Soil, topography and setting

[Ran Morrissett]

Is any one of the three less important to you?

Soil is important; otherwise, would such greats as Prairie Dunes, Garden City GC and Walton Heath even exist?

Topography is important; look at Shinnecock and Royal Melbourne West where one nine on each courses seems better than the other, all thanks to topography.

Setting is important as anyone who has played Stanley Thompson's Banff, Jasper, Cape Breton and Capilano will testify. Without setting, would Bandon, Oregon be the hottest new destination in golf?

Relative to one another, which is more important to you between soil, topography and setting? Of course, a Cypress Point which has all three in spades is wonderful but alas, such a site is the exception rather than the rule.

My own answer has significantly changed over the past five years. Initially, topography ruled with Yale being close to the ideal but in the past few years (as The Carthage Club profile indicates), I now place more importance on soil, as it is at the heart of how the game can be played - sandy loam promotes fast/firm conditions, thus opening all design options to the architect.

(On a side note, when I moved back to the U.S. in 2000 and before the great tiolet flush of wealth, several guys in Charlotte were primed for The Carthage Club - provided it was located somewhere near Charlotte. The fact that the sand was located 1 1/2 hours east in - ironically   - the sand hills of North Carolina was inconsequential.)

Cheers,

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Ran,

1 Soil
2 Topography
3 Setting

What about construction budget?  If you had all three of your elements, budget becomes less important, but as soon as you start dropping one or two of those items, budget can become crucial.

And what's the diifference between topography and setting? Aren't they often linked?  I mean, it's tough to have a bad "setting" with great soil and topography.

[CB]

And what's the diifference between topography and setting? Aren't they often linked?  I mean, it's tough to have a bad "setting" with great soil and topography.

I think the difference in topography and setting can be seen in examples such as Seaton Carew, Prairie Dunes, and Carnoustie.  All three have the desired soil and interesting topography, but not the most inspiring settings unless you keep your eyes fixed squarely on the course (I may be stretching a bit with Prairie Dunes, but aside from the stunning dunes the cottonwood trees, fields, and housing/power lines on the outward nine don't make for the most classic setting).  Carnoustie's setting can be bleak with few views of anything but the rail line and firing range, and Seaton Carew has an industrial feel with the refineries, etc. looming over the course.

But I think for those who love golf primarily for the architecture, setting becomes less important, and an uninspiring setting is less of a distraction than for those who love golf primarily for the competition or pretty views.

[Tom Doak]

Sometimes I think soil is the most important of the three.

For sure, it is a lot easier to build subtle and interesting contours in and around the greens on sand, where you don't have to worry about replacing topsoil.  Any contractor goes up a notch under such circumstances.

[TEPaul]

If it's soil that produces the firm and fast conditions then my pick would be soil.

Right now Pine Valley can be included in that list of courses that have the absolutely "ideal maintenance meld" probably because they've been verticutting and topdressing their fairways.

The greens are fast and very firm and just denting with approach shots and the approaches are firm and releasing! I swear to God this is really what it's all about because on many holes you're never quite sure what club to pull and where exactly to land the ball.

In other words the available options and types of shots to hit are multiple!

[Lou Duran]

With an unlimited budget- setting, topography, soil.

With a moderate budget- topography, setting, soil.

With a tight budget- soil, setting, topography.

I agree with Shivas about the importance of the setting.  Money can transform a flat site (Red Raider) and poor soil (Dallas National), but not the setting (Shawdow Creek might be an exception).  Sandy soil can be shaped with relative ease, and it promotes better turf growth at lower costs.  I am still not convinced that pure sand is better than sandy loam.  But I feel strongly about not building a course on soil which does not drain well (e.g. a lot of the cotton soil in Texas, and heavy clay soils in the north).  
    

[BCrosby]

I was talking to a participant on this site the other day about soil and highly ranked courses.  

We concluded that the list of great courses built in sandy soil would go on and on.

The list of great courses built in clay soils would be very short.

Bob

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I think sandy soil seems to the most important factor, but all those attributes seem to be inter weaved. Sandy soil normally means a wonderful setting with interesting topography.

All of which makes Stanley Thompson's accomplishments the more extraordinary - his greatest courses possess world class settings but not the soil. I can think of a number of modern sites that have been wasted that I would have liked to have given to The Toronto Terror.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

It's not just that sandy soil courses happen to be located in interesting terrains. In fact many great sand-based courses are located in fairly uninteresting settings. For example, Pinehurst, Seminole, TOC, Dornoch, Garden City, Sand Hills, National, even Pine Valley, are situated in locations that, absent the golf courses there now, you would not consider especially memorable.

Seems to me the real advantage with sand-based courses is the relative ease with which you can shape the soil and, even more importantly, drain it. Sandy sites afford a lot more design options that are not expensive to implement and easier to maintain over time.

Clays are both harder to shape and much more difficult to drain. Ross worked more than any other great architect in clay soils and I think that accounts, at least in part, for his style. I have come to learn that draining clay is an art form in and of itself. I am also beginning to appreciate how masterful Ross was at it. Some of his courses may not have been terribly interesting from a design perspective (but then he designed 400), but they all drained like mothers. He had incredible engineering instincts.

I believe that ANGC was MacK's only design in clay soil.  (True?)  I've always wondered whether that was one of the reasons why he designed only 22 bunkers for the course originally. Getting clay bunkers to retain their shape and drain properly is a real trick. It may have been a trick MacK did not feel comfortable with, though I doubt he would have confessed that to anyone.

Bob



 

    

[Turfgrass Plant]

I prefer the soil aspects, especially the amount of oxygen present in the soil profile where my roots are located.  Without sufficient drainage (i.e. percentage of O2 present in the soil) I have no ability to take in water and nutrients through my root hairs.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Bob
I don't think I would agree with your list of courses not being located in wonderful settings and/or interesting topography. For example Sand Hills, I'm hard pressed to think of a more memorable site. SH, Pine Valley, NGLA, Seminole, St.Andrews and Dornoch would not be wonderful settings if there were no golf course? Maybe not Cypress Point or Pebble Beach, but how many settings like that are there in the world? What do you consider a memorable setting?

And I guess it depends on your difinition of interesting topography, but I would think the sand hills of Pinehurst, SFGC, Royal Melbourne, Crystal Downs, Prarie Dunes, Eastward Ho! and the heathland courses around London would fall under my definition of interesting golf topography. Maybe you are differentiating between golf topography and more spectacular topography that may not be so golf friendly.

Ohio State has a lot of clay, I'm not sure about Michigan, but there is quite a bit of clay in the Midwest. I'm not sure if hew worked on clay in the UK? MacKenzie's first two sparcley bunkered courses were Bayside on Long Island and the Jockey Club in Buenos Aires and I don't think either was built on clay. I'm sure most of the architects of that era worked with a certain number of clay sites and you must tip your hat to them when they produced good results under those circumstances.

[brad_miller]

Didn't Ran state it in order in his title, for that is my take.

[Paul Turner]

I agree with Tom, nearly all those sites are very appealing, not in a picture postcard way, but beautiful nonetheless.

Ran

So are you warming to Muirfield?    A sandy course without much topography.  (eventhough many comment on it's somewhat inland feel, it is sandy- there's no way those bunkers would work without sandy loam.)

[ed_getka]

Soil>topography>setting. I don't think as Tommy N stated recently that the ocean setting is the attraction at   Bandon. I literally barely notice the ocean when I'm there, its the sand and dunes I would be happy walking in even if there were no golf courses there.

[Mike_Young]

Ran,
I would say soil is first but I also think climate has much to do with the overall experience and the test of time.  That is why most of the world only sees Augusta National in the Spring.  The grasses that define many of the settings on a great piece of topography can only be obtained in certain climates.

Bob,
I agree on the clay issue.

Mike