The Don'ts in GCA

[Carl Nichols]

My #1 is definitely Internal OB.

My #2 is cart paths that run alongside a hazard, propelling even rolling balls into the hazard. 

[Kyle Henderson]

I dislike greens surrounded by bunkers when the hole plays downwind and the bunkers are tight to the green that is often firm.    

This comment seems to describe the 10th at Royal Dornoch (at least when the wind blows a certain direction). Do you dislike that hole?

I agree that the hole should present an upslope beyond the fronting bunkers to help slow the ball by challenging the carry as closely as possible and the green should be adequatel deep.

[Philippe Binette]

Don't believe the don'ts...

every 'rule' of what not to do has produce a pretty good hole somewhere in the world.

the only don't I would put are:

Don't design a golf course sitting in an office.
Don't use the same design over and over.
Don't fix course that aren't broken

[Jason Topp]

Don't


Take away driver as an option on a par four or five;

Inflate the yardage of a course by making 210 yard par threes and eliminating short par fours;

Take away any hope of success;



. . .  unless there is a good reason for doing so.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Don't believe the don'ts...

every 'rule' of what not to do has produce a pretty good hole somewhere in the world.

Seconded...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

I guess you would agree with the late Ed Seay, who always said to take any critique of a course and add the words, "It doesn't fit my game".  Its like the old kids game of adding "in between the sheets" to any song title - the new song title still makes sense!

Phillipe,

Interesting comment and true.  That said, there may be a 100 holes that don't work to find the one that does!  The most striking example of this I know is the Tour 18 courses. They replicate Amen Corner but they upsize the greens for public play, which makes sense, but at the same time, kind of reduces the drama, particularly in their replica of the 12th, IMHO.  They also tweaked it to allow circulation on to the green, etc. that echo Don's concerns.  What would "work" better when considering not only great play, but maintenance concerns, etc.?

Of course, since your second point was to never replicate a design, you would never run into that problem, eh?

[Sean_A]

I dislike greens surrounded by bunkers when the hole plays downwind and the bunkers are tight to the green that is often firm.    

This comment seems to describe the 10th at Royal Dornoch (at least when the wind blows a certain direction). Do you dislike that hole?

I agree that the hole should present an upslope beyond the fronting bunkers to help slow the ball by challenging the carry as closely as possible and the green should be adequatel deep.

Kyle

I am not overly keen on Dornoch's 10th, though it is only a removal (not necessarily the centre bunker) of one bunker away from being a lovely hole.  I wasn't thinking of this hole when I made the comment, I had #8 at St Enodoc in mind.  

Whoever mentioned internal oob call me a +1.  

Jeff

I must be a magnet for cart paths then.  In fact, the last time a played a course with these paths I hit one.  I think if a path is anywhere near (call it 40 yards for argument sake) the line of play - especially around greens - it is poor design.  That isn't to say the archie is at fault, but it remains poor design just the same.  

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

There is a definite balance there for locating cart paths. I think Fazio often locates them too far from the fw to be used in the name of hiding them.  I have seen courses locate them INSIDE fw bunkers for golfer convenience. I strive for somewhere in between those two.

It gets pretty scientific around greens. I find if I place paths more than 60 feet (20 yards) from the green edge that golfers pull inside them anyway. If to the side of the green, I place them 55-60 feet, and to the back, as close as 40' because they come into play less.  I use at least 40' away from the fw edge.  That means my paths are about 33 yards from the fw center, and about  30 from the green center, a bit less than you propose.

Yeah, they can come into play, but it is a compromise between "handy" and "hidden" and since I design mostly public courses in hot climates, I have found trending to handy - at the expense of the occaisional interference in visual delight, or in play - to be the most effective.  Why spend $600K on cart paths no one will use?

[JC Jones]

Sean,

There is a definite balance there for locating cart paths. I think Fazio often locates them too far from the fw to be used in the name of hiding them.  I have seen courses locate them INSIDE fw bunkers for golfer convenience. I strive for somewhere in between those two.

If you have inside the bunker on one hand, and outside the bunker on the other, wouldn't your "in between" be in the bunker?

[Emil Weber]

A wise young man taught me few days ago that there are no rights and wrongs in Golf Course Architecture, but I'm still thinking about that....

[Sean_A]

Sean,

There is a definite balance there for locating cart paths. I think Fazio often locates them too far from the fw to be used in the name of hiding them.  I have seen courses locate them INSIDE fw bunkers for golfer convenience. I strive for somewhere in between those two.

It gets pretty scientific around greens. I find if I place paths more than 60 feet (20 yards) from the green edge that golfers pull inside them anyway. If to the side of the green, I place them 55-60 feet, and to the back, as close as 40' because they come into play less.  I use at least 40' away from the fw edge.  That means my paths are about 33 yards from the fw center, and about  30 from the green center, a bit less than you propose.

Yeah, they can come into play, but it is a compromise between "handy" and "hidden" and since I design mostly public courses in hot climates, I have found trending to handy - at the expense of the occaisional interference in visual delight, or in play - to be the most effective.  Why spend $600K on cart paths no one will use?

Jeff

All that is very fine.  Though I would suggest that perhaps too much time, money and effort is being spent on an issue not related to golf.  It may be harsh, but this isn't good design unless cart paths are now a major part of golf course architecture.  In which case, I would still say it is bad design because the wrong thing is being focused on.  Aesthetics matter and this should be of more importance than cart issues.  In this case, I would most certainly side with Fazio - in principle.  But then, I don't hold out much hope for the management of a course that doesn't want to enforce its own cart policies so instead compromises with the encroachment of paths in the line of play.  There should be a very clear set of priorities and I fear that this clarity has long been very fuzzy.  

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC,

Well, I try to avoid that!

Emil,

It is a very real question when making a final decision in gca on any given hole.  For the stuff you guys are interested in - strategy, etc. there are probably very few absolute rights and wrongs, do's and don't do's, although some would argue that. In reality, as some have noted, if you do too many commonly accepted "don't do's" pretty soon you have crossed the line over to a goofy golf course. On the other hand, if you NEVER break the rules, you often run a greater risk of a dull course.

When it comes to golfer circulation (straightest, most level line will always be taken) or nature (turf needs at least 6 hours of sunlight a day, preferably in the morning) I have found that if I break the rules, the superintendent and course pay for it as the turf dies, literally, a thousand deaths.  You guys would bitch about poor turf, perhaps not realizing its a function of poor design.

There is some overlap, too. If a bunker can't be placed in a specific location because it blocks traffic, that might eliminate one possible strategic type of hole.  Gca is about dealing with all the factors that affect the sucess of a hole, which is what makes gca so fascinating!

Sean,

See above. Its not that I don't sympathize with the situation, but I deal in realities, not what I think golf ought to be.  And yes, cart paths have turned into a major aspect of design.  When 55-100% of the golfers experience the golf course this way (as per the recent thread on Jim Engh which covered this subject) it is a consideration.  Perhaps not the first conideration, but an equal consideration, with the design of the hole "first among equals" since its almost always possible to design a good hole first and fit the path second.

Concealment and aesthetics are a part of that as well.  It is possible to be both hidden and handy and on public courses, Fazio offers a great tutorial, making his courses worthy of study in modern design.  He hides the paths, but brings them back closer in key areas for ease of access at the same time.  On private courses, I think he goes too far out, as I have seen no differences in the ways private or public golfers use carts.

[Sean_A]

JC,

Well, I try to avoid that!

Emil,

It is a very real question when making a final decision in gca on any given hole.  For the stuff you guys are interested in - strategy, etc. there are probably very few absolute rights and wrongs, do's and don't do's, although some would argue that. In reality, as some have noted, if you do too many commonly accepted "don't do's" pretty soon you have crossed the line over to a goofy golf course. On the other hand, if you NEVER break the rules, you often run a greater risk of a dull course.

When it comes to golfer circulation (straightest, most level line will always be taken) or nature (turf needs at least 6 hours of sunlight a day, preferably in the morning) I have found that if I break the rules, the superintendent and course pay for it as the turf dies, literally, a thousand deaths.  You guys would bitch about poor turf, perhaps not realizing its a function of poor design.

There is some overlap, too. If a bunker can't be placed in a specific location because it blocks traffic, that might eliminate one possible strategic type of hole.  Gca is about dealing with all the factors that affect the sucess of a hole, which is what makes gca so fascinating!

Sean,

See above. Its not that I don't sympathize with the situation, but I deal in realities, not what I think golf ought to be.  And yes, cart paths have turned into a major aspect of design.  When 55-100% of the golfers experience the golf course this way (as per the recent thread on Jim Engh which covered this subject) it is a consideration.  Perhaps not the first conideration, but an equal consideration, with the design of the hole "first among equals" since its almost always possible to design a good hole first and fit the path second.

Concealment and aesthetics are a part of that as well.  It is possible to be both hidden and handy and on public courses, Fazio offers a great tutorial, making his courses worthy of study in modern design.  He hides the paths, but brings them back closer in key areas for ease of access at the same time.  On private courses, I think he goes too far out, as I have seen no differences in the ways private or public golfers use carts.

Jeff

Thats fair enough.  I realize that most archies are constantly being asked to compromise for issues which are based in reality and yet have little to do with golf architecture, but everything to do with site design.  However, I am glad for some of the recent designs which have managed to buck (even create alternate realities) the reality trend and offer some sort of modern design alternative(s).  I am always hopeful that the compromises in favour of cart usage aren't taken too far.  Unfortunately, I know they have and only the golfers lose out or gain - depending on your PoV.  Luckily, guys like me don't have to play these efforts which I believe go too far in accommodating carts. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

What, a reasonable response with no name calling? What site are we on anyway?

As I said, gca is all about dealing with ALL the aspects of a hole, but I don't think anyone designs paths first and holes second, although as noted, there are some influences both ways.  I don't think the holes per se suffer, but sometimes the minimalism does - its hard to hide paths without some type of earthmoving, which goes against the general dogma of finding natural holes.  Carts are just one more unnatural thing, and accommodating them takes us away from simplistic golf and design.

I found a new factor that adds to grading the other day.  Enviros have been recommending that grades ought to be less than 4% to allow sediments including fertiizers and pesticides to drop out of the runoff before finding the catch basin or waterway.  Yes, I am getting OT, but it shows that modern gca's had to deal with more and more design factors.  And, with more and more rules to follow that have little to do with actual golf, perhaps more standardization of design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I found a new factor that adds to grading the other day.  Enviros have been recommending that grades ought to be less than 4% to allow sediments including fertiizers and pesticides to drop out of the runoff before finding the catch basin or waterway.  Yes, I am getting OT, but it shows that modern gca's had to deal with more and more design factors.  And, with more and more rules to follow that have little to do with actual golf, perhaps more standardization of design.

Jeff,

That's an interesting comment and an interesting dilema.

Wouldn't a grade mandate of no more than 4 % result in substantive dirt moving and additional expenses ?

Wouldn't it also lead to bland design ?

No grades over 4 % would squeeze the distinctive character out of Shinnecock, NLGA, Pine Valley, WF, Seminole, Bandon, Sand Hills and many, many other great courses.

Have those courses substantively impaired or harmed the environment ?

Folowing the enviro's mandate for no more than a 4 % grade would seem to sound the death knell for creative architecture and golf courses on wonderful natural land forms, wouldn't it ? 

[Lou_Duran]

I found a new factor that adds to grading the other day.  Enviros have been recommending that grades ought to be less than 4% to allow sediments including fertiizers and pesticides to drop out of the runoff before finding the catch basin or waterway.  Yes, I am getting OT, but it shows that modern gca's had to deal with more and more design factors.  And, with more and more rules to follow that have little to do with actual golf, perhaps more standardization of design.

Jeff,

That's an interesting comment and an interesting dilema.

Wouldn't a grade mandate of no more than 4 % result in substantive dirt moving and additional expenses ?

Wouldn't it also lead to bland design ?

No grades over 4 % would squeeze the distinctive character out of Shinnecock, NLGA, Pine Valley, WF, Seminole, Bandon, Sand Hills and many, many other great courses.

Have those courses substantively impaired or harmed the environment ?

Folowing the enviro's mandate for no more than a 4 % grade would seem to sound the death knell for creative architecture and golf courses on wonderful natural land forms, wouldn't it ?  

The more laws and regulations the greater the standardization, the less opportunity for creativity and self-expression.  We've had this discussion numerous times, particularly when people lament that modern architects lack the skill and artistry of the ODG.  Had CPC been designed under the same legal and environmental regimes, it may more closely resemble Spanish Bay.

[Steve Okula]

  BTW, I've spoken to more than a couple of superintendents who don't think highly of the architect's instructions on how to care for the course. 

Probably because the GCS know  more about maintaining a golf course than the average architect.

The connector holes as some people refer to par 3s are very important in my book, and I like them to be all different.  This is helped when the direction and terrain are varied, but I've played some that though the yardages are staggered, they tend to play similarly (short ones into the prevailing wind, long ones down wind).  I think that the superintendent can help with variety in the way he sets the tees and pins relative to the conditions, but I typically find that little consideration is given in this regard.

I don't know many courses that set all tee markers and pins on a daily basis, it gets expensive. Typically, we set up the course early in the morning, and conditions change radically throughout the day. It's a lot to ask the guy setting pins to consider what the wind might be like in eight hours.
 

Two big no-no's from a GCS;

NEVER drain water into a bunker. I see it all the time, surface water running into a bunker and causing havoc.

Think about how you'll get maintenance machinery around, even in bad weather, and even if you hate cart paths, we'll still need to go around the course and we won't have time to walk everywhere carrying all our tools and supplies on our backs.

[Kyle Harris]

The only don't is an undersized diameter hole.

[JohnV]

Don't build tons of mounding and slopes around the greens while leaving the fairways dead flat.  It makes every green look totally manufactured.

Don't force clubs to put drop zones on the green side of a hazard just because most of the members can't carry it.   If it is that long a carry, give them another way to play the hole (see #16 at Cypress Point).

As for cart paths, putting them right next to water hazards is awful.  It is a rules and playability pain.  I'll always remember the Magnolia course at Disney for that, which, unfortunately, is the most memorable thing about the course for me.

[Tom Yost]

Don't build anymore island greens.

[Philippe Binette]

The most important one of all:

Don't forget to use your head when designing a course... but not too much

[Will MacEwen]

Don't just set the women's tees 30 yards in front of the forward men's tees.