Simplified "Michelin" criteria, with some examples

[ForkaB]

Great Golf Course Architecture

Criteria

1.   Wholeness.  A “course.”  This is to say something that flows, naturally and seamlessly, over the land.  Tee to green to tee to green, etc.
2.   WYSIWYG.  What you see is what you get.  Holes which, even if partially blind, make it clear, from their topography and the placement of hazards and the green, what the risks and rewards are of shots of varying intensity across varying angles.
3.   Subtle deceptions.  Within the context of 2 above, the addition of little tricks which reward experience, require you to think, and punish you if you do not.
4.   Diversity.  A mixture of shot values required, in terms of clubs to be used and the shape of the shots to be executed with those clubs.
5.   Greens which accommodate both the aerial game and the ground game.
6.   Greens which give higher rewards to properly executed “aerial” shots, with commensurately higher risk.
7.   “Lines of charm” closely linked to hazards.  Rough which borders the “fast lane” off the tee.  Greenside bunkers which eat into the putting surface.
8.   A balance between the use of bunkers and swales and rough and natural watercourses as “hazards.”
9.   Greens which have at least 4 good-excellent pin positions, and which allow alternate ways of approaching possible pins.
10.   Gut feel. You can’t always define a 3*** course, but you know one when you see one.

3*** Courses meet all of these criteria, in substantial part or in full
2**   Courses meet most of the criteria in full, but have some deficiencies
1*     Courses meet some of the criteria in full, and some or all partially, but have significant deficiencies

I have, over the past 3 months been privileged to play 5 of the best courses in the world.  Here is how I would rate them, using these criteria, in the order I played them.

Royal Dornoch—clearly 3***.  Arguably the greatest course in the world (the more I play other great courses, the stronger this feeling is to me).
Olympic Club (Lake)—a strong 2**.  Could be a 3*** if the club spent as much time shaving the green surrounds as they do shaving the fairways at Open time.
Kingsbarns, Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes—adolescent 2**’s.  Sometimes showing the incredible vigor and promise of youth, sometimes showing a bit of teenage angst and awkwardness.  All potentially 3*** courses with some years of maturity and continuing loving care.

I shall hopefully be playing 2-3 other comparable courses next month and will report back after I have had a chance to reflect.

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

What are the features at Royal Dornoch that elevate it in your eyes to a higher class grouping than PacDunes? Or I suppose, put another way, what features do you find lacking at PacDunes to where you think it should be in a lower class than RD?

Cheers,

[ForkaB]

Ran

1.  Wholeness.  RDGC is a course.  PD's routing is much more contrived and convoluted.
2.  WYSIWYG.  Far too many blind or semi-blind shots at PD (i.e. often don't see the fairway, rarely see the bottom of the flag).
6.  Not clear how (or if possible) to hit aerial shots to some positions on some holes (e.g. short right on #1, long left on #12, etc.)
7.  PD ain't bad on this criterion (although its greenside bunkering is relatively tame), but RDGC is soooo good
8.  Overuse of bunkers at PD.  The "swale" hazards there (e.g. right of 6 and 16 green) are very much inferior to those at 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18 at RDGC.
10. I know I am biased, but this is what I feel......

PD is a great course, and could be greater (get rid of the top #9 green and the complimentary lower #10 tee for a starter).  It's just not ready for the patheon of htre Gods, yet........  IMHO.

Rich

PS--How about a new clubhouse/pub at the site of the current upper 9th green?  Start the course with 2 par 3's (current 10 and 11).  Take advantage of the fact that the most of the best holes on the course come early on (now) and are inland (e.g. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 16, 18),  Now, that would take some cojones!

[ForkaB]

....that should, of course have read "not ready for the pantheon of the Gods, yet" of course.......

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Gee, can't say I agree with much of what you say about Pacific Dunes. Is RD influencing your opinion of PD somehow? What in the world is wrong with some blindness or semi-blindness? Royal County Down is probably the king of all the "in your face tee shot blindness" and it's a ball to play. I was a bit ambivalent about blindness until I saw that place. One would think I would have been shocked at the extent of it but came home with a newfound love for blindness! So what's your aversion to  blindness or semi-blindness?

Pacific Dunes is a convoluted and contrived routing? Huh? There are a couple of spots that are odd and longish green to tee walks like the cross-over from #11 across #5 to #12 but so what? The course is routed on a north/south axis and doesn't exactly "box the compass" all the well, I admit but what the hell, plenty of great courses are sort of long and narrow and don't either-like NGLA and how about TOC? There's enough to do with the wind in any case to get too concerned about that?

Overuse of bunkers at Pacific Dunes?? Now that one sure never occured to me!! Hope you don't think he overused some natural ground contours, like on #16.

And why don't you like the alternate green on #9? I believe the alternate tee boxes on #10 have something to do with that. I'm not real sure I would let an optional tee box have too much influence on what I think about the architecture of a golf course either.

But I've definitely got to go see Royal Dornoch! The best golf course in the world in your opinion? I knew it was really good but the best in the world? Have you seen Pine Valley, Rich, I can't really remember?

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I like your criteria, plus or minus a few. But weren't you complaining about the granular aspects of the Doak 10 point system? Perhaps you could really streamline the process by expanding the criteria to twenty and reducing the stars to two -- good or bad.

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

What about Dornoch's lack of quality three shotters in general? Don't holes like 3 and 18 at PacDunes lend the course variety not found at Dornoch?

What about PacDunes superior interior green contours?

What about PacDunes superior firm and fast playing conditions?

While acknowledging that 5 at Dornoch is a world class hole, what about the superiority of PacDunes drive and pitch holes (1,6, and 16) compared to Dornoch's (1,5, and 15)?

What about that the preponderance of the least inspiring holes of the thirty-six (7, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 16 holes from Dornoch and 12, 15 from PacDunes) come from Royal Dornoch?

What about Dornoch's lack of central hazards? Even its best holes (3, 5, and 14) are clear sailing down the length of their fairways.

And on a non-architectural note, what about the fact that visitors at PacDunes can choose what set of tees to play but are herded toward forward tees at RD? What course are we evaluating at Royal Dornoch - from the glorious top tee on the 5th hole or from a much lower and less inspiring tee?

Cheers,

PS Could you please explain your point #6? Are you saying that the golfer should have the "right" to always get an aerial approach shot close??

PPS Also could you please explain why the swale hazards at PD are "very much inferior" to those at RD? For ease of comparison, for instance, I fail to see why the slope to the right of the 6th green at PacDunes is inferior to/any less effective than the slope to the right of the 6th at RD.

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom Paul, According to my universally loved and accepted   match play system , Pine Valley wins 1,2,7,8,9,10,13,15,16,17,and 18.
PV halves holes 4,11,and 12 and loses holes 5 and 14 to Dornoch. Holes 3 and 6 I would also halve but those in the Dornoch camp would lobby for a victory on either or both. Regardless, it's not too close on a hole for hole basis.

There are four courses that have to be grouped above all others and Dornoch's not one of 'em.

[Paul Turner]

Rich

I can kind of see what you mean when comparing the flow of the two course, but I don't really see PD's routing as convoluted, I see it as having different moods; the routing surprises but doesn't jar.  

I've only played half of PD and walked the rest and wasn't struck by too much blindness.  How many fairways are blind/ half blind? 1,9,16,18

Maybe there are a few too many "show" bunkers on 13 and 14.

PS

What do you give Sandwich and Rye?

[ForkaB]

Tom P

Firstly, let me restate that I think that both PD and BD are GREAT courses--a credit to both their designers and to Mike Keiser.  I only started this thread to provoke some discussion, and also because Tom Doak, on another thread, said that he wanted to know how PD compared to Dornoch (and other top courses such as PV, etc.).  Vis a vis your questions:

It's been some time since I played RCD, but I don't remember as much blindness as at PD.  (BTW, I give Newcastle a solid 3***).  To me, all other things being equal, a golf shot where you can see (or at least visualize) what you need to do is "better" than one which requires prior knowledge.

In terms of routing, this is just one of my own personal pet peeves, which I have tried to explain before in discriminating between a "course" and a "collection of golf holes."  Both PD and BD suffer from an "embarrasment of riches" in that they had so much land to play with I get the feeling that they went out to find the best holes rather than the best routing.  They feel less like a "course" than Dornoch, RCD, Pebble Beach, etc.  TOC is very much a "course."  Not sure of your point there.

In terms of bunkering, one of the really neat things about PD is sort of "art gallery" of bunkers, both on hte course and in pklaces you would never imagine, such as in hte rouhg and on he walks between tees and greens.  They are a tour do force.  Strategically, however, they are overused, IMHO.

The top green on #9 is OK, but it is repetitive, in that most of the greens at PD are put on dunes or upslopes requiring a semi-blind up hill shot.  The lower #9 green is refreshing in that it offers the only true downhill shot on the course.  It should be made permanent, again IMHO.

In terms of RDGC, I did use the qualifer "arguably."  My position as a member is hardly non-biased, but I do think that it is, overall, a slightly "better" course than the other 3*** courses I have played, including Pebble, Newcastle, Muirfield, Sandwich, Carnoustie, etc.  I have not played Pine Valley, and I'm very much willing to consider that, if and when I do play it, I might well prefer it to Dornoch, given what you and many others have said.

Let's recognize, however, that to compare Dornoch to Pacific Dunes or Pine Valley or Bandon Duens is splitting hairs--but that's what we're all about, isn't it?

Cheers

Rich

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

A scholar like you knows, of course, the difference between criteria and rankings, whether they be "granular" or not.  My "Michelin" ratings have "soft" granularity--3 categories for the top 300-500 courses in the world(1*-3***), another for the next 2-3000 courses (0*) and one for all the others ("Avoidable").

Let me know what other criteria I missed.  I just did this off the top of my head and would be sincerely interested in your thoughts.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

How many days did you say you could be in Philly? Two? Might have to schedule more than Merion!

I'm also not too sure what you mean by a "course" compared to a routing of a collection of holes like you say PD is. Do you mean that on some of the holes at PD you feel separated from the other holes? If not, what do you mean? I must say that in my time at PD I was never too sure exactly where I was on the course at any particular time but I see nothing wrong with that--matter of fact I really liked that feeling.

Since I did have that feeling I asked TomD to draw me a quick stick routing and he whipped one out on the back of a piece of paper in about two minutes which of course I put away in a safe place.

I was amazed at how narrow PD is! And you're right about the course not "boxing the compass" if that's a detraction to you. As best as I can remember only one hole routes east and no hole routes dead west that I can think of. Which direction does #18 go--west, southwest or south? If #17 routes east, #18 must be mostly west!

Don't you love this website?

[ForkaB]

Ran

Watch out!  You're jeopardizing your right to sit in the Morrissett bench on the 11th at Dornoch!

I think I've made my points regarding your reasonable criticisms of RDGC before, but I'll repeat them for new listeners.

RDGC does lack "real" 3-shotters, although if the wind was against on the inward nine, nobody on this site could reach either "par"-5 in two, and most would have trouble getting it up to 11, 14 and 18 too.

I respectfully state thatRDGC has:

--much better (although much more subtle) green contours than PD
--plays much faster and firmer
--has FAR superior short 4's

Both courses do have "uninspiring" holes--PD a few more than you acknowledge, and RDGC a few less.  RDGC has more "inspiring" holes, IMHO.

Becuase RDGC's fairways are EFFECTIVELY so narrow--try to hit the 3rd or 4th, or the fast lanes on the 7th, 9th, 12th, 16th and 18th in summer conditions--they do not need middle fairway hazards.

Vis a vis tees, we played the "back" tees at PD, but at every hole there were at least 2 tees behind where we were allowed to play.

Can't comment on your "match" vis a vis PV, as I haven't been there.  All I do know is that I have not met any person who has played both courses (we haven't met yet, of course ) who puts PV categorically above RDGC, and I've met some people who have done otherwise.

Vis a vis my criterion #6.  Consider "Foxy".  In the summer if the pin is on the left there is no way that mortals can fly the ball in and hold the green.  However, great players can do so.  I saw Watson do so, downwind.  Don't confuse our frailties with what makes good shot calues for the experts.

The swale below 6 at PD is so much easier than the swale below 6 at RDGC as to be ludicrous.  However, you may not have that comparison to make for much longer as the swale at 6 PD (sa well as 16 PD)is getting hacked up pretty badly due to its too concentrated collection areas, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some earth and/or sand moving taking place there in the near future.

Paul T

I give both Rye and Sandwich 3***.

Rich

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

Which course do you think can change the most from day to day based on course set-up?

Does Dornoch have a prevailing summer and a winter wind ala PacDunes?

I think we both agree that PacDunes has greater width off the tee - does that translate into more playing angles? And does that in turn mean that the golfer is faced with more decisions/choices to evaluate at PacDunes? How would you compare the courses from a strategic point of view?

Cheers,

PS I am DELIGHTED to hear that Dornoch is once again playing fast and firm.

[Paul Turner]

I agree with Rich regarding the central hazards.  Dornoch uses the best "hazard" of all, fairway slope and undulation, to perfection.  No need to clutter this up with bunkers.

[Ran Morrissett]

Paul,

It seems to me that PacDunes enjoys equally superb topo but having such fairway bunkers as on the 2nd and 3rd holes only add to the overall mix and variety that the golfer faces. Or put another way, while the 2nd fairway at PacDunes is chock full of interesting movement, I am sure glad they still created the Shoe bunker and its mate on the left.

As for Dornoch, for instance, couldn't a properly placed small Principal's Nose type fairway bunker cut into the hillside help make the drive on the 16th at Dornoch become of more interest?

Rich,

How would you construct an argument that Dornoch's 1st, 5th, and 15th are "FAR superior" drive and pitch holes to the 1st, 6th, and 16th at PacDunes? What features make them so?

Cheers,

[ForkaB]

Ran

I'll move backwards this time.

To say "that Dornoch's 1st, 5th, and 15th are "FAR superior" drive and pitch holes to the 1st, 6th, and 16th at PacDunes" was just me getting into the spirit of your hyperbole  .  I think the 1st at PD is a great little hole--very different, but not any better than the 1st at RDGC.  The 6th and 16th at PD are also good, but both need some work on the green complexes.  5 and 15 at RDGC are two of the best short 4's in the world--all IMHO, of course.

16 at RDGC does not need any sort of mid-fairway bunker.  If you hit the ball long enough the fairway turns out to be very narrow and the quarry very much in play.  Most good players hit 1 or 2-iron off the tee when anything important is at stake.

I think the widths of the two courses are similar.  At RDGC, much of this width is rough or shared fairway, offerring the same range of angles as at PD.  For both courses, there are lines of charm which militate against the seeming width.

Dornoch does not have a summer or winter wind, per se (but then again, neither does PD, in my brief experience--the only wind we saw last week was a mild "winter" one).  You can have polar opposites at RDGC from day to day, and even during the day (the winds often change with the tides).  Because of this, I would say that Dornoch changes more from day to day.  I don't see the playing characteristics of either course varying significantly from day to day based on "set up" alone.

Rich

PS--Dornoch has been playing fast and firm for 2-3 years now, and I wouldn't call PD particularly f&f by GBI standards, at lesat as it played last week.

Cheers

[kilfara]

I agree with Rich about the relative lack of firmness/fastness at PD this past week. In addition to the sponginess of the turf at PD (dry by typical American standards but wet by linksland British standards), the worst sin at the moment at both PD/BD is the taller-than-fairway-height grass between the fairways and the greens. I find it hard to believe that this is anything more than a temporary oversight, because if it is, it certainly detracts from the ground-game aspects of the experience. By the end of my three days at PD/BD I'd decided that it was necessary to chip most shots from 2-10 yards from the green instead of putt them (as I'd normally do on any linksland course and a fair number of Americanized courses as well). Rather frustrating. (The lack of firmness also make nos. 4 and 7 at PD virtually unreachable for me, possible tailwinds notwithstanding.)

Tom Paul: do you really think PD is narrow? It felt narrow relative to BD (which, by the way, I'm told has been widened significantly since it opened), but at the same time I can't think of a single drive where there wasn't ample width available.

At the moment I think I'd rather play PD every day than RDGC. But I reserve the right to change my mind!   I also like the PD vs. Royal County Down comparison - that's the first linksland connection I instinctively made with PD, rather than Dornoch, although now that I think about it PD probably plays a bit more like RDGC than RCD.

I know what Rich is saying about "show bunkers" at PD, although I would stress that the "bunkers" at no. 13 are mostly refinements to a natural dune. The out-of-the-way bunkers at PD sure seem less over-the-top than, say, no. 18 at Castle Pines.

Ran, why don't you like nos. 12 and 13 at Dornoch?

Cheers,
Darren

[Ran Morrissett]

Darren,

12 and 13 are fine links holes but nothing special or different and not why you trek up to Dornoch. They aren't inspiring in the same sense as many of the other holes there.

Rich,

I was last at Dornoch in December 1997 and the conditions that year had become so soft and "Americanized" that the locals advised against bothering to play it. Instead, I was introduced to Brora in a delightful turn of events.

[ForkaB]

Ran

You managed to get to Dornoch at about the worst time for firm and fast--winter time, when it is always wetter and slower and 1997 which is just before the new greenskeeping regime came in.  Try it again next summer.  (BTW, are you sure it wasn't me you talked to in 1997?  I'm about the only "local" there who likes Brora! )

Tom P

My definition of "course" does in fact relate to "connectedness" or lacke of separation between holes.  I recognize that others disagree on this point, but to me a golf course that flows naturally and you can see where you are going and where you have been is preferable to one where each hole is an island unto itself.  PD is somewhat in between on this criterion--most parts flow pretty well, but there is a major disconnect between 11 and 12.

In terms of "boxing the compass" neither PD nor RDGC have as much directional variety as BD, say, but both have enough subtle changes in direction to make this not a problem for me.

Cheers

Rich

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I'd put more emphasis on the thought provoking/strategic virtues than seen in your #2. I'd also include how well the course fits into its environment, not only how the course integrates into the natural site but also how well from a stylistic viewpoint it reflect the vernacular traditions of its local -- does it effectively draw inspiration from history.

Along with strategy, I'd put more emphasis on variety -- are the par-3's, par-4s and par-5s all of differing character, is variety reflected in the use of hazards--on the perimeter, through the fairway, as well as perpendicular and diagonal cross-hazards. And variety in the nature of the holes--down hill, up hill, on ridges, through valleys, up and over, down and up, straight and all sorts of bending and dog legs. I'd also put greater emphasis on the green complexes (which could have 10 criteria of its own), they many times define the design of a hole and normally seperate the great from the good designs.

Most well-designed courses exhibit interesting contrasts -- natural & man-made(this is not easily done), good and bad--they exhibit some kind quirkisness, an uncoventional or unorthodox hole or feature, and I have no problem with an occasional 'bad' hole - it tells me that design is working with the site or is total acceptance of the site. The design reflects and is subordinate to nature. And last but not least - Flat Tees.

My last thought has nothing to do with the criteria, but is something that has occured to me in recent years and that is it is unwise to judge or evaluate or draw any clear  conclusions of a course shortly after playing it. Well maybe it is in fact another criteria -- digestion and memory.

[TEPaul]

First of all if the conditions of a golf course like PD last week aren't particularly firm and fast I certainly wouldn't hold that against its architecture and start to call various holes less than good architecturally because of it. To do a really good architectural analysis you've just got to look beyond that and estimate how it might be in firmer conditions.

I very much ran into that sort of thing a few weeks ago at Portrush, which was firm and fast but did not really have what I would call the perfect "maintenance meld" (Portrush was also going through a maintenance cycle of aeriated and sanded greens). But I believe they could speed up things by cutting down lower the length of their chipping areas and such and maybe even increasing them here and there as has County Down. But these things I don't consider the golf course's archtitecture--just it maintenance practices. County Down's architecture is what it is but their "maintenance meld" when I was there was about as good as it can get for what its  architecture is and really made the little nuances of its architecture shine (lights turned up full)! RCD has made the dedicated effort to go out and get a really good super, in their opinion. They have really put much thought and effort into how the course is maintained to highlight its inherent architecture. This is super fun to play and really allows someone like me (who isn't that familiar with it) to see the little things about the architecture easily. It is less easy to do at Portrush but it's up to me to make the effort anyway to see its inherent architecture and how really good maintenance practices can make it shine.

PD should be looked at the same way if it was not firm and fast--every course has its seasonal "playabiliites" and that has little or nothing to do with its architecture, in my opinion!

Darren:

The "playing areas" of PD are exceptionally wide and that is one of the interests and assets of the course, in my opinion. I estimated the total fairway area might be almost 75 acres but Doak said it was more like 55 acres.

When I said that PD was "narrow", I meant the routing is narrow not the fairways or playing areas. Maybe you've never seen a routing scheme of PD--it's quite long and narrow (as is NGLA).

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

All very good points.  To me, most of my criteria relate to the ability of a course to test a player's ability to develop and execute gofling strateiges.  I am less concerned that there be quantifiable diversity (i.e. a gamut of hole lengths and pars) than on qualitative diversity (my criterion #4.  The "naturalness" criterion is a very good one that I would add to my list.  And, of course--flat tees (you would be shocked at the number of 1/2-1 degree slopes that I measured with my Matt Ward Memorial Spirit Level on some of the tees at PD!

Vis a vis early comments vs. digestion and time, it's not an either/or proposition to me.  I'll continue to think about my experience in Bandon for some time and will remember more things the more I hear others talk about the place.  Hopefully I will go back there sometime, but I may not, realistically.  So, I'm happy to give my first impressions now, while they are still fresh--as long as I can retain the right to change them as I reflect and mature and improve--as will PD and BD, surely.

[Matt_Ward]

Rich:

Thanks for acknowledging my contribution to GCA about the "Matt Ward Memorial Spirit Level" for tees.

Geez Rich -- last I checked I still have a pulse. You may want to drop the "Memorial" part for now.

Thanks for the plug!!!

P.S. When I played Pac Dunes in August I generally found the tees to be very good in most areas.

Regards,

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

How would you compare Cypress Point to Royal Dornoch based on the criteria in your first post?

Cheers,