A definitive description of what makes a golf course great

[David Davis]

Since this doesn't seem to exist, can we just go ahead and create one, free from opinion with facts we can all agree on, omitting the ones we can't agree on? Maybe GCA has done this before in all seriousness. Mainly what I read is purely opinion based whether mine or anyone else's all tainted by our own perspective, experience and side of the bed we woke up on this morning etc.

How can we expand and improve on Dr. Mackenzie 13 principles? Which should be kept and are essential and which do not fit play into the equation if any? Can we further qualify these points or remove some that are purely subjective?

In short, can we create a definitive description (whith all the experience, knowledge and combined brainpower (or lack thereof)) of what makes a golf course great on GCA?

13 (?) GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE

1. The course should have beautiful surroundings. (subjective)

2. The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes. (easy enough to ascertain)

3. There should be a large proportion of good two-shot holes, and at least four one-shot holes. (what constitutes a large number)

4. There should be little walking between the greens and tees. (how far is little?)

5. Every hole should be different in character. (according to what?)

6. There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots. (given 20/20 vision?)

7. There should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes... (with every club utilized).

8. There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.

9. The course should be so interesting that even the scratch player is constantly stimulated to improve his game.

10. The course should be so arranged that (all levels of players can) enjoy the round in spite of ... piling up a big score.

11. The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens. (I guess this excludes everything on the East Coast of the USA right now)

12. There should be a sufficient number of heroic carries. (what constitutes a sufficient number?)

13. The greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating. (How do we determine what sufficiently is?)

So let's get started, who's first?

[Adam Lawrence]

I think you are trying to create objectivity where it can't exist David. If I am honest, I think the only true objective measure of a golf course is a consequentalist, Benthamite one: "The golf course should provide the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest number of people that play it."

[Ian Andrew]

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description hard-core pornography; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

—Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart   Jacobellis v. Ohio


I think its too personal to each one of us for someone to succinctly sum it up for all of us. I think some people can sum it up for themselves and we may even agree with large sections of what they have to say, but we all value different aspects and that is why we argue about what is best.

[David Davis]

Adam and Ian,

So you are both suggesting that none of what we spend part of our lives discussing here, being passionate about, reviewing and ranking is objective? It's all purely esoteric philosophy?

[Ian Andrew]

"I'm not a slave to objectivity. I'm never quite sure what it means. And it means different things to different people."
Peter Jennings

I don't believe it's objective, but I wouldn't say esoteric philosophy either.

[Phil Lipper]

To me its about how memorable the golf course is there are course I have played only but can remember most holes, typically those are great. The courses that you play and can't remember any of the holes, they normally arent very great. But I view golf courses like art its completely subjective, I don't love all artist, I don't love all golf course designs.

[archie_struthers]

 

I'm not on board for a strict limit on blind shots.  Some of the most interesting holes we play have a blind feature .

[Adam Lawrence]

David - I don't completely think that, but it is a better starting point than any other. The subjective/objective issue is both complex and emotive. Ask me if I think judging golf courses, or music, or paintings, or buildings, or any human activity of such a kind is subjective, and I will say yes. But if you then ask me, am I happy with the idea that it is only a subjective opinion that Beethoven's music is better than One Direction's, I will say no. This is a contradiction!

This is philosophically very complex stuff. In literature and music, theoreticians have developed the concept of the 'canon' - a group of works that are agreed, by the vast majority of qualified observers, to rank as great. You will find it hard to find a music expert who does not agree that Bach was a great composer -- whether or not he personally 'likes' Bach's music -- or a literature specialist who would argue that Tolstoy was a hack.

Now, the canon is NOT objective. It is merely the agglomeration of the subjective views of a large number of qualified observers over a long period of time. Writers or musicians can be and are reassessed -- remember that Bach was forgotten for many, many years. So it is fluid. As such, I believe that, while falling short of an objective assessment, the judgement of the ages on literature and music is more than just a subjective list. In my opinion, if you say 'Beethoven's music is rubbish', you are simply wrong, using the criteria by which we assess music today. It is _possible_ that you might be right, and that you have a new take on Beethoven that will, in the future, become the received wisdom. But it is heavy odds against.

Theoretically the same form of assessment is possible with golf design. The problem is that the field is smaller and has less history than music or literature, but even so, a canon does exist. If someone tells you that Pine Valley is a rubbish golf course, you are justified in assuming that they are wrong -- using the criteria by which we today judge golf courses. But it takes time and large numbers of different opinions to assemble a credible canon. This is why the Donald Trump 'best course in the world' schtick is so ludicrous. And it is why Harry Colt's comment: "The real test of a course: is it going to live?" might be the most profound sentence ever written on the subject.

[jeffwarne]

In order to more easily have " the approach have the same consistency as the greens"
perhaps rather than spending high dollars and man hours on firming approaches, we should simply allow our greens to be presented as soft as the approaches......

food for thought

or....another reason why it's so hard to interpret and implement someone else's  quantification of greatness to a specific site

 

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Before you bother to go any further, you should read very carefully Dr. MacKenzie's deconstruction of his own principles in THE SPIRIT OF ST. ANDREWS, and see how he felt about them after a lot of practical experience -- and after building some truly great courses.  Hint:  he learned when to throw out his own rules.

Or, you're welcome to spend as long as you want coming up with your own list.  We would have great fun picking it apart after you're finished.

[Mark Pearce]

If Mackenzie thought that he could specify numbers for his points then presumably he would have done.  It's also clear that none of these was a rule that didn't have an exception.  I would suggest that any objective and absolute set of requirements would exclude a number of courses that most people agree to be great.

How many par 3s does the Old Course have?

[George Pazin]

Great courses repeatedly ask interesting questions.

"What's my yardage?" is not one of them.

[David Davis]

Tom,

I'm certainly not claiming to be able to make this list but I was curious if based on a collective approach we could come up with a set of if not required, highly looked upon characteristics that a large percentage of us believe are required for a golf course to be great. I certainly was not suggesting Mackenzie's list of definitive but mere copy pasting it for means of starting the discussion.

Besides you write books about this and utilize some form of criteria to make your ranking system. I would expect you to have an entire list of things that in your mind are required given your knowledge and practical experience?

Mark,

I suspect that he might not have built his first courses in the US at this time but am not sure of the dates of his list.

Adam,

I appreciate your arguments comparing art and music and I imagine that they are all discussed in much the same way as we discuss architecture. With no definitive reasoning behind what makes a great song or a great piece of art. I know upon my several visits to the Louvre, Rijksmuseum or Smithsonian (obviously pre golf days) I often looked at great master pieces and wondered to myself what was so special about them, even when the then girlfriend who obviously forced me to go with her tried in despair to inform me of my ignorance.

I imagine that same thing would not apply to some of the top golf courses as we could take the average person knowing nothing about the sport and they could immensely enjoy the walk, nature and beautiful surroundings.

Jeff, I'm biased but that does not sound like fun golf to me. From plugged lie to plugged lie.

[Tom_Doak]

If Mackenzie thought that he could specify numbers for his points then presumably he would have done.  It's also clear that none of these was a rule that didn't have an exception.  I would suggest that any objective and absolute set of requirements would exclude a number of courses that most people agree to be great.

How many par 3s does the Old Course have?

C.B. Macdonald did do a 100-point scoring sheet for what makes a truly great course -- I don't have it handy or I would post it.

It requires very subjective judgments, too, but it's interesting to read -- he places an enormous amount of weight on things we tend to ignore today, such as soils and drainage, and "perfection in undulations".  He gives a few points for the condition of the greens, and the rest of the playing surface.  He gives two or three points to "proper width of fairways [45 to 60 yards]".  I'll try to find it later if someone else hasn't.

[Tim Martin]

I'm not on board for a strict limit on blind shots.  Some of the most interesting holes we play have a blind feature .

+1

[jeffwarne]

Jeff, I'm biased but that does not sound like fun golf to me. From plugged lie to plugged lie.

Nor to me. I was merely trying to point out the folly of attempting to interpret someone else's objective criteria of what makes a course great.
Mackenzie never used the words firm, or fast-merely consistent

[Andrew Hastie]

David,
I think you have been in Holland to long! Typical Dutch trying to formulate everything. I remember Tom Doak writing years ago on a similar post something along the lines of  'The rules are, there are no rules'. I for one like courses that don't return after 9 holes, the round feels like more of an adventure when the second nine begins in the middle of nowhere.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We can't create a definite description. Many have tried, and the results are never lauded as the perfect system, no suprise.  They spur more lists rather than more consensus.  Even consensus changes over time.

Moreover, some of Mac list overlap. What if a course has a maximum of variety, but has to lengthen a few walks to do it?  Do those walks alone de-great the course?  If not that premise, which premise would degreat it?

The best definitions I have heard are:

1. There are 18 good holes, no bad ones
2. You want to play again as soon as possible

[jeffwarne]

We can't create a definite description. Many have tried, and the results are never lauded as the perfect system, no suprise.  They spur more lists rather than more consensus.  Even consensus changes over time.

Moreover, some of Mac list overlap. What if a course has a maximum of variety, but has to lengthen a few walks to do it?  Do those walks alone de-great the course?  If not that premise, which premise would degreat it?

The best definitions I have heard are:

1. There are 18 good holes, no bad ones
2. You want to play again as soon as possible

1. disagree for at least 2 reasons that there need to be 18 good holes
     a..Who decides? 5 at Long Cove being the poster child-I think it's great, other well traveled respected posters here think it sucks
      b.12 or more great holes could make up for one "bad" hole-many older courses have a weaker hole just to get you out to or back to the house

2.Wanting to play again as soon as possible is my ONLY criteria for a great course

[Mark Pearce]

The best definitions I have heard are:

1. There are 18 good holes, no bad ones

So that disqualifies TOC and, according to some, CPC?

[Phil Lipper]

The problem with this question its like asking what is great art? You can't create a list to say why Rembrant is better than Monet or Jackson Pollock anymore than you can create a list that says why Pine Valley is better than Cypress or Royal County Down.

[Niall C]

Mark/Tom D

I was reading recently of Fowler trying to come up with design principles as well, and a commentator of the time pointing out that 3 of the 4 points that Fowler was expounding were absent in TOC, one of Fowlers favourite courses. Given how much of a favourite TOC is to so many gca's over the years its a wonder nobody has attempted a set of principles based on some of the more obvious characteristics of TOC eg.

1 - there should be at least one cross-over hole.

2 - ideally only two par 3's.

3 - make your bunkers willfully blind.

4 - always leave room for a ginger beer stand behind the far green...

Niall

[Sven Nilsen]

Read Bob Crosby's two part piece on Joshua Crane (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/joshua-crane-part-i/).

One of the thoughts instilled from Bob's piece is that people engage in the game of golf for different reasons, or for different purposes.  You might be able to come up with a set of criteria for a particular purpose, but it will be to the detriment of all others.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark/Tom D

I was reading recently of Fowler trying to come up with design principles as well, and a commentator of the time pointing out that 3 of the 4 points that Fowler was expounding were absent in TOC, one of Fowlers favourite courses. Given how much of a favourite TOC is to so many gca's over the years its a wonder nobody has attempted a set of principles based on some of the more obvious characteristics of TOC eg.

Niall:

Here's a different set of rules drawn from St. Andrews:

1 - There should always be a place for the less confident golfer to aim, within his or her ability.

2 - Hazards, to the extent there are hazards, should be fearsome enough that it's important to avoid them.

3 - There should be as much variety as possible in the nature of the holes and the situations encountered along the way.

4 - The golfer should be faced with odd stances and lies to test his ability to control the ball, and should be given chances to use that control to his advantage in windy conditions.


I just came up with these based on St. Andrews, and have not thought about how they would apply to Pine Valley or Cypress Point or others that I revere.  But it's probably better than many lists of criteria, since it does not disqualify The Old Course.

[Peter Pallotta]

Angles help, of course, and the sufficient width needed to make those angles meaningful.

Peter