Does a good site ever take away from the golf?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ok, we know that having a good site helps with building a good golf course. But, does it ever hurt? Does having great ocean views or mountain vistas ever get in the way of building great golf holes or golfing features? Does having a great site ever compromise a routing in any way because the designer takes the player to a certain vista at the expense of using some cool contours that may lead away from stunning visuals? I don’t know the answer, but when the background is awesome do we sometimes forget that we’re playing the game in the foreground?

We have been trained that great golf can only be had at great sites. But is that really true? Is it possible that sometimes a great site with great visuals could actually hurt the golf? Is there anyone who would ever even admit such a thing?
I want to work on a sandy seaside site just as much as the next guy, but I have to wonder if the golf ever gets compromised for the sake of better views or because the designer attempts to present a more beautiful landscape.

[Chris Flamion]

I don't think that it would ever take away from the golf course.  However, as has been noted by Pebble Beach recently sometimes we forget about the golf course.  Pebble Beach is a tremendous golf course and would probably still be if the ocean were nothing more than a cornfield.  I guess what I am basically saying is that the great courses are accentuated by the land, but the view doesn't make the course.

As for the second paragraph, I give you Trump LA.  While I have never been there everyone knows the views are great, but the course....not so much.

While the sandy seaside sight is ideal, I think everyone on here has played at least one course that was a less than ideal site that became a great course

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - I think an architect of modest talent, imagination, and aspiration will invariably fail to make the most out of a good site, and will usually manage to make very little that's good out of an average site.  But I don't think you're asking about that kind of architect; you're asking about architects of talent and imagination and aspiration.  And in that context, the question becomes harder to answer, for me at least i.e. I can't judge whether a site was good for golf independently of/separate from my judgment of the golf course itself. And if the routing of that golf course flows simply and well, if there is a sense of continuity and unity from hole to hole and throughout the round, and if the vistas sneak up on me and seem organic to/in keeping with the golf itself, then I would assume that maximizing the quality of golf itself came first, and was the architect's main priority.  If on the other hand I'm constantly doubling back or re-tracing my steps, and if there is a jagged edge to a series of holes (seemingly jammed into their surroundings) immediately before or after an unusually striking vista, then I might start doubting the architect's intentions.  But really good architects --the kind I assume we're talking about here -- don't tend to make such obvious mistakes, and so I think it would be nearly impossible (for me at least) to determine whether anything of golfing import had been sacrificed for the sake of a great site and/or majestic scenery.    

Peter  

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I am not fond of the word "elitist" but it might fit in this case.

I've had a few tortured souls suggest that Pacific Dunes might have been even better if we had ignored the coastline and looked for the best possible green sites inland ... and there were certainly choices, since about half of the land for Old Macdonald was available to us if we wanted it.  Personally, I think that's nuts.  We were spoiled for choice on that project, but even while letting the number of holes on the ocean [Mr. Keiser's measuring stick in 2000] drive some of our thinking, there is not a green site I'd throw back for a better choice.

So whenever anyone suggests there might be better "pure golf" if you ignore the context of the setting, I tend to think they're trying to prove they are more educated than the other 99% of slobs who fall for ocean views every time.  [Or, perhaps they are trying to rationalize putting less golf and more real estate on the water!]

Now, I'm not saying you can't ruin a good routing trying too hard to include a particular vista or one particular spectacular hole.  You can always do that.  We might have screwed up Cape Kidnappers if we had built my par-3 hole hanging down off the cliffs below #13, because it would have spoiled the walk, and because it would have singled out that hole too much by comparison to the rest.  Fortunately, a possible Maori burial ground put that brilliant idea to rest.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom,
I'm not following the elitist comment as I'm not saying any of your golf courses could have been better had they been routed differently. However, I will ask if during your routing process on any of the great sites you have worked with if you were ever tempted to route toward a better view of the setting at the expense of the golf? Or, are your guys so good at building that you could do that and still create something as good as what you passed up in favor of a better view?
I could see how that very thing is possible and I would have a very hard time being critical of it as your giving the client the best of the site and your crew's talents.

I just wonder if when faced with a less than stunning site, is it possible a little more attention to golfing details isn't possible as there isn't anything else to show off.
I can think of one example of a modern lake front golf course (not one of yours) where views were the first priority, and yet the golf course is well received by most as the setting does seem to drive most of the reviews.

[Carl Rogers]

If Trump LA is less that than a good course on a spectacular site, then are there other examples?

My television observation of Cape Kidnappers was that it will take a while to recognize the design because the site is overwhelmingly other worldly.

[Bill Brightly]

Maybe Don is asking if an architect can be lazy because the site is so good, the views so stunning, that attention to the "golfing detail" is overlooked?

[Steve Lang]

  seems like a lazy gca may have plenty of time to relax if they don't make the best out of a good site

[Don_Mahaffey]

 Bill,
No, I'm not thinking lazy, I'm think they might give the client what he wants and that's lot of publicity generated by pictures of golf holes in a beautiful setting. I think more raters are swayed by beauty and an "experience" than they are by the nuances of great golf.

[Kirk Gill]

I think more raters are swayed by beauty and an "experience" than they are by the nuances of great golf.

Don, it seems like this is true of just about any hit and run golf experience. Isn't that how most raters play courses, especially new ones? One play, in and out? Or is that more a product of a specific golfer's attitude towards gca ?

[Adam Clayman]

Don, Chambers bay might qualify as an example of what I think you're trying to say.
 
Taking a blank slate, creating links like walking only golf, only to have to trek long ways to the next teeing ground. Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but it seems like that takes away from a it being considered a greater course.

Kirk, I'm not sure I know how all raters do it. But, if a course has too much to absorb from one visit, that in it's self, is evident.

 

[Tom_Doak]

I will ask if during your routing process on any of the great sites you have worked with if you were ever tempted to route toward a better view of the setting at the expense of the golf? Or, are your guys so good at building that you could do that and still create something as good as what you passed up in favor of a better view?

Don:

We are very particular about the backgrounds for our greens, where there is a good one to be had.  So, yes, I will locate a green based on the background instead of on a site with cooler contours that is 50 feet to one side of it ... but I'm not going to settle for a dull green on the better spot ... I will figure out how to tie in or transfer those cool contours so that they make the preferred green site work.

I started thinking about that a lot more after I noticed that Dr. MacKenzie did it all the time.

[Sean_A]

Ok, we know that having a good site helps with building a good golf course. But, does it ever hurt? Does having great ocean views or mountain vistas ever get in the way of building great golf holes or golfing features? Does having a great site ever compromise a routing in any way because the designer takes the player to a certain vista at the expense of using some cool contours that may lead away from stunning visuals? I don’t know the answer, but when the background is awesome do we sometimes forget that we’re playing the game in the foreground?

We have been trained that great golf can only be had at great sites. But is that really true? Is it possible that sometimes a great site with great visuals could actually hurt the golf? Is there anyone who would ever even admit such a thing?
I want to work on a sandy seaside site just as much as the next guy, but I have to wonder if the golf ever gets compromised for the sake of better views or because the designer attempts to present a more beautiful landscape.

It seems to me that this sort of deal would require specific examples.  I am sure it has happened, but how does Joe Sixpack know? 

I think it is important to take advantage of long and short views if possible and I would think in this day and age an archie can figure out how to incorporate views without compromising much and covering that compromise with construction work.  That said, on a really stunning site, I wonder how much the archie needs to work in views if they are all around?  In this instance working a view isn't as important to me or perhaps only really getting in one or two highlights would be a goal. 

For ""interior" views one bit of architecture I really like is routing greens back into a fairway of another hole.  It can really work well on a hilly and perhaps somewhat narrow site, but I like the "illusion" of space it creates on flatter holes.  For instance, #3 at Worplesdon dead ends in a T junction with the 1st fairway - very cool.  I also recall one hole doing this at Ballyneal.       

Ciao 

[Steve Lang]

  Adam,

Blank yes, but would Chambers Bay be considered a good site?   If so, then you're saying the fact that there are those stress test walks between several greens and tees means it wasn't used to max advantage.. i can see that.  

p.s.  wonder if they'll shuttle the Amatuers?  they'll definitely shuttle the Pro's..

p.s.s.  the ground game was not very alive there when we visited in mid-may

[Adam Clayman]

Seve, along the water is quite envogue. I guess the answer to Don's question is like many answers regarding GCA. It depends on how it's utilized.

[Tom_Doak]

I will say, after thinking about this for another day, that the routings at Ballyneal and St. Andrews Beach are two of my favorites, and in both cases none of the holes have anything to do with a view.  The properties are pretty all the way around, but there is no distant feature to focus on, so we had to find good reasons for which way the golf should go next.

Funnily enough, they were almost opposite design problems ... I had most of the holes at St. Andrews Beach figured out on the first go-around, but Ballyneal was much tougher ... there was more acreage to work with but the land was much more rugged.

[Garland Bayley]

Don, Chambers bay might qualify as an example of what I think you're trying to say.
 
Taking a blank slate, creating links like walking only golf, only to have to trek long ways to the next teeing ground. Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but it seems like that takes away from a it being considered a greater course.

Kirk, I'm not sure I know how all raters do it. But, if a course has too much to absorb from one visit, that in it's self, is evident.

 

Creating long green to tee walks seems to me to be a function of the architect, not of the site. Chambers Bay has lots of tees close by the greens. However, they usually are the back tees, which makes the green to tee walks longer for the average golfer. It does have three long walks that fairly deserve some criticism. 3 to 4, 9 to 10, and 14 to 15. I feel confident that an architect more attuned to the walker could have found and built an excellent walking course on the site.

From what I have heard, Trump LA shouldn't even be in this discussion. My understanding is that it was too severe a site to be considered good.

[Bill_McBride]

I will say, after thinking about this for another day, that the routings at Ballyneal and St. Andrews Beach are two of my favorites, and in both cases none of the holes have anything to do with a view.  The properties are pretty all the way around, but there is no distant feature to focus on, so we had to find good reasons for which way the golf should go next.

Funnily enough, they were almost opposite design problems ... I had most of the holes at St. Andrews Beach figured out on the first go-around, but Ballyneal was much tougher ... there was more acreage to work with but the land was much more rugged.

The view from the 4th tee at Ballyneal is quite spectacular, but you're right, it's almost featureless.

[Garland Bayley]

Adam,

Blank yes, but would Chambers Bay be considered a good site?   If so, then you're saying the fact that there are those stress test walks between several greens and tees means it wasn't used to max advantage.. i can see that.  

p.s.  wonder if they'll shuttle the Amatuers?  they'll definitely shuttle the Pro's..

p.s.s.  the ground game was not very alive there when we visited in mid-may

 

Why would the shuttle anyone? The course is a pretty easy walk. After all, it is a walking only course!

Have you played Chambers Bay? It would seem not.

[Adam Clayman]

Garland, I did not say it was a difficult walk, only unnecessary. If it was all done to take advantage of views, resulting in yet another collection of down hill tee shots, the routing suffers, imo. 

[Bill_McBride]

"Does a good site ever take away from the golf?"

Call me dense but I don't see how it could!

[Anthony Butler]

"Does a good site ever take away from the golf?"

Call me dense but I don't see how it could!

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the site,
But in ourselves... that we are underlings."

Julius Caesar-GCA

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, I did not say it was a difficult walk, only unnecessary. If it was all done to take advantage of views, resulting in yet another collection of down hill tee shots, the routing suffers, imo. 

Are there somehow more downhill tee shots than uphill tee shots? Do you want all your golf to play flat?

If you think you can route the course better, then I encourage you to participate in one of Charlie's armchair architecture contests where real architect judges will disabuse you of that fantasy.

[Sean Leary]

Garland, I did not say it was a difficult walk, only unnecessary. If it was all done to take advantage of views, resulting in yet another collection of down hill tee shots, the routing suffers, imo. 

+1.

As I and others have stated, it would have been interesting what have been done with 7-9 (although 7 is a very good hole by itself) had they decided not to go up the hill and used the driving range area instead.

[Mac Plumart]

Does a good site ever take away from the golf?

Perhaps it can, but in a good way.  Think about courses that are so-so...but the views are so stunning people want to play there anyway...and maybe some don't even notice that the golf isn't all that good.

I can think of a few courses that might fit this bill...but I haven't played them, so I'll hold off on naming names.