Routing - Is it hard to get it wrong ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've always been fascinated by how a golf course architect routes a golf course and designs the holes within that routing.

Has anyone seen a poorly routed GOLF course ?

I'm not talking about courses intertwined with housing complexes, or environmentally constrained sites, but pure, isolated GOLF courses, without any encumbrances

Hence, Spanish Bay is exempt.

Is it hard to get it wrong ?

Ross, AWT and all the others routed golf courses in what seemed like a very short time.  Some claim that no site visits were made and that routing was done from topos.  Others indicate that the architect paid a visit or two and came up with the routing.

If routing is the soul of the golf course one would think that the process of routing would be a prolonged, intricate task, yet quite the opposite seems to be the case, with the exception of Pine Valley.

I'm sure that some architects had an inate sense of routing, a talent that made them special.  But, in trying to review most of the golf courses I've played, I can't come up with 5-10 golf courses where I would consider the routing ..... BAD.

It also seems that some basic guidelines prevailed in the past.
The 1st hole didn't face east
The 18th hole didn't face west
There were two loops of nine holes, one clockwise and the other counter clockwise.
The clubhouse usually sat at the periphery of the property.
The clubhouse usually sat on an elevated site.

Can you name 5 GOLF courses with BAD routing, or, is there no such thing ?

[JESII]

Has anyone seen a poorly routed GOLF course ?


Can you name 5 GOLF courses with BAD routing, or, is there no such thing ?

Patrick

Good question, and I look forward to others replies.

I think it was in a MacKenzie book possibly titled Colf Course Architecture, in which he mentions this planning phase and says that he walks the property and finds all of the potential green sites (clearly there some ideal characteristics). He then determines all of the possible directions the green could well be played from, and from this matrix establishes the routing.

I believe he says there are fifty greensites each with several approach angles. Filtering through this large number of potential holes to come up with the 18 best seems to me to be a difficult task, and one that could be done wrong.

On the other side, I believe someone on here quoted Bill Coore as saying the routing or a round of golf should be like a walk in the park. That would suggest a much less scientific approach to finding the best land to fit your 18 holes.

I have no reason to believe one is more effective than the other and I cannot personally think of a course with "bad routing".

[Jeff_Mingay]

Pat,

Essex Co., Ontario, where I live, provides an interesting study in golf course routing. The county is pretty flat, so few serious constraints other than the size and shape of the golf course properties were presented to the designers of courses in the area.  

There are two Donald Ross designs here, Essex and Roseland, that are masterfully routed. I mean, these two courses flow very well. There are no awkward walks between greens and tees, and each course features an amazing variety of holes.  

Granted, Essex Co. doesn't featured many other good courses. Compared to Essex and Roseland, the reason for this is, nearly all of the other courses in the area are very poorly routed. A few feature situations where you'll have a hard time finding the next tee if you hadn't played there before. On flat ground!

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you can get it wrong. Big time. And it's very difficult to improve a golf course that's poorly routed. That's why it's so important to get it right.

To answer your question, yes. I can name five courses that are poorly routed. It's just, I'd rather not  

[wsmorrison]

I think what we need to consider is our individual inabilities to understand routing potentials on a given site and know what specifics are bad about the current overall routing and what might be done to improve the routing.  We (the majority of us on this site) simply do not have the expertise to properly conduct the exercise you describe beyond a hole or two; certainly not the entire routing.  Well, me in any case.  What is required is hours of study of topographic maps, drawings, photographs, distance measurements, rock and soil formations and other information.  Who is doing this sort of comprehensive analysis?

I obviously don't include architects in this category.  Their ability to consider a routing is world's apart from the general membership on this site.  Let's not lose track that we are armchair architects while other valuable members of GCA are qualified professionals.

There is one hole that I question why it was routed the way it was.  This is the 8th at Philadelphia Country Club.  It is a straight away hole, after a number of straight holes, with a terrific green  complex.  I think given the green's orientation and bunkering that it would be better approached from an the right--the hole would be better if it were a dogleg left.  There is room to do so.

Maybe, Pat, I see too many Flynn courses and the routings are so good that they don't have much room for improvement or criticism  

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

I think comments are in order for those of us not familiar with these courses.  In general at least, what are the issues you find fault with in the routing?  If you would relate specific deficiencies, it would be better for us to understand your point.  This list in and of itself provides no real benefit.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

In today's housing geared golf market I have found a number of poorly routed golf courses because the goal is not the maximization of the golf experience -- it's the maxing out of lots for real estate purposes.

In order to provide the "golf" experience the developers follow one simple rule -- stretch as many holes as possible so that house sales "on the course" can be furthered. Florida and California seem to be the kings of such things -- but the Carolinas and other sunbelt locations are all guilty of the same premise.

Two good examples come to mind of recently opened courses.

The Galllery in the immediate Tucson area opened a winning 18-hole layout a few years back designed by John Fought with input from Tom Lehman. The first course worked in harmony with the land and was routed with the golf as the paramount item.

A second 18 -- also by Fought -- opened in the last two years and the routing is horrific as the course goes out in a relatively straight line and then reverses course all the way back to the clubhouse. The layout maxes out the available frontage of homes to the course and clearly that is the priorioty. The golf course simply goes along for the ride and is a clear step or two at minimum behind the freshness of the original 18.

A second example is Santaluz -- just outside San Diego and designed by Rees Jones. Here you have a solid layout in plenty of ways but the major problem is that the routing is formatted in such in an inane manner. The holes are simply strung through canyons with the homes on top of the ridges. You also have long, long rides with mandatory carts between holes in order to once again accomplish the prime objective -- selling as many lots as possible.

I can list quite a few courses where this happens.

Clearly, the golf component is secondary to the goal in selling real estate. Sometime there is a solid marriage between the two because the developer understands that the accomplishment of both objectives can be done that will truly enhance the experience of the golf and build even further value for any property on or near the site.

A supreme routing maxes out all corners of the property and avoids providing the golfer with any sameness that will minimize the totality of what you find with the course. In many instances -- the necessary land for such an experience is compromised because of the devotion of making $$ thru real estate sales.

[A.G._Crockett]

Patrick,
Like you, I am fascinated by how someone looks at a piece of land and "sees" a golf course.  As I am wholly lacking in artistic ability, I am very, very hesitant to criticize routing, because I can't offer alternatives.  I appreciate what I see, but can't see more, if only because I don't know where property boundaries, wetlands, etc., might be.

However, I do think that GCA's may have "unfortunate" routings imposed upon them by various constraints such as real estate or environmental concerns.  One example would be a course that is fundamentally unwalkable on a piece of ground that should be emminently walkable because of long distances between greens and tees.  That IS bad routing, but not due to the architect, I would assume.  There are, of course, a zillion such courses in real estate developments.  Many are wonderful layouts in every other respect.  I don't know if that qualifies as bad routing or not.

My home course was built in two stages, and on the "new" nine, environmental constraints altered the green location of a par five, changed a par four into a par three running in the same direction as the previous hole (LONG walk back to the tee), and prevented a cool double green to be shared between a par four and a par three that would have made both holes much longer and more interesting.  The yardage of the course was shortened by about 250 yds., par reduced from 71 to 70, walk times slightly increased, and one too many short par fours ended up on the course.  I'm sure to some that don't know all of that background, it appears to be "bad routing"; actually, the GCA did a great job of shoehorning in holes that retained shot values given the limitations imposed on him.

[mike_malone]

 Overbrook in Philly. I  believe they could have used that hilly terrain better.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Having not had the experience of trying to route a course myself, I am very reluctant to criticise those who do it for a living.
However, I am always dissapointed when I play a  course with a bunch of holes that just play parallel to one another..I have always wondered why not place a loop of holes within a loop or something rather than just going back and forth.
The other tep peave is those ridiculous long walks from green to next tee..something that you simply did not see from the "classic" architects.

[TEPaul]

Is it hard to get a routing wrong? Jeeesus, what a question! Certianly everything is in degrees.

I think one of the most prevalent misconceptions of a golf course's routing is that it's pretty obvious to do and that it should be basically obvious to anyone. That perception is so far from reality it's astounding, in my opinion. I've personally seen two really good architects today take a piece of land, and certainly not knowing what the other was doing basically routed their course in reverse from the other one---and even after that there weren't many similarities, even if many of the same landforms were used for holes.

I liken routing a golf course, particularly on a potential and interesting site topographically and otherwise to doing a massive jigsaw puzzle while having a sort of unique opportunity to "make the pieces".

Is it hard to get it wrong? Certainly. Good architects have said that something amiss on a course's routing can be a constant drawback everyday for the rest of time.

I think creating great routings takes a real talent and is a real art and a most misunderstood process but I also believe a really talented router could probably come up with half a dozen or more really good routings on a single raw piece of property.

Always in the back of an architect's mind while routing, I think, is the question; "Where am I now, what have I got so far and how does it feel in a hole by hole sense in balance, variety etc?" I also think if a routing is tight in a green to tee sense and if a fairly significant change needs to be made in a routing sense on even a single hole it gets to be like fitting fence rails into fence posts along a fenceline----you may have to take the rails out and go backwards adjusting things even all the way to Square One to get everything to fit right and be right.

And lastly, I should mention something Bill Coore said about the combination of routing and designing, particularly on a piece of property that really does have some unique interest and topography. He said; "There're always going to be 4-5 problem areas along the way and how well you overcome those almost inevitable obstacle areas and problem areas is going to be the success or failure of the routing and the golf course."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

I'm not talking about courses intertwined with housing complexes, or environmentally constrained sites, but pure, isolated GOLF courses, without any encumbrances

Michael Wharton Palmer,

Could you cite some examples of the courses with the features you menton.  Would Winged Foot be one of them ?

Redanman,

Given the property, how do you feel that Gallaway is poorly routed ?

How would you have done it differently ?

[Matt_Ward]

Frankly Pat much of what is "new" today is tied to housing. The courses that don't need or require such a connection should not have such a problem or much less so.

[Brad Klein]

Pat, those rules are nonsense - guidelines for landscape architects but not for real designers. Among the courses that violate all of those rules are:

St. Andrews (Old)
The Country Club, Brookline
Cypress Point

There are lots of bad routings, and they don't get much fame because they are so bad! The holes don't fit the land, they are forced, they are difficult to walk, they waste the site, the site's awful to begin with or housing totally overwhelms the land.

A few come to mind, for various reasons:

Woodhill, Mn. (Ross)
Idaho Falls CC, Id. (William F. Bell)
Pinehurst No. 7, NC (Rees Jones)
Treetops-Jones, Mich. (RTJ)
Shattuck, NH (Brian Silva)
Old North State, NC (Fazio)

In some cases, the sites are awful and the holes do they best they can but the course should never have been built (Shattuck).

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Pat,
I have not played Winged Foot, so you may have a point there I do not know.
Sahalee was one that I felt that way about, still a fun cpurse to play, but I just left feeling it could have been better.
Ther are quite a few lesser known courses that fit into the parallel category, you know those 'around town"type of courses.
Medinah number one and to a lesser extent #3 also fit the bill.
Again I am really in no postion to second guess the architect, but I reall like courses that travel all four directions of the compass.
As much as I love links golf, many of them play in and out, but when you have dunes seperating the holes it is not as apparent...St andrews would perhaps be the ultimate parallel golf course..but it really doesn't play like it...am I making any sense here?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Can you explain "wrong"?  Also, how do you know they didn't get it "right" given the constraints they may have been working under.  Also, getting it "right" is relative isn't it?

How do you know C&C got it "right" at Sand Hills.  There were probably a thousand ways to route that golf course.  Are we all sure that they picked the "right" one?  
Mark

[Paul_Turner]

Holes that go back and forth i.e. parallel and anti-parallel.  Usually a rectangular piece of land dictates parallel holes, but the sequencing shouldn't be such that you are constantly turning around and playing in the opposite direction.  

I'll try and think of some examples!  The bulk of Woburn GC (Dukes)(UK), actually a very good course, tends to do this and it does detract somewhat.  I can't reall think how it could have been avoided though.

[PThomas]

a great example of a bad routing, I think, is a Mark McCumber layout in FLorida discussed in the Confidential Guide...Tom D says instead of using the ravines as diagonal hazards -- as Shoreacres does --  they are simply used for straightforward carries

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

paul,
Great example thank you, a few others such as The Berkshire also come to mind.
I agree I am not sure it could have been avoided, but as you correctly said it is just a little distracting and makes you at least think it could have been better.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Go to Tattersall in Chester Co. PA and/or Pine Hill in NJ and see if you can tell me what the routers were thinking.  

Better yet, try Links At Lighthouse Sound in Maryland.

(this post purposefully omits architects names and leaves each routing to stand on it's own merits)  

[CHrisB]

Spyglass Hill is a course where I question the routing, because it seems to be "front-loaded"; that is, all of the inspiring ocean view holes through the sand are in the first 5 or 6 holes, after which the course moves up the hill into the forest, with a completely different look and feel the rest of the way.

[wsmorrison]

If you look at the CC of York, Ross and Flynn were given the same starting and finishing point and their courses are so disimilar it is extraordinary.  Flynn's routing preferences differed from Ross.  Is one wrong and one right?  I don't think so.  The characteristics of play are obviously different, but one can't be characterized as wrong in a general sense.  

Something made the club pick the Ross plan over Flynn.  At this point, we're not sure what the reasons are--we may never know.  It probably has nothing to do with one being better than the other.  The design intentions may be different.  Flynn's was a much tougher walk and had some holes on the edge of playability.  The club preferred the Ross plan more than likely because it fit into the scheme of the club and not that one was wrong and the other right in an architectural sense.

[George Pazin]

I'm inclined to agree with Brad Klein, the courses with "incorrect" routings are the ones no one knows.

I find that if I can walk the course in my mind easily a bit after a round, the routing was better to me. If there are gaps, something was wrong, IMO. How much of that can be ascribed to the architect versus the contraints would seem to be rather difficult to infer, also IMHO.

One of the most disappointing things about the Fazio courses I've played (4 - both WW, Primm Desert and Osprey Point) is that I really barely remember them, but that might be as much because it was cartball as anything else.

One course that I really liked, but didn't particularly care for the routing, was Tobacco Road. Outstanding details on the holes, but it lacked a real flow, IMO.

[BCrosby]

There is this notion that topography is destiny. That somehow the lay of the land dictates a routing. That a good routing is just a matter of being attentive to what the land gives you.

I don't think anything could be farther from the truth.

Different architects will come up with very (if not radically) different routings for the same property. (Ross and Flynn at York). Heck, the same architect will come up with different routings depending on whether it is Tuesday or Thursday. (C&C at Sand Hills, Doak at Sebonac). I'd bet that a lot of architects, in the privacy of their own studios, would kill for the chance to redo some of their routings that are already in the ground.

Bob

 

 

 

[George Pazin]

Along the lines of Bob's wise post, I'd be curious to know what changes architects would make to inherited routings - eg. Doak at Stonewall, C&C at Easthampton, etc.

The premise of the thread would seem to be that routings are easy. I would think the exact opposite - the routing is the most difficult thing. Again, it is hard to say how much of this is the site and how much is the constraints. But, given a site with no constraints, I'd be surprised if two architects came up with similar routings.

[TEPaul]

There's one other interesting dictate that a couple of good architects have reminded me of---and that's the danger of falling in love with something out there and refusing to give it up if it's obvous it'll negatively effect the routing or other parts of it in some unredeemable way.

Another terrific cautionary tale in routing should also be one that may've effected the #1 course in the world for perhaps up to two years. And that's to be very careful about starting construction or getting really far along in construction before the entire routing of the golf course has been completely finalized. What finally happened on 12-15 at PVGC could be as much pure luck as anything else!