[Philip Gawith]

Somewhere on this site, these are said to be:

-wind
- sand based property with rolling topography
- holes of strategic interest
- mostly treeless environment
- uniformly firm playing conditions.

I have paraphased slightly, but that is the gist.

Do we all agree with that list? How should we weigh the different factors? I would assume that depending on the site, the architect's contribution might fluctuate considerably, and maybe the greenkeeper's too?

I would also have thought that there are quite a few highly regarded courses where trees are a strong feature and wind a relatively modest feature. Although this list captures my own sympathies, is it maybe a little too biased towards links type courses ?

[Philippe Binette]

Sexy looking bunkers (just kidding)

A great set of greens is to me the most important

[ForkaB]

Philip

Four of the five elements relate to the site rather than the course.  There are more than a few courses which have been built on great sites, but are not great courses.  Brora (much as I love it) come to mind.

There are also great courses which are not built on particularly great sites.  Merion and most of the heathland courses around London, for example.

I don't think those five elements (whoever wrote them, even if it was me!) cut it.  There is a je ne sais quoi about what makes an "ideal" golf course, and I do not think anybody has bettered what somebody else here (and it wasn't Tom Paul ) once said to the effect of Potter Stewarts comment on pornographby, namely:

"I can't define it but I know it when I see it!"

[Tony_Muldoon]

That’s a great definition Rich and it has cleared up something in my mind.

I completely agree and disagree with it.  It’s the best possible definition, it’s completely meaningless.

The Canadian journalist and broadcaster Robert Cushman used to have a series called ‘Book, Music and Lyrics’ on the BBC. They remain, for me, the benchmark for radio documentaries. At Christmas they used to let him just play music and the explanation given for choosing his selections was:

‘they all have something special, you can’t define it, but you know it when you hear it.”

(when you posted above the penny dropped as to the reference)

Hence he would select a version of a song sung by Sinatra rather than, e.g., one by Vic Damone.  This works fine when you are simpatico to Cushman’s taste and who wouldn’t be? He had encyclopaedic knowledge of his subject, had excellent references (was a theatre reviewer for the Observer and wrote on Music for the Independent), and simply great taste. I discovered more great new music through those programmes than any other single source.  

However before long somebody, whose opinions on this site I have come to respect, could try and convince me that Vic Damone is (was?) a great singer and I’m not going to buy it.

I agree that I know it when I see it but I don’t agree that I will always see the same as you.

[Lou_Duran]

Rich,

There are numerous exceptions, but don't you think that for the most part, the site makes the golf course?  And going a bit further, does the climate and weather not make the site?

Not many sufficiently populated places (for golf) have all or most of the elements Philip suggests.  There are many outstanding courses which have been built on sites lacking three or four of these.  

I would not include the lack of trees in my list.  Too many sites depend on other natural features (including trees) to overcome less ideal site conditions (sand dunes, creeks, elevation change, etc.) and generous budgets.

The elements I would add to those above include the club founders, the architect (s), superintendent, and green committee/membership.  In fact, to guarantee a truly ideal course, I would tend to put these at the front of my list.

[Philip Gawith]

  And going a bit further, does the climate and weather not make the site?

Lou - I am not sure that the top links sites are made by the weather. True, you need the wind to see them at their best, but the rest of the weather inflicted upon you is just salt in the wound.

As for your additional factors, I think the role of the architect and greenkeeper are clearly captured in the third and fifth of the points above.

Which are the sites you have front of mind which you feel lack many of the five factors?

[Lou_Duran]

PG,

Really long-term climatic conditions account for many of the characteristics we find desirable in land for golf.  The formation of dunes is just one.

Weather conditions likewise have a large impact at such places as Sand Hills and many of the Monterey courses.  Even in sandy soils, drainage issues arise.  What would Pacific Dunes be like without rain and wind?

MacKenzie's axiom regarding uniform playing conditions is largely utopian, at least at the places I've been able to visit.  I've yet to play at Bandon in decent weather, but it may be one of those places.

All holes have some strategic interest.  Some architects like Doak and C&C seem to bring more of these into play than others throughout the golf course (from tee to and including the green).

There are many examples of wonderful courses in less than ideal sites.  Right here in Dallas, Dallas National comes to mind.  Colonial CC in Fort Worth is another.  The Scarlet course at OSU and Rawls at Texas Tech are couple of others.  How about Harbour Town in Hilton Head?  

[John Kirk]

Phillip,

I think walkability must be added as one of the five most important elements of the ideal golf course.  Of the five elements you have listed, holes of strategic interest seems to me to be the most important.

[Philip Gawith]

Lou - I misunderstood the time frame you were talking about re climate. I agree re their long term impact.

Which is the Mackenzie axiom to which you refer? Excuse ignorance.

John - interested re your comment on walkability. Is this the biggest single difference in playing golf in the US and elsewhere? I have been playing golf for nearly 30 years, mostly in the UK and South Africa, but also in Europe and a bit in the States. I am pretty sure that less than 5% of the golf I have played has involved using buggies (and this would be overwhelmingly in resort courses in Spain, Portugal and US) - so it just escapes my frame of reference.  I just take walking for granted. But we are in agreement - deprived of being able to walk, i would be unhappy!

[Lou_Duran]

PG,

As it is written, last, but certainly not least:

"The course should be equally good during the winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens."

I agree that walkability is an important characteristic of an ideal course.  However, what is walkable is very subjective and relative.  Pasatiempo's routing normally gets good marks, yet I think it is a difficult walking course.  Ditto for Augusta National.  RTJ Trails Links course at Grand Natl. has a couple very long stretches between holes including a bridge over the main lake, but I didn't have a hard time walking it twice in a 24 hour period.

Personally, if it is a choice between using the best natural features of the land or making the routing compact, I'd opt for the former every time.  A little walking hurts no one, and there are always ways of making up time.  

[Sean Walsh]

One of the highlights of Barnbougle Dunes is the longest walk between holes on the course.  From the back of the 4th to the 5th tee maybe 100metres.

Like Philip's South African golfers upbringing, the Australian Golf experience generally has not included carts (though they are becoming more prevalent and accepted now - more's the pity)  This is especially so for those like me who grew up in rural areas.  

I personally wouldn't quibble with the 5 elements listed.  I can see how those exposed to golf in a different way to myself would baulk at the lack of trees.  Tree lined fairways is what many people recognise as being the normal golf experience.  

[Philip Gawith]

As a matter of interest, the "five classic elements" appear at the end of the course review on Prairie Dunes, so I assume they are Ran's views.

[Tom_Doak]

Philip:

Years ago, a construction supervisor friend of mine (who had no formal training in the business, but worked for Pete Dye from age 19) went to the annual superintendents' show, and sat in on the end of a class on Golf Course Architecture taught by Geoffrey Cornish.

At the end there was a test, and the first question on the test was, "What three surveys are the most important aspects of site analysis?"  I think he was looking for topography, vegetation, and hydrology.

My friend's answer was "the land, the owner, and the money."  As I said, he was a practical guy!

Over the years I have come to think he was probably right on.  You need two of those three things to be really good in order to succeed.  If you haven't got good property, you'd better have a great client with a lot of money.  If you've got great property, you may be able to build the course on a shoestring, but you're still in trouble if you don't have the client's complete faith and trust.

Every site has its own charms which ought to be exploited.  The life of construction is much easier on sand, but if that's all we looked at, we would not have taken on Stonewall, Cape Kidnappers, Stone Eagle, or Rock Creek.

[David Druzisky]

Toms trifecta makes a lot of sense especially thinking back to past projects.  You could probably add a little devine intervention.

I think an analogy that works would be to look at each opportunity/project as a different dish and you are the cook.  You are a good cook and you know you can make a lot of great different dishes.  Each requires a different recipe and different ingredients.

We try to narrowly define things to often.

DbD

[Philip Gawith]

Your friend was a poet Tom, not just a practical guy. That is a very amusing anecdote.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()