A definitive description of what makes a golf course great

[Jud_T]

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

How many courses in Digest's World 100 satisfy this criteria?

[James Brown]

I don't think anyone has summed this subject better than Alistair Mackenzie in Golf Architecture

[Ulrich Mayring]

It is of course subjective, but that does not make it esoteric or romantic. You can draw up a factual description of your personal values.

The four categories, that I look at, when trying to determine a course's architectural merits:

1) Quirk
2) Scenery
3) Shot Values
4) Flow

As an example, here is my factual description of quirk:

Quirk
... is a measure of how unusual a golf course is. The general idea is that innovative design elements can make a course more interesting to play, if they are not used for their own sake, but play an actual role in the strategy of the hole. Surprise is part of this concept as well, if it is not overdone. It certainly is suprising to lose a ball after a blind shot, but that kind of quirk is not an asset to a golf course.

Questions to ask when evaluating quirk: is there anything memorable about this hole? Have I seen a tee shot / a green approach like this on many other courses? Are creative hazards deployed or just standard bunkers and ponds?

In the Quirk category a wacky track in the Scottish highlands can outperform a long and stern Tour venue, if it is simply more fun to negotiate.

The subjective part is me assigning a "quirk number" to a course. Someone else may assign a different quirk number or not evaluate quirk at all.

Ulrich

[Mac Plumart]

All someone can hope for is to get the most out of the piece of land.

If in the course of doing that, they bring something truly unique to the game of golf... then you have something extraordinary.

[Jim Hoak]

Should every great golf course begin with "a plot of gently sloping land," as Golf Digest wrote a few years back in trying to define the elements of a great course?

[David Davis]

Anyone know of this 100 point scale that Tom mentioned? Or can anyone post it please?

[Kevin Lynch]

A "Definitive Description" reminds me of "Understanding Poetry" by J. Evans Pritchard from Dead Poet's Society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHORRHXtyI

What I find most interesting in this discussion are the times when someone's favorite course goes against their suggested "principles" (e.g Fowler's love of TOC; numerous instances where MacKenzie strayed from his 13).  Perhaps there's a lesson in that, because we are likely inspired by the unexpected and straying from the norm.

In general, all of MacKenzie's principles make some sense, but I think they fail the more we think of them as strict barriers or in any way "definitive."

[Sean_A]

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.

Adam

I think we should remember that in literature and music, we are really talking about a Western Canon.  Coming form a completely different cultural music background can lead to claims of "that is rubbish" and when an ear is trained to certain sounds something radically different can sound alien.  Of course, it is usually accepted that the value of the Canon is not only the beauty of the music, prose or art, but the influence these works exert on western culture.  All of this is very subjective by nature, even down to its base origin of being western.  

I was thinking about the Western Canon and why it is very different from golf architecture.  Apart from the playing field aspect of golf, there is also the consideration of influence on design.  There can be little doubt the island green has been a signficant influence in design.  While this concept is really classic in origin, it is much more modern in influence.  Yet, would most "respected" critics include Sawgrass as part of the Canon of golf courses?  I am not sure they would.  My point is, influence in design (any sort of design) can often eventually be seen as a negative.  So from at least this perspective, using the idea of a canon for gca is at least somewhat flawed.  Which of course leads us further back toward complete subjectivity in determining what is good.  Like you, I would rather start from there rather than make assumptions about objective tenets of design.

I think another issue with a gof canon is there are not nearly enough experienced critics to know enough to create a true canon.  A huge percentage of raters are essentially shooting from the hip.  Even well know critics will often only see courses once, maybe twice.  That woud be like trusting to a music critic after listening to a piece once.  Sorry, that doesn't cut it in the real world of criticism and it shouldn't in golf circles, but that is what we are asked to do when mags put out rankings.  But, who else do we turn to?  Hence the reason some guys latch onto specific critics whose opinions they trust more than others and certainly more than a canon developed by an undefined group of critics. Maybe one day golf will get there, but for now, it is miles short of music, art and literature.  

Ciao     

[Ulrich Mayring]

I don't think you can compare literature and music to each other and none of them to golf. For literature the "canon" is a book I read once, maybe then another time ten years later. But it's mostly what I learn from that book that makes up the canonicality, not the book itself. For music, it's a piece I listen to much more frequently, but will set it aside for prolonged periods of time as well and there is no personal growth externally to the music. And for golf - how many times do I play the course? Either once or twice, when I'm a visitor. Then the critic building a canon does the appropriate thing, when he plays it once or twice. It would be detrimental to the task at hand, if he played the course ten times. And then there is the situation that I'm a member of the club and play the course hundreds of time - in which case there is no canon at all, because no one can play enough courses hundreds of times.

So realistically the main question for a golfer is: what courses are great, when I play them for the first time.

Ulrich

[DMoriarty]

Anyone know of this 100 point scale that Tom mentioned? Or can anyone post it please?

The scale was published in CBM's 1906 "The Ideal Golf Course" article in Outing Magazine and was reprinted in CBM's book.  IMO, more interesting than the actual 100 point scale were the explanations that went along with it. I have it somewhere and will try to post it later.

[Sean_A]

When one thinks od when CBM's book was written and the timeframe of his career, it shouldn't be too much a surprise that two factors, nature of the soil and quality of turf, account for almost half of the essential characteristics of good design. This ties in perfectly with the Heathlands movement in design which was happening at the same time and still rings true today.  When you throw in undulations and hillocks with turf and soil, this adds up to fully 2/3s of the eseential characteristics of a good course.  I highly doubt many archies would see it this way today  .  It would be very interesting to know what CBM thought of all his courses.  

While it accounts for only 2 points on the scale, I find it very interesting that CBM listed proximity of teeing grounds to putting greens at all.  

Finally, bunkering, an element of design which has become uber important these days, accounts for only 13 points on CBM's scale.  He gets no arguments from me on this point  .

Ciao

[Brad Isaacs]

Philosophy, or the study of wisdom, fits nicely into gold design.  What is wise,  in a rational manner is not what a we have necessarily done with bigger is better golf design. What is wise is inclusive , interesting , not always penal ( but is sometimes)  strategic  ( but not always) heroic ( but not always) .  It is interesting and fun.

Soon determining a golf designs quality, the question of wisdom of decision process given problems presented to architect  and  trying to achieve a wise goal is everything.

Philosophy............

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff W and Mark P,

Understand your points, but note I said good holes, and not great holes, which I actually typed out and changed.  Can't recall the 5th at LC clearly, for example, but don't recall any holes there that made me throw up on the spot or anything.  Ditto at TOC and most other great courses.  I am not talking holes you like a lot or could take a pass on, I am talking unplayable, no fun, etc.  

Maybe my definition is biased towards a discussion (which I think I relayed here once) with a lesser known gca (even lesser known that moi!)  As hard as I try to make every hole good, this gents courses always had some awkward holes.  In this conversation, he said something like "Well, you know, every course has a few bad holes, you just can't avoid it."  I really thought he was setting the bar pretty low for himself.  At least, I try to work my routings and features to make the weak holes "stand up to the others in polite company" which is a Golden Age quote from someone......but exactly who escapes me pre coffee.

[DMoriarty]

Here is the 1906 version of Macdonald's article from Outing magazine.  The article was reprinted in Scotland's Gift (1928).

[Ulrich Mayring]

Interesting that he speaks of a burn being utilised to great effect at Leven. Where is this burn today?

Ulrich

[DMoriarty]

Posted in earlier thread by Bryan Izatt of CBM's so-called "Leven" hole at Lundin Links.

[Tom_Doak]

David M:

Thanks for posting the Macdonald article.  I haven't read that for a couple of years.

I was going to find fault with his giving points to "Best length of holes," but then I read what he had to say on the subject:

"True, nearly all these courses were laid out before the advent of the Haskell ball, adding as it does twenty yards to wood and iron.  Now, while the Haskell ball has marred many excellent holes, it has made just as many indifferent holes excellent.  The majority of greens committees have failed to realize this and have expended their energy in devising means to lengthen every hole.  It would be much better if they would shorten some, lengthen some, and leave the others alone."

Dr. MacKenzie said the same thing just a few years later.  Yet, how many renovations or restorations today involve shortening any of the holes?

[jeffwarne]

David M:

Thanks for posting the Macdonald article.  I haven't read that for a couple of years.

I was going to find fault with his giving points to "Best length of holes," but then I read what he had to say on the subject:

"True, nearly all these courses were laid out before the advent of the Haskell ball, adding as it does twenty yards to wood and iron.  Now, while the Haskell ball has marred many excellent holes, it has made just as many indifferent holes excellent.  The majority of greens committees have failed to realize this and have expended their energy in devising means to lengthen every hole.  It would be much better if they would shorten some, lengthen some, and leave the others alone."

Dr. MacKenzie said the same thing just a few years later.  Yet, how many renovations or restorations today involve shortening any of the holes?

Actually 7 of the holes at The Bridge are now shorter than at opening, some significantly
2 are longer from the furthest back tees

[Jud_T]

It's very interesting that he gives only 6 points to Variety and Arrangement of Length, something given endless scrutiny here, yet it's only 1/3 of what he gives to Nature of Soil.  I'd love to see a Top 100 list based on these criteria.

[Tom_Doak]

It's very interesting that he gives only 6 points to Variety and Arrangement of Length, something given endless scrutiny here, yet it's only 1/3 of what he gives to Nature of Soil.  I'd love to see a Top 100 list based on these criteria.

I think the nature of the soils is actually very well represented in the top 100 lists, even if most people don't realize that's what they're voting for.  They argue about giving too much credit for the views, but it's actually the sand they are loving.

[Steve Green]

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

Plus one to Mr. Warne.  As a guy who appreciates playing this game the great courses are defined by playing them and are the one's I can't wait to get back to.  Not what someone else said was great, what I experienced as great.   Sure I am curious as to ratings and yes I have developed an affinity for certain types of courses.  But flat out it is my experience that dictates the evaluation.

And one more thing...  rules tend to demand a homogeneity that does not exist in real life.  My view leaves room for me to think something is great and wonderful and for you to think not so much.  

Aside from a handful of courses I suspect it is difficult for all here to agree 100% on greatness.  As a matter of fact if we all agreed the need for this forum would be much less and much less interesting.

Mr. Davis thank you for a thought  provoking post.

[David Davis]

David, thanks very much for posting that.


I do find it interesting but logical that soil plays a large roll. I really wonder however if the majority of golfers ever realize this or are concerned by it.

If I look at Continental Europe how many courses are sand based in terms of turf? If I had to guess I'd say less than 10. The UK is of course full of them. What percentage of the courses in the US are sand based? I can only think of a small handful that I've visited.

Personally, I think this question of turf is very high up on my list of characteristics that are very important for me, maybe one of the major reasons I love links golf.

Which also makes me wonder off-hand how many sand based, target golf courses exist. Perhaps fodder for another thread.

His comments on length and variety are most certainly shared today.

That leaves us with 3 major (primary) factors in determining the quality of a course:

1. Turf
2. Variety of holes, short, medium and long 3's, 4's and 5's
3. dynamics of terrain, undulations etc.
4. Fun factor, playability for all levels while still being sufficiently challenging for all levels.


Then various components that could arguably be seen as secondary but influential nonetheless.

1. Quality and positions of hazards.
2. Level of maintenance. Can't think of any "great" courses with poor maintenance, not to be confused with questionable maintenance practices.
3. Surroundings, have a large impact on opinion and ranking of courses even if this is not included in what is required to make a course great. Take Cypress, Pebble or even Pacific Dunes away from their amazing geographical aesthetics  and while they would still be excellent or even great in architectural merit I wonder if people would see them as great.

Sorry ran out of time to finish


Any other essential points to add to this?

[Adam Lawrence]

David, thanks very much for posting that.


I do find it interesting but logical that soil plays a large roll. I really wonder however if the majority of golfers ever realize this or are concerned by it.

If I look at Continental Europe how many courses are sand based in terms of turf? If I had to guess I'd say less than 10. The UK is of course full of them. What percentage of the courses in the US are sand based? I can only think of a small handful that I've visited.

Honestly, I doubt it's wildly different in Europe than anywhere else. Off the top of my head, sand-based courses in Europe....

Morfontaine
Le Touquet
Hardelot
Fontainebleau
Several others round Paris
Chiberta
Oitavos
Palmares (partly)
Troia
Estoril
El Saler
Budersand
Marine
Sylt
Foehr
Fano
Falsterbo
Ljunghusens
Pan
Swinkelsche
Stippelberg
Haagsche
Noordwijk
Kennemer
Hoge Kleij
Eindhoven
Heelsum
Royal Antwerp
Zoute
Penati
Sand Valley
Falkenstein
Estonian
Lofoten
Lubker
Lido Venezia

And that is literally off the top of my head. There's a pretty good correlation between old courses and sand-based courses - because in the old days that was what they looked for first.

[David Davis]

Adam,

I get the dunce award for that one. I wasn't even thinking of Portugal and Spain as being part of Europe from a golf perspective. Of course that's wrong but yes there are far more courses down there most of which I've played as well.

I for some reason have the inclination to exclude warm country resort courses most of the time when thinking about golf course architecture.

To be fair half of what yo posted I've not heard of but I see a bit of a spread there between countries. Sweden and Denmark having some representation. Any links courses there that you know of?

[Ulrich Mayring]

There's a few more German courses on sandy soil, e. g. St Dionys, Munster, Norderney.

Ulrich