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.


Tim Weiman

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #75 on: December 02, 2002, 09:38:02 PM »
Forrest:

I stand by what I said. We don't have a very good track record when it comes to discussing this topic. Too hard, I guess.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #76 on: December 02, 2002, 10:57:49 PM »
Forrest,
What I like aboutt he Talking Stick routing, mind you that it is routed alongside another 18 holes withthe South Course, is the fact that Bill utilized some actual small dry creek beds on the site's northern to eastern most part. He was actually able to get the South's routing into this also.  Another thing, while on an Indian reservation, it doesn't seem to have too much restricted area turf for an Arizona course, where the fairways sort of become islands if you will. It was certainly refreshing to see this in Arizona.

You have the brilliance of the fence line utilized for hole #2 on the extreme western boundry of the property, and there isn't a single ouce of containment that really comes into play. (If you haven't heard me ramble on this before, I feel that containment is the most evil-on-high in modern golf course design.)

The green complexes and how they were built-up, are another source of the routing because not only did they get the fill from the bunkers, they also got it from certain areas not in play which provided the natural materials needed to do the project. It was a totally created effort from the mind of a Golf's most natural talent--Bill Coore. (Once again, I'm biased!):)

I could go on and on.

BTW, It was great meeting you at DM's service, and hope we can get together again if you are ever in town.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #77 on: December 03, 2002, 05:19:53 AM »
Pat:

To design on a very flat site by undulating the ground, particularly areas like fairway areas you think will break the bank do you? Are you sure about that? If you were building a course on a flat site is that just an assumption you'd make and then just leave it at that?

As Forest just said it's no small amount of time and effort building large flanking and paralleling containment mounds along the sides of many modern holes, that's for sure! On some golf courses that's moving very large amounts of earth. So you think undulating the ground would be far more costly than that?

Foregoing the massive amounts of earthmoving and undulating the playing surface may not take much more time and effort than that but it surely may take more talent!

on many courses today the topsoil is removed, the land is shaped and the topsoil is replaced. There's no real difference here to undulate the ground surface at this point in interesting and complex way--probably not unlike the little creases, humps and bumps of a course like St. Andrews.

Do you think the fairways of Easthampton or Friars Head are all the exact same contours as the way they were originally found by the architects, for instance?

Courses like those were designed with a good deal of bounce and roll and speed through the green in mind. Do you think they did not think how the ground, the fairways and such might be contoured to make that more interesting?

By the way, Pat, have you ever spent a day or so on a site watching some of this machinery work the earth's contours? You'll probably say you worked with Von Hagge on a course but was something like this considered? Was it ever discussed or even mentioned? I'm thinking probably not, otherwise you very likely would not have assumed it would break the bank!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #78 on: December 03, 2002, 06:53:50 AM »
I hardly want to come off as being down on Talking Stick. I do feel it is a very solid and thoughful layout. But I still do not consider the routing "GREAT" and am not convinced that the course is better off with the amount of earth that got moved. Tommy, you still owe me an answer about a few questions -- and I have one more:

What makes the fence line "Brilliant"?

I have always cited the long irrigation ditch to the right of the par-4 northbound hole (No. 10?) as being very clever. This I would classify as "almost brilliant", but such a mightly powerful word to describe a fence line that in a few short years might separate a Home Depot parking lot is, I believe, a stretch.

For the record, Bill is a wonderful talent and has created some wonderful courses. I don't consider you biased; just full of words that occasionally get used to intensify the fact that you want us to really believe you are biased! (Re-read that if necessary.)

I look forward to your thoughts on some of my questions about Talking Stick.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

redanman

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #79 on: December 03, 2002, 08:52:26 AM »
Can one have a "brilliant" routing on a pancake?

Each of the routings at Talking Stick are equally brilliant on a basically rectangular core.  I actually find the routing at TSN pretty ordinary, rather the TSS did a good job of the land that was left.

Let me say that to me the routing is how the holes flow, are ordered, paced based upon direction, length, type of holes, etc.

Tom Doak has long espoused here the natural flow of his routings that he lets the land dictate whatever hole is to come.  ergo: Pacific Dunes with 4 par 3's including back to back on the back nine.   Where does the land dictate this on a pancake?  (Tom was surprized when I told him that I liked his field holes better than his forest holes at Beechtree-I thought they were more clever and less constrained, more dimensional if you will). chacon a son gout ?

On a flat piece of rectangular or square land, the routing is a blank slate and its purpose is to create an interesting walk over an uninteresting piece of ground.  You can add as little as

Tommy, my friend, we have gone back and forth on TSN and I have to side with Mr. Richardson here.

Is the fence line brilliant for a reason other than the fact that it makes for a really cool hole and you like look of that hole?  What if Rees built it with a stone wall instead of a bob-wahr fence?  Is the fence/wall/SAC fortification  :P at Easthampton #14 just as brilliant or is it little more than an eyesore these days?  Does the use of OB rather than an ordinary irrigation canal or ocean shoreline versus an marsh, cypress swamp or creek such as Merion #5 make it more cool?  Is it better to have such a feature on the left side for the majority of the right handed golfers and less so on the right?
 
Are we really discussing routing here?

(Haven't started on my drawing yet) ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #80 on: December 03, 2002, 09:17:27 AM »
From the GCA course description of #2 Talking Stick North:

"2nd hole, 510 yards: In the yardage book this looks an ungainly hole - a monstrously wide fairway leading to a green that appears off-center to the left. However, this width creates indecision on the part of the player as there is out of bounds tight down the left side all the way up past the green. The two greenside bunkers are to the right, meaning that if the player wishes to reach this green in two (a realistic goal) he must favor the left side. All of a sudden, nothing is quite so wide."

BillV/Redanman,

I'm a big fan of TSN #2. Whether the fence was barbed wire or brick I think the hole works really well because the architects chose to place the green within 10 yards of the fence rather than further right away from it. The front right greenside bunkers make the "line of charm" run along the fenceline. How much confidence do you have this early in the round to take the shorter, aggressive line along the fence, risk an early round-wrecking, etc.? The hole makes you think, and that to me is one of the essential qualities of a fine golf hole.

PS Isn't there a hole in the British Open rota (Birkdale?) that's similar to #2 TSN?

All The Best,  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

redanman

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #81 on: December 03, 2002, 10:04:00 AM »
Doug

Don't get me wrong.  I love #2 at TSN, it is my favorite hole there.  


Two points, why do you love it?  

I love it because it is a great strategically flexible hole, not because of its pedigree is it any better than another similar hole.  I think C&C get all the credit they deserve and a fanatical reverence here on the DG to boot.  (Read excessive, but not to pick on only Tommy).  The hole is not some great original thought, it is an interpretation of a classical theme.

Why is the hole a brilliant route?

#12 TSN uses the border just as effectively, if not better because of how OB is challenged variably as the result of some other features.

(MAybe I am picking on Tommy a little bit!) ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #82 on: December 03, 2002, 10:14:41 AM »
I have failed to read all four pages of this, so excuse me if I embarrass myself here...but the comment about the pancake struck me.  Can you have a brilliant routing on a pancake?

I'm inclined to think this insinuates that the 'end result' of a routing considers the character of the land, in addition to the sequencing of the holes.

Can you have a great routing over poor land?  Sure, but the final product is relative to the 'greatness' of the site.  Thus, it seems it should be fair to say architect X has done a BRILLIANT job of routing, even though the land is uninspiring.

The real question become what constitutes a great routing over poor land?  I would say sequencing of difficult versus easy holes.  The sequencing of one, two and three shot holes.  The way the holes playing considering the prevailing wind.  Although I've never played Talking Stick, from what some people are saying, it sounds like a great routing.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #83 on: December 03, 2002, 10:38:01 AM »
BillV,

Your mention of #12 illustrates even better than #2 why TSN is a very well routed golf course IMO. The architects used the barranca to create the split fairway, and the #12 green hard by the fence and bordered by the barranca on the right is even more compelling than #2. They clearly "found" this hole. Hole #2 is a bit more "manufactured" if you will via the use of the boundary line, but they both work very well strategically.

All The Best,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

TEPaul

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #84 on: December 03, 2002, 10:39:34 AM »
Forrest Richardson:

I'll tell you something that I think makes that Talking Stick fenceline hole funny, at least!

This is from Bill Coore actually.

I asked him one time about hole #12 at Easthampton which is a highly unusual hole to first lay your eyes on (also a long straight fenceline) and he got on the subject of that fenceline hole at Talking Stick (which I've never seen except in a photo)!

All he said was some golf writer had called him to say he was going to write that that fenceline hole at talking Stick was probably the most boring hole he'd ever seen and what was Coore thinking when he conceived of it!

All Bill said to him was it was a basic recreation of a hole at TOC and that the best thing for the golfer to do would be to get near that fenceline at some point in playing that hole.

The next thing he knew that golf writer was saying that fenceline hole at Talking Stick was one of the most interesting holes he'd ever seen!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #85 on: December 03, 2002, 10:43:42 AM »
TEP,

I didn't know Matt Ward wrote an article about Talking Stick North... :o


Just kidding Matt.. ;D ;D ;D Thank God for smilies. :) :)

All The Best,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #86 on: December 06, 2002, 08:13:17 PM »
Like any impatient client -- WHERE ARE THOSE DAMN PLANS!!!?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #87 on: December 07, 2002, 12:36:17 AM »
Just as I love,and I say love the Old Course's #14, 15, and even more specifically #16 (The hole which Bill Coore found inspiration for Talking Stick--North's #2.) I find the hole to be fairly reminescent of Carnoustie #6, which happens to be a very good hole on that course and has the same similar fence line guarding the left side.

From the phenominal shaping of the right side of TS#2 to the placement of the greenside bunker, the hole is simple but yet so interesting, simply because there is a quirkiness and an "GOOD" artificial-ness to the fence line that is in fact inspired by the Great Links of Great Britain, and for me, that is what all of this should really be about--inspiration from the "core model." Mor ethen anything, it is subtle, yet inviting to challenge.

To further, "Why do I think it is a good routing?" Because even as flat as the land may be for some when it comes to actually looking at it, In my trip to Talking Stick, I saw a lot of interesting MICRO MOVEMENT. (An important term) and how it is given up for dead simply because so many architects want much larger movement to work from. Bill utilzed that property line as a FEATURE, albeit an artifical one on a less then glamorous site. He managed to get the 11th and that interesting grouping of holes which surrounds it--to work with hardly a feature to work with it also. It is all because of the routing.

So, let us try to vision Talking Stick-North without a golf course on it. Try to get an idea which that will provide some inspiration while trying to route the course before the first shovel was even turned. Maybe, just maybe, the fence-line was the most important feature on the course, and that is after all, what it takes to route on any course, the proper judgement call of what features are to reign dominant in the routing. It may not be the most dramatic or beautiful feature most have seen, it is however, totally artificial yet makes the best use in regards to the golf.  

Talking Stick may not be the most dramatic looking golf course in Arizona, however, I do think it is one of the best.It is certainly a course I could spend the rest of my days playing in complete content.

And yes, I am biased!

To further answer the other questions:

what percentage of the guests there are ever aware of this? Or care? Might the course have been more interesting had more dirt been moved?

Sometimes I think we all forget exactly who Talking Stick was designed for, (the clientele) as well as its affordability (one of the best priced courses in Scottsdale.) I think the greatness of the course lies in its minimilism--simply put, I think that this course is so different then anything else in the Valley of the Sun, and it separates itself from the myriad of courses that all resemble the same look of one another. So, could more interesting features have been added? For most architects, "Yes" absolutely! But in my honest opinion, Bill coore isn't MOST architects, and NO--they don't care because most who have happened upon golf in these boom years don't know what GREAT golf really is. In fact, they mor then likely don't care, and thaqt is what is most disheartening about the game in general. These same people are the ones that feel that PGA Tour is the standard which all Golf should be measured by--Sad, very sad.

When it comes to C&C, they have shown a great diversity in their profile of courses designed and built. They dont just take ever job that comes there way, and they have shown remarkable integrity when they do. I also think many forget just how SUBTLE their designs can be, opting for a attitude for the land to do the describing and the human aspects of it to just as subtlety to reveal it.

--Sand Hills--a private and very exclusive experieince on some of the for pure golf imaginable.
--Kapalua-Plantation--One of the most extreme yet dramatic sites for a golf course to be built upon--yet, it still works better then anything I have every seen on such a extreme site.
--Cheechesse Creek-An ode to Seth Raynor, mixed with South Carolina low-country marshlands.
--Cuscowilla--Classic golf holes with dramatic bunkering on a nearby lake setting which avoids the lake as much as possible.
--Hidden Creek--English Heathlands, which has never been really appreciated for its contribution to the art of golf architecture in this country, by the same type golfers that don't understand Talking Stick.
--Friars Head--Their first opportunity to prove what they could do with sand dunes and judging from the responses I have heard, this maybe one of the greatest courses of our time.(Once again, I'm biased and admit it!)

and finally Talking Stick.......In an area where the average golf round is in the neighborhood of $200.00 per round for a resort course, I'll pay that inflated Troon price of $125.00 anytime!

This might be unfair of me to say this, and it isn't meant to disgrace anyone's efforts, but you take a site here in SoCal like Oak Creek, which is on about the same type of featureless land as Talking Stick (FLAT)

Oak Creek's architect decided to utilize artificial-looking containment mounding throughout the course, no matter how much it affected play. TS however has one, maybe two holes that haave a MINIMUM of containment even near the course, and it works out just fine. If the bunkers at Oak Creek are better then they are at Talking Stick, then I'm a Tuskegge Airman. The greens? FahGitaboutit!

Build a C&C course like Talking Stick on top of Oak Creek in Irvine, and not only is it cheaper to build by about $10,000,000, it is 10,000,000 more interesting to play. I think this would also improve their rounds played in comparison to rounds not played. It is really that bizarre.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

redanman

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #88 on: December 07, 2002, 04:16:45 AM »
Tommy

I thought this thread was about routing?

What the hell is this doing here?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #89 on: December 07, 2002, 07:32:23 AM »
TEPaul,

Yes, I have worked with flat land.

Land that was precarioiusly close to the water table.

Land that gets rained on.
Land that gets rained on alot.
Land that gets rained on heavily, june to october.
Land that is subject to BIG hurricanes and tropical storms.

Drainage is not an inconsequential problem, especially on FLAT land.

Creating the abundance of subtle nuances you desire throughout the fairways takes time and good soil, both can be costly items in South Florida.

One fairway, the 5th, had wonderful undulations, some pronounced, that unfortunately the membership wanted softened.  However, maintaining those undulations was no easy task, and was always a problem.

Walking water and getting rid of it is a major consideration.

In addition, when your subsurface is coral, and/or the water table is high, excavation is a bad idea, unless you're trying to create lakes, ponds and streams.

Many bunkers and greens in South Florida are built into or onto elevated land forms for those reasons.

I'm looking forward to your visit this winter.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #90 on: December 07, 2002, 08:18:39 AM »
Tommy: $125 is not affordable.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #91 on: December 08, 2002, 12:23:11 AM »
Forrest, In Scotsdale it is!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #92 on: December 08, 2002, 09:12:59 AM »
Not any longer. Of course, there will always be the prized and over-marketed venues. If a course is built with minimal earthmoving, and it is a back-to-basics exercise in construction, then shouldn't the green fee be relatively low?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #93 on: December 08, 2002, 10:18:50 PM »
What does a round at Pacific Dunes cost now? If I remember right it, it was around $125.00, but I'm sure it has to be going up.

Don't quote me on this, but I think the cost to build it was around 1.5-2 Mil. It is a world class course built minimally and is rated #2 on the Golfweek America's Best Modern List.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #94 on: December 09, 2002, 07:34:47 AM »
PD is at the end of the earth -- a destination. Justified to cost whatever it's worth. Courses in Scottsdale or Palm Springs or like areas are only at the edge of the earth -- not destinations.

Enough of this. I want to see your 10x10 routing plan. Now. You've had plenty of time. Hand it over!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tim Weiman

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #95 on: December 09, 2002, 08:10:38 AM »
Tommy N:

Let me respond to your long post from the point of view of someone who has not seen Talking Stick.

I started this thread because of my feeling that so far our discussion group has not done very well when it comes to discussing routing. Your post illustrates part of the problem.

Previously you indicated that you felt the routing for Talking Stick was "great" because it "utilizes micro movement". However, when Forrest Richardson asked you why you felt the routing for the course was so noteworthy, you essentially repeated your claim that "Talking Stick is great because it utilitizes micro movement".

Tommy, you may be 100 percent right, but I don't know because I haven't seen the course AND you really didn't provide much in the way of details to support your case.

"Micro movement" and the effect it can have on golf shots is an important concept. It is also something many people may miss if they go play a course but don't take the time to really study it.

Nobody would describe Pebble Beach as having a good routing because of "micro movement". Anyone with a basic understanding of golf architecture, routing and the Pebble Beach layout understands the the routing is all about dramatically utilizing where the "land meets sea". Granted, Pebble has other features that come into play: e.g., the ravine on #3. But, the essence of the routing is the cliffside holes.

You can say PB's routing is "great" because of how it utilizes the natural features present. I don't think you can say that about Talking Stick. Why? Because people can't visualize "micro movement". You absolutely have to provide examples, describe them in detail and describe how they make playing the course more interesting.

Tommy your thread reads more like an advertizement for C&C than something that makes the case that TS's routing is something special. I don't need to be convinced of Bill Coore's talent; in this thread, I'm just trying to understand what makes the routing for Talking Stick worthy of study. You haven't made the case.

Keep in mind that most people here have seen very few courses that the group discusses. You've got to provide details or many just won't appreciate the point you are trying to make.

"Micro movement" is tough to appreciate as an architect or player. It may be even tougher for a writer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #96 on: December 09, 2002, 08:19:39 AM »
Thank you, Tim for replying to Tommy's many replies to my replies, none of ours bringing the discussion back to routing. I believe the point here is that there is nothing outstanding about the routing at Talkiing Stick, even though it is a very fine 2-course venue. This is why Tommy has picked up on the micro movement and minimal earthmoving.

For the record, as a youngster of about 8-years I rode my mini-bike in the area of Talking Stick on many weekends. Very likely it was my brother and I who carved up some of that flat land and created the micro-movement! So, I'm immediately adding the courses to my ersume.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tim Weiman

Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #97 on: December 09, 2002, 08:54:08 AM »
Forrest:

I must not have been very clear.

Talking Stick may have a "great" routing or one that is nothing special at all. Having not seen the course, I don't have a clue.

My point to Tommy is simply that using the words "micro movement" doesn't describe why the routing is great.....it doesn't describe the routing at all.

We still struggle with this topic. If the course relies on "micro movement", Tommy will need to share far more details. At that point, we can argue the merits of the routing. Without those details being put on the table, we can't argue the case one way or the other.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #98 on: December 09, 2002, 08:54:19 AM »

Quote
Tommy N:


 "Micro movement" is tough to appreciate as an architect or player.

Tim,

I agree!  Some here think you design a course for nature, not players.  I should probably start another thread, but how can a player appreciate micro movement, especially playing a resort course once a year?  I applaud using natural features to formulate strategy, reduce costs, etc. but not at the expense of play value, or simply just for its own sake.

The only micro movement appreciated is putting surfaces, where they affect roll.  For the long game, perhaps some carry off swales from greens, or slope in the approach area just in front of the greens.

For tee shots?  All except tour pros need about 30 yards of depth and width to just hit the fairway!  How would micro movement affect that shot, since it would presumably be in a smaller area than a golfer could control?

Frankly, I think fairway design should concentrate on macro movement - a long slope one way or the other, uphill or downhill, to force the player to think about it in formulating stragtegy.  I  think micro movement would not do this as well.  I presume Tommy is not talking about using the washes as Micro Movement, as I consider those pretty definite features.

BTW, I love C and C's work, and have seen nothing of the course save the yardage guide.  I am not critiquing them, I am siding with Tim to have Tommy go into detail on why this "micro movement" is such a good thing!  The unfortuneate part is, subtle contours don't show well in photography, or it would be a big help.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can We Discuss Routing?
« Reply #99 on: December 09, 2002, 09:14:24 AM »
Micro-movement can be appreciated, even though perhaps tough if a course played just once (e.g., resort course). Jeff brings up a good point about macro-movement, a very important aspect.

Back to routing. TSN was brought up in the discussion as a poster child for brilliant routing. My point was that the discussion about its micro-movement tends to suggest there is not so much to talk about the routing, but rather the course's other fine attributes -- minimal earthmoving, use of subtle movements, and fence lines. A degree of these attributes involve routing, to be sure.

Forget TSN, for a moment. What are the top contenders in routing a flat site with not much, if any, in the way of natural features? Can the routing be great in this case? How so?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com