[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I didn't want to distract from your reviews of courses in the northern plains, so I started this thread independently.  I'll be happy to retitle it if you want.

I would agree with you that in an ideal world, routing holes in a complete variety of directions is a plus.  But Sutton Bay isn't a flat landscape like The Rawls Course, where you could run holes any way you want to.  Did you see great holes lying fallow across the line of play?  Or is it possible that Mr. Marsh found the best route for building golf holes?  

Is changing directions sooooooo important that it's the difference between Sutton Bay being a 7 and a 9 on the Matt Ward scale?  (If so, then are Royal Troon and Royal Dornoch and Western Gailes and North Berwick and the Old Course at St. Andrews all 7's as well?)

Matt, I have no stake in your opinion of Sutton Bay, so I am taking up the point now where it is clear I don't have any personal interest.  

As an architect, it is incredibly frustrating to go out and build what we believe are the best golf holes a site has to offer, only to be confronted by a panelist who has a "checklist" of what the perfect 18 holes should provide.  Interesting sites sometimes have natural features which require a quirky routing; in my mind these differences should be celebrated instead of marked down.

Arranging the four par-3 holes in different directions is another of those "checklist" items which I believe people pay too much attention to.  What I want is four great short holes which are all different than each other.  If two of them happen to be in the same direction, I don't lose sleep over it, I just pay extra attention to making them different architecturally.  [Ironically, Muirfield, which you mentioned as the cat's meow of wind use in general, is marked down by some critics because it has three short holes which play in the same direction.]

So what are the other items on your personal checklist?  If we knew clearly what the criteria were, we would know how much stock each of us should put into your ratings.

[DMoriarty]

I agree wholeheartedly.  Why should the direction matter if the holes present different challenges and conditions?

[RJ_Daley]

I think that Mark's statement about observing the wind for many months and seasons prior to final routing was a key to the functionality of the course.  Mark said that after many months and seasons, there really wasn't a predominant wind day after day.  I would imagine that there are winds that are about 50% of time out of the south to southwest, 30% west and north west and 15% from the north and the remaining 5% from northeast or southeast.  I'd like to hear if that is roughly what Mark found in his long term observations.  

If that is the case, then any north south route of out and back 9s ought to give a pretty good variety for those who repeat play.  And after all, it is a private club presumable dominated by repeat players time after time.  So they ought to get to see many facets of the courses character after 20 rounds or so...

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom, I agree that a so called checklist can take away from or cause one to mark down a course when it would otherwise not be right. I always look for shot values, hole variety and balance over such things as all three par 3's going different directions.

[TEPaul]

I'd hope these panelists and their ratings and rankings would just be disregarded more than they have been. The "checklist mentality" Tom Doak mentioned on here, is, at best, another prescription for formulaics in architecture, in my opinion. But my opinion and rating and ranking is like oil and water I'm afraid!  

[Lloyd_Cole]

I'm with TD on this one. His argument is more eloquent than mine would be, ditto Western Gailes.

[A_Clay_Man]

I recently had a discussion with a very experienced panelists. He suggested taking notes on each hole, even something as simple as a plus or a minus, depending on how I liked the hole. He felt that it would be easy to distinguish the Great courses, because they would all have pluses.

I instantly, in my usual non-politically correct fashion, responded with my thoughts on how that method of determing greatness, in golf courses, seemed flawed. Feeling that greatness was not necessarily just a collection of 18 great holes, but greatness involved something more intangible than what I perceived was "WOW" factors.

[Mark Brown]

Adam,

I agree. Greatness means you can't wait to go around the corner and see what kind of suprise comes next. It's an intangible feeling.

I know most raters rate the courses, look at them compared to other courses and then adjust their ratings to put them in the order they want.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't seen Sutton Bay, nor am I downgrading it. However, I'll back Matt up a little here.

His opinion is typical of a good player in assessing a course. After all, the player is the "end user."

If we "celebrate" diversity in natural features and quirk in routing, ie differences in golf courses, shouldn't we also celebrate different ways of assessing courses?

And, Matt has provided glimpes of a somewhat rational basis for evaluating golf courses.  With all due respect to the Doak Scale - which if I recall is based on courses Tom Doak would recommend you to see - and which is somewhat vague in defintion, and further slowly reveals itself in individual reviews - What is the big difference?

I tend to be in the middle ground - I have the mental checklist, sure, but don't let any one factor dominate. As to the Par 3's pointing to all compass directions, that must have been a great sound bite. After hearing it about 12 years ago, I began hearing it from every tour pro I worked with.  When co-designing, it factors in my routing, cause I know that they will ask. On my own, it factors in, but is not dominant, as Tom suggests.  I have several courses with similarly aligned par 3 holes (and par 5, long par 4 and short par 4,etc) Given a choice by the land, I do try to arrange for wind variety.  Sometimes its not possible, and sometimes other factors override that.  But, it is a factor!

Thus, I agree with both gentleman - Wind variety is a nice thing to put on your assessment checklist, and common among good players.  However, many sites run one way either dimensionally or topographically, and of course, the devil is in the details for good architecture - what choices does the designer make?

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff:

I've seen enough golf courses to know that I don't want to jump on a plane just to see another course that meets some checklist criteria.

Why bother?

Isn't it better to search out the places that offer something different, something unique?

A place like Dooks, for instance, won't pass any checklist test, but how many places make you feel happier just to be there?







 

[Mark Brown]

Jeff,

Some great points. Being involved and being around the golf course community business has taught me it's not a perfect world and there are trade-offs. As you said the consumer that drives much of the market for new courses and golf communities ultimately  defines a lot of what you can and can't do -- and there's a wide variety of types of golfers and opinions.

As I said in one of the other discussions if we don't look at modern courses, including real estate driven courses (which accounts for over 40% of courses built) then, in a way, we're sticking our head in the sand. Why not come up with some criteria to evaluate residential courses. They've come along way since the 70s and  80s when the corridors were so narrow that out of bounds stakes were the biggest hazard.

I love the classics, but you and other architects are doing a hell of a job considering all the factors you have to deal with.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:

I've seen enough golf courses to know that I don't want to jump on a plane just to see another course that meets some checklist criteria.

Why bother?

Isn't it better to search out the places that offer something different, something unique?

A place like Dooks, for instance, won't pass any checklist test, but how many places make you feel happier just to be there?

I note that you say you have 'seen" several courses, not played.  This is a tip off that you assess courses more visually than for shot value, which is not the case with Matt, and for that matter, several good players.  Many great players are "aesthetically challenged" in my mind (not picking on Matt, I don't know, but I have others in mind) and view the course solely, or at least dominantly as a test of their golf skill. Imagine that!  

That is the great thing about golf course design - different elements appeal to different people.

So, to answer your question, the point for a golfer like Matt Ward is to go PLAY a course, to see how you can master its challenge.

For that matter, lets suppose you are comparing like courses, like Sand Hills and Sutton Bay.  I took Matt's comments to say that he thought Sand Hills was slightly superior, because it had dramatic vistas (without a large lake, granted, which would probably favor SB) but did have more wind variation and length variation in the routing.  Others would "mark down" Sand Hills for being too short on the front nine.  Still others for the out and back on the back nine, as compared with the wind variation on the front nine.  

On par, since most raters do compare courses, which is the point of ratings, I sensed Matt would give SH the higher rating for playability, but both would get high ratings.  Nothing wrong with that. Raters are supposed to compare!

[George Pazin]

Isn't Jeff Brauer playing semantic word games one of the seven signs of the apocalypse? Yikes - say it ain't so, Jeff.

I frequently disagree with Matt's evaluations, but at least he is clear in his criteria. I'd say it's better to have concrete ideas and apply them consistently than to use whatever rationale that leads people to conclusions like Shadow Creek leaping into the top 10 courses ever built shortly after its opening.

--
P.S. Adam's point accurately illustrates one of the biggest weaknesses in the course rankings business - one visit followed by a ranking. Probably a bigger negative than someone using wind as a criterion.

[A_Clay_Man]

Isn't the point that those guys spent 100's of man hours finding-out what was right. And then here comes a 5 hour visitor, to say they shoulda done something different, based on a formula? No additional suggestions on how it coulda been better or, on what the critic thinks should've been done. Which in this case (SB) was nothing.

Same with housing model courses that have failed ad infinitum. Their failure creates the next model. Hopefully examples of using the best land for the golf, and business models like Rustic Canyons will wake the lenders up?

[Andy Hughes]

I've seen enough golf courses to know that I don't want to jump on a plane just to see another course that meets some checklist criteria.
Why bother?
Isn't it better to search out the places that offer something different, something unique?
A place like Dooks, for instance, won't pass any checklist test, but how many places make you feel happier just to be there?

But Tim, it really just sounds like you have your own 'checklist' perhaps with 'different' or 'unique' in place of what Matt or someone else has on their list--its just the criterion that have changed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Isn't Jeff Brauer playing semantic word games one of the seven signs of the apocalypse? Yikes - say it ain't so, Jeff.

I frequently disagree with Matt's evaluations, but at least he is clear in his criteria. I'd say it's better to have concrete ideas and apply them consistently than to use whatever rationale that leads people to conclusions like Shadow Creek leaping into the top 10 courses ever built shortly after its opening.

--
P.S. Adam's point accurately illustrates one of the biggest weaknesses in the course rankings business - one visit followed by a ranking. Probably a bigger negative than someone using wind as a criterion.

I'm not sure what your point about me parsing words is.....
I agree with your post, and Andy Hughes.

Simply put, we all have our own way of assessing the greatness or lack thereof of a golf course. Matt is better than some raters who may give a Fazio, Doak, or Jones course a 10, unless they spot a glaring error!

[George Pazin]

I was referring to your interpretation of Tim's "seeing" golf courses. Lots of people use "see" and "play" interchangibly, especially if you're talking about travelling a long way to get there. I don't think Tim meant "see" versus "play", it's just the language he chose.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

I have seen writing on "communication skills" which indicate that you can tell the dominant way a person learns or assesses information by their speech.  When someone says "I see what you are saying," they tend to be visual learners, whereas someone who says "I hear ya," tends to be an audilble learner.  

[astavrides]

Tom D.,

Having just played royal county down in a strong wind (nominally 2-3 club wind) towards the water, I would say that it would have been nice if there was more variety in the directionality of the routing.  Almost all of the holes play either directly toward or directly away from the clubhouse.  In order to get the ball to stop quickly on the green, I was hitting drawing all my approaches on holes going away from the clubhouse and fading those going towards the clubhouse.  I would have preferred to have had to decide on some of the holes what to do downwind or into the wind or even quartering.  

Overall, the routing may have been best as it is, so i dont necessarily blame the architect (Old Tom Morris, I guess).  The architect may get a 10 for his routing job, whereas the course may get an 8 or 9.
(i also thought the course was wonderful overall, but had too many blind shots, but thats a different story).  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

Not hold on partner! I just get back from the northern plains and I have a thread with my name in it!!!!!

My "checklist" is you call it is quite simple and I believe I apply it to all types of courses whether they be yours, Tillinghasts or any other architect -- dead or alive.

When I see a place like Sutton Bay that has 5,000 acres of land and the best they could come up with is to route holes literally one after the other after the other in a straight line going out and then returning in a straight line coming back I have an issue with that.

Tom -- help me out with something -- when you did Pacific Dunes did you not route the long par's (particularly the 4th and 13th holes) to play in opposite directions. Why did you do that? Does the possibility of design balance have anything to do with that? Did you not factor into the equation the nature of the winter and summer wind patterns that blow through the Bandon Dunes site?

I really enjoyed a number of aspects at Sutton Bay but I have played more than fair share of great courses throughout the globe and my opinions at the end of the day only matters to me. Frankly, if people see things differently I'd like them to point out where I was mistaken. I can learn things even at my age. Sometimes I wonder if certain people here on GCA arrive at their own conclusions since they have a certain specific, and, in my mind, quite narrow sense of what constitutes great golf. My tastes in courses is quite wide when compared to a number of others.

Jeff Brauer makes a good point -- the quality of the shot values matters a great deal to me. It is third among equals in the scale of things I consider. The first is the actual land the course uses -- the second is the quality of the routing so that the architect uses all aspects of the land to maximum effect. When I say shot values I also mean how different levels of players will be tested when playing the holes from yardages within their means.

My issue with Sutton Bay is that given the awesome land --both on-course and off-course aspects why could it not be possible to design a hole that runs counter to the prevailing wind on both the front and back side without having to wait for either the very beginning or ending holes? I understand the comments that Mark made in my original observations but I just believe that wind being so pervasive an element when playing in the northern plains should be calculated into the mixture in a much more complete way than what I find when playing there.

Since more raters will likely play Sutton Bay in the weeks and months ahead I'll be most interested in their comments.

P.S. Let me also point out for those who really don't know em that a generally play a fair share of the courses that I rate with a friend or two whose handicap is usually in the high teens. I observe quite closely how they play the course and what their comments are after the round is completed. Their style of play is 180 degrees different than mine. This inane notion that Ward only rates for Ward is quite silly and totally out-of-bounds.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,

Don't read too much into "seen" verses played. At Ballybunion, for instance, I've always been a big fan of #6, a hole with little redeeming value aesthetically, but a really cool little pitch and recovery shot possibilities.

Then, too, I wasn't thinking aesthetics in citing Dooks, though it has that to be sure. Instead, I was thinking about how it wouldn't pass any check list test, but has something better. As an Irish friend put it: "Dooks is cool. It doesn't deserve to be...it just is".

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, let me ask you what you think is the limit of number of holes in a routing that are steeply uphill or down hill in a loop of 18?  Do you feel that perhaps only one or two should be sharply uphill?  I do.  If the routing at SB were to encorporate more directionality, due to the steep slope of the entire land track where as Mark advises it falls several hundered feet from the east edge of the property only a half mile to the lake, then they would have had more holes going from where 1 green sits to where the majority of the front nine runs.  Now, you could cover that with even more cart rides back up the hills, but generally you would have to face the routing of a few holes west to east, and deal with no place that I saw where you could get a run of 350-450 yards plus area behind tees and greens leaving more like 500-550 corridors.  I don't like more than two significantly uphill fairways tee to green on a course.   And, I think that was a restricting factor in Mr Marsh's routing considerations.  

Had Marsh routed it with the west to east directionality as a matter of filling out an idea of hitting all the points on the old checklist, I think he might have created a "Tierra Rejada" rather than the masterful job I believe he did.

Not to mention the surface sheet drainage engineering challenge down into your face so to speak...

[Lloyd_Cole]

I believe in computer golf it is possible play have courses with a perfect ratios of into the wind, cross wind, up hill, downwind and matchplay against Tiger..

[Doug Siebert]

Tim,

Don't sell #6 Ballybunion short, I think it stands up well with any of the others on the course.  The tee shot leaves a million possible plays with a short hole like that.  Do you bust a driver over the corner and leave yourself the shortest possible shot, or take a more conservative line and cut less off with an iron?  Either way, with deep grass left you don't want to pull or hook it, but certainly don't want to bail out too much to the right because you risk going across the fairway and OB on the other side!  And all this with the wind absolutely howling off the water and you looking down on the fairway from the elevated tee taking the full brunt of the wind (at least until you stand on #7 tee and REALLY get it!)  Then your second shot to the narrow pushed up green doesn't leave much margin for error lest you end up with one of those "recovery shot possibilities" of which you speak!


Anyway, when we talk about routing in two dimensions versus mixed routing, people always bring up TOC as an example of where two dimensional routing works.  But one of the reasons why it works is because of the width.  You aren't always playing in the direction of the green, or at least you don't have to -- the tee shot on #16 is a good example.  Plus you have the turnaround at the end where several holes aren't really going in the same direction, and the jog at the end where 1 and 18 aren't quite either.  Between the width and the subtle variation in direction, it isn't quite as straight up and back as some people make it out to be.


There are arguments for a completely mixed routing like Lahinch, where I don't think two consecutive holes run in the same direction until the very end where 16-18 pretty much do.  You are constantly off balance, never really sure where the wind is coming from, especially when you are sheltered by the dunes or in an area where the winds can swirl like the 11th.  On the other hand, facing a stretch of several holes against the wind (or with the wind, which can be worse on links courses if you tend to hit it a bit wild) its a bit of a test of mental fortitude.  Playing into a 40-50 mph wind for several consecutive holes when you aren't quite striking the ball as purely as you might like is a tremendous test of one's shotmaking abilities to come up with shots that work for the conditions to get yourself through such a stretch with limited damage.

[Tim_Weiman]

Doug,

In case it wasn't clear, I'm a huge fan of #6 at Ballybunion. It is a classic example of a hole that doesn't "look" impressive, but almost always plays very interesting.

I was merely responding to Jeff Brauer's suggestion that because I used the word "seen" I must be talking about seeing and not playing a golf course. To the contrary, I was merely identifying with those skeptical of the "checklist" mentality when it comes to evaluating golf courses/holes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()