass due to housing considerations. It is apples to apples because many of the GA designs were in fact housing develepments. Crystal Downs, Pebble Beach, Pasatiempo etc.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #61 on: June 10, 2011, 03:15:31 PM »
Adam--I know it's not 100% either way, but don't you agree that housing development has been a more important consideration in design in recent years?  And I'm not proposing giving the modern designers a pass, just pointing out that on average the housing element is a more important consideration than it used to be.  And, don't most course acrhitects have to please a customer, who often drives the result of the design to fit their own business needs?

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #62 on: June 11, 2011, 10:57:53 AM »
Jim, Since I was on my blackberry I couldn't be more concise. My point was that since the GA designers were able to create compelling walking courses, inside of the housing considerations, compared to the modern versions, the moderns are gonna lose in any comparison.

It's turned out many courses aren't in the golf biz, they're in the cart rental biz. A sad reality if you are evaluating the merits of the gca. Because, routings are the key factor in a course being considered quality.

Yes, some archies have done very respectable housing jobs on tight properties, but most of the typical, are just collections of holes which often fail to feel like a golf course. The disruptions are too frequent and the aesthetic along with liability fears, do little to put the golfer at peace, and, at one with nature. While the homeowners are the only ones who get to feel that way as they gaze out over their verdant vista bought and paid for with 3% down and are likely now 35% under water.

I've been on this site for a long time. I was, from the beginning, a ranter against the era, where gc construction was for all the wrong reasons. Housing being a major one, but it boiled down to just someone elses greed. Why? Because once the houses were sold and the developer was on a beach earning 20%, the courses weren't compelling enough to continue to attract enough play to survive as stand alones. 

If you have the financial means to build a course, it should be for only one reason, the love of it. Not the cash.
 The developer deciding to use the best ground for the housing, was where the architect, should've put his foot down. (I know, I know peoples gots to eat)
But,
I'm of the mindset that if one person can do it, than others can too. So, comparing all housing development courses is a reasonable exercise, regardless of their era. I'm also a believer in learning from the mistakes of others, so in that way, you are right. all those crappy housing development courses have served their purpose. They tell people not to buy into this type of failed model. Naturally, there are exceptions, and some are very lucrative, but, each project should stand alone and the quality of it can be discussed by us geeks. (Another reason an Industry mindset shouldn't exist. But I'll spare you of that rant)

"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #63 on: June 11, 2011, 11:18:22 AM »
As my father-in-law said, buy on the ocean, as they can always build another golf course.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Patrick_Mucci

Re: "Golfweek" - "Ease of routing"
« Reply #64 on: June 11, 2011, 11:30:24 AM »
Adam,

Sometimes the land ceded to the architects by the developers, determines the product.

One might even look at Sebonack and the location of the parking lot and cabins.

That land, which would seem to be perfect for locating a golf hole/s became unavailable, thus handicapping the architect's ability to maximize the sites potential.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back