How can a layman understand routing?

[Peter Pallotta]

I've often come off a course and thought to myself "That was a well routed course". I've never come off a course and thought to myself "That was the best of all possible routings available on this site". It would never even occur to me to say that, as I have no idea of a) what such a routing would actually look/play like or b) what contraints/considerations might have precluded this best of all possible routings.

I think there's 1500 of us who can determine the former, almost none of us who could determine the latter. But I have to admit that I don't see that as any kind of problem, i.e. most of the times during a round of golf I am only interested in whether the course I'm actually playing is routed well (interesting and flowing) and not so much in the theoretical question of whether some imagined  course could've been routed better. That's only for here, when I have time to "think" (ha ha).  

Peter

[Mike_Young]

I would wager every GCA has a different way of going about it and if one were to try and tell you it would be like the instructional articles the pros write for Golf Digest where they don't do half of what they suggest in the article....it's just one of those things that's hard to say one way is right and one way is wrong.  Now at the risk of sounding like a total smart ass, the bigger question should be....how many GCA's understand routing?  That has always been my contention if all one does is restoration.  Also, during the last 25 years so many routings were given to design firms from the landplanners of the developments where they were to place the course.  Guys were tied into corridor widths, a clubhouse location that required less paved road than another, cartpath locations, and all sort sorts of things that might not apply to golf strategy.  

[Jud_T]

It doesn't mean we are the Deer Whisperer.

 

[Tom_Doak]

the bigger question should be....how many GCA's understand routing?

At the risk of sounding like a total smart ass, not many are very good at it, because many aren't really interested in it.  They figure they can solve everything with earthmoving, so why bother finding good places for the holes?  

If you are good with routing, you may still want to move some dirt around, but you probably won't have to move much at all, unless the property doesn't drain naturally, or the majority of it is 10% slopes or greater.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

You touch on an interesting point or two, perhaps inadvertently.  You did have a mentor, but didn't happen to work on that phase as much as other interns.  At the same time, you learned somewhat through osmosis.  On the other hand, what intern hasn't said to himself, "I would do it different if I was in charge?" Probably the reason most of us hang out our shingle.

And, we all have to realize that even our mentors have their limitations and or too well established patterns that over time, sort of force them to look at things only one way.  The intern needs to recognize those, if they exist, and pattern their thoughts only after the best of their boss, but their own thoughts, and maybe thoughts borrowed from competitors.  At least you were pretty sure you had the among the best of the mentors, but even Pete's judgment was influenced by the number or real estate courses he worked on.  Certainly Honors Course was a good model for you to learn from.

True genius comes from those who take different looks at things.  That's why my best routings always come after NOT working on them for a week or month.  I get a fresh perspective over sitting down in an office and banging one out.

As to routing along the contours of the hill, my mentors made the analogy of showing me rail lines and roads on USGS maps.  You rarely see things (like trains, that really struggle on those uphill grades) routed up and over without tunnels.  And, to date, tunnels haven't been an option on anything other than miniature golf courses......

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Good stuff. Changing a routing in any significant way affects everything on a golf course.  

So much so that a different routing (usually) amounts to a different golf course. It's like complaining about the plot of a novel. If you wish FSF had used a different plot in The Great Gatsby, you are not asking FSF to write a better novel. You are asking him to write a different novel.

Bob      

[Mike_Young]

the bigger question should be....how many GCA's understand routing?

At the risk of sounding like a total smart ass, not many are very good at it, because many aren't really interested in it.  They figure they can solve everything with earthmoving, so why bother finding good places for the holes?  

If you are good with routing, you may still want to move some dirt around, but you probably won't have to move much at all, unless the property doesn't drain naturally, or the majority of it is 10% slopes or greater.

TD,
I sort of asked this a few years ago.  My question was if DR did 400 courses and was known for his routing abilities then would he consider one a Ross expert if they just restored features and never routed their own courses?  Or as critical as some of us may consider routing in the design of a course, is one really a GCA if he restores ODG features and never routes from scratch OR if he is given routings from a landplanner often with 1/4 mile stretches or more between holes.   

[Chris Shaida]

I think the term that Dan Herrman used elsewhere is apt, he talks about the 'journey.'  As is Peter's analogy to a movie.  We can all take a golf journey just like we can all watch a movie.  We can all say something afterwards about that journey just like we can all say something about the movie.

Maybe there is some formulation in which the 'routing' encompasses all of the things that had to be thought through and counterbalanced in order to make all of those subsequent 'journeys' possible.  Everyone who gets through one round of golf can have a valid point of view about the 'journey' they were just on but not everybody has the same knowledge, experience or verbal acuity to discuss the 'routing' in an interesting way (thought that doesn't stop of us from trying

[Peter Pallotta]

"If you wish FSF had used a different plot in The Great Gatsby, you are not asking FSF to write a better novel. You are asking him to write a different novel."

Bob - let me return the compliment: what you wrote there is absolutely spot on, and gets right to the heart of the matter. I spent some 20 years in and around film and television, and proposed many a story/screenplay, sometimes succesfully. To this day it amazes me how few in the industry - and I'm not talking bankers or financiers here, I'm talking about producers and story editors, i.e. self identified creative types -- were able to recognize that distinction; and it still stuns me that the vast majority of creative types I met were simply unwilling or unable to recognize that they were asking not for a "better" story but for a "different" one.  In my experience over those years, it was one in a hundred who could tell the difference between "I don't like this" and "This doesn't work".

Chris - good post and terrific IM, which deserves a long and thoughtful response, but so far this morning I've only had time for these short, pithy ones!

Peter

[William_G]

Tom Doak,

Thank you for you sharing your experience about Bill Coore at Streamsong, he may use topos only as an aid, 

[Jeff_Brauer]

William,

Its not that I said topos were a substitute for walking the site, but they are more than an aid, at least an indispensable aid.

As to how many can route well, I guess it goes all across the spectrum.  I have told the story before about a gca who used to route hilltop to hilltop.  I guess if you played every shot perfectly you found it to be a good routing.  Those who came up short of the hills found a succession of blind shots, and didn't feel that way. (Hence TD, PD and myself talking about following contours.)  The amazing thing is he did it his whole career and apparently never told about the inherent problems.

I know another old gca who said he figured he was done when he reduced the course to just a few bad holes, so his attitude did him in before he started (although he has done some well regarded courses)

Another allocated 3 days to routing, and then was done no matter what.

I know another who talks a good game, but really hasn't changed from his mentors old views, which IMHO had some flaws.  Again, a version of not trying hard enough.

That said, of about 300 active gca, I believe 2/3 are good routers, even with differences of opinion, i.e., move no dirt, to move dirt on 3 holes, vs move dirt on 18.  All of the big names are, regardless of what folks here think.  Some do take more care than others, some are more pliable by developers than others, and of course, I will admit to seeing at least one Fazio routing for a well regarded course that I know was a quickie, because of work load and ability to reshape the earth.  The course is top 100, FWIW

On the few competitions where I have had the chance to see other gca's routings, most have picked out many of the same holes.  Some principles are well known to most.  Sometimes, its the details that we differ in.

[JC Jones]

I got to spend a few days walking around with Bill in the process of routing the two courses at Streamsong.  In contrast to what Jeff stated above, Bill does not work mostly from the map ... he walks the property and follows his eye, trying to put together combinations of good holes.  [He also carries a rangefinder, so that he isn't fooled by his eye on distances.]  After a spell of walking, he'll go back to the hotel and try to put what he saw on paper, but in my experience he didn't try to find a hole on paper first, as I often do.  I learned a lot from that experience, though I won't describe it in any more detail, as it's Bill's to share (or not).

This is fascinating.  For all who felt there is a formula for achieving greatness, we find out there really are 2 ways to skin a cat.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff B:

I am curious about your views on something pertaining to Pebble Beach, a site many here are familiar with:

If we gave a site map and topo of the property as it existed in 1910 to ten or twenty current architects, how likely is it that many, if any, would produce a routing significantly different or better than what was built?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

Well, the first thing is, they would all try to get as many ocean holes as possible. I would bet most would try to put them on the hook side, however.

It's clear real estate drove even that project, but luckily, they thought golf/ocean views were okay

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

Well, the first thing is, they would all try to get as many ocean holes as possible. I would bet most would try to put them on the hook side, however.

It's clear real estate drove even that project, but luckily, they thought golf/ocean views were okay

Jeff,

That was my view. Seems like that property dictated and therefore limited the options. So, whoever routed such a site wouldn't not deserve an Academy Award for "Best Achievement in Routing".

By contrast, the time I spent recently at NGLA (for the Walker Cup) made me feel CBM did a damn good job. I wouldn't assess that site as being a no brainer.

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - indeed, there are probably a lot of ways to skin a cat, which brings to mind the thought that we may inadvertently be comparing apples to oranges here.

We're asking -- from the outside/objective point of view -- if laymen can understand an (existing) routing; while the professionals are grappling with how to share with us -- from their insider/subjective point of view -- their approach to creating a (brand new) routing.

It's the difference between laughing at a joke and having a comedian trying to explain why it's funny. We can all do the fromer, but my guess is that the latter would fall on a lot of deaf ears.

[Niall C]

David:

If you've done all of the above, you are no longer so much of a layman.  But how many here have done so?

My problem with people discussing routing is that it's complicated, and most people's suggestions are going to be simple.  There are always trade-offs involved -- but rarely do people think about the trade-off necessary for the change they are suggesting.

Also, I hate it when people get simple rules stuck in their head [changing directions on par-3's, returning nines, avoid uphill holes, etc.] and bang on about them regardless of whether they apply well to a given site.  Commenting on these homilies doesn't add to the discussion, it distracts, and subtracts from the discussion.

As Adam implies, you don't have to know everything about routing to know whether the sequence of holes is appealing.

Tom

Excellent post. Totally agree regarding the over importance of "rules" in peoples heads however as one who has dabbled I am interested in routing more than individual hole design. Often I don't think there is one solution and therefore I find it interesting to hear what factors came to bear in the architect routing the course in such a way.

On another thread Jim Urbina talks about his base camp idea and mentions specific sites where that idea might have allowed a great bit of land to be used rather than not using it because the routing didn't work overall. It's these type of situations and solutions which I find fascinating.

On yet another thread I remember Scott MacPherson explaining how he dealt with the elevational changes on his Colt design down in the NW of England. That surely has a much bigger bearing on the success of the course than how many bunkers it has.

More of this type of discussion would suit me.

Niall

[Ronald Montesano]

Two successful, working architects have driven this thread. Both have provided great insight into the routing of a course, both from their own experiences and from those of colleagues and mentors. Neither has given pithy, quickie responses, yet one brushes off the saliva while the other garners hardly a follow-up question.



Why is that?

EDIT: Missed Mike Young's posts...make that three.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD is right, there are trade offs involved.  Or as they say, "DA knee bone connected to da, thigh bone....da thigh bone...."

Another thing, I have always felt the amateurs here are dreaming about routing a Sand Hills or whatever. For most, those are once in a lifetime projects, great and ample land, etc.  As TD notes (and others) when you start on a 160 acre property, the rules are a bit different.  Add in enviro rules, client wishes, real estate, climate, you name it, they all have an effect.  

We all probably do have a few rules in our head, even if not articulated, just "felt" about what is right and wrong.  All of us have holes we like (a la Dye and cape holes, for instance)  We all have patterns, too, like brushing teeth before shaving or whatever.  we need to recognize those to overcome them, if negative.

I recall TEPaul once advocating the "blank slate" mentality for routing, but who can really ignore years of experience, good and bad, and really, who would want to?  Do you want your pilot to relearn flying on YOUR flight?

But, there is a process we go through, which I articulated on that old thread. It starts with some basic analysis, which in effect is making a checklist of stuff you can't do first.  Sounds bad, but it kind of narrows the options from infinite to only a few thousand, which can be a big help for the indecisive!  After that, its a trial and error period.  Then refinement.

Up in MN a reporter asked me if the routing was any different on the Quarry and Legend and was astounded to hear me say, "different sites, different results, same process."  It is not unlike the scientific process in some ways.  Identify problems, opportunities, test ideas, come to conclusions, retest if necessary (as Forrest says, he often does 20+ routings, often minor variations)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Two successful, working architects have driven this thread. Both have provided great insight into the routing of a course, both from their own experiences and from those of colleagues and mentors. Neither has given pithy, quickie responses, yet one brushes off the saliva while the other garners hardly a follow-up question.



Why is that?

Its that hero worship on the other thread thingy.....but no problem.

[Mike_Young]

William,

Its not that I said topos were a substitute for walking the site, but they are more than an aid, at least an indispensable aid.

As to how many can route well, I guess it goes all across the spectrum.  I have told the story before about a gca who used to route hilltop to hilltop.  I guess if you played every shot perfectly you found it to be a good routing.  Those who came up short of the hills found a succession of blind shots, and didn't feel that way. (Hence TD, PD and myself talking about following contours.)  The amazing thing is he did it his whole career and apparently never told about the inherent problems.

I know another old gca who said he figured he was done when he reduced the course to just a few bad holes, so his attitude did him in before he started (although he has done some well regarded courses)

Another allocated 3 days to routing, and then was done no matter what.

I know another who talks a good game, but really hasn't changed from his mentors old views, which IMHO had some flaws.  Again, a version of not trying hard enough.

That said, of about 300 active gca, I believe 2/3 are good routers, even with differences of opinion, i.e., move no dirt, to move dirt on 3 holes, vs move dirt on 18.  All of the big names are, regardless of what folks here think.  Some do take more care than others, some are more pliable by developers than others, and of course, I will admit to seeing at least one Fazio routing for a well regarded course that I know was a quickie, because of work load and ability to reshape the earth.  The course is top 100, FWIW

On the few competitions where I have had the chance to see other gca's routings, most have picked out many of the same holes.  Some principles are well known to most.  Sometimes, its the details that we differ in.

Jeff,
I was guessing 3 out 4 could route well or cared about it.  But we probably come to the same number because I don't know 300 working archies...
I'm not saying certain guys can't route as much as I'm saying the last 30 years often did not require as much thought in routing many of the projects that came a long.  They were often done or 80% done before they chose an architect.  Combine that with guys that have only done redos and routing was not practiced by many at a rate where they could become proficient.  Say five assistants are in one signature shop.  One guys does a routing and then the others might be doing various aspects.  I know I have talked to a couple that worked in an office where they had not routed a course in the few years they were there. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Yeah we have similar experience and estimates.  Of guys who do more than a dozen new courses, I would guess 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 are pretty good.  Of course, those of us with egos divide the routers on a me/them (unwashed heathens) basis......

I guess I just can't relate because I never took it easy when routing.  Moving dirt on 3 holes is better than 4, like a bogey beats a double bogey, to me at least.  Of course all projects are different so that might be 16 vs. 18 on some sites.  Of course, I also don't follow the mantra of no earthmoving as strongly as a CC do.  To me, its all about good golf holes in the end, whether with more earth, some longer walks as on another thread, etc. 

I did lose a real estate deal to AP years ago when the developer insisted they keep the land planners routing.  I showed them some changes that actually improved frontage, and got what I thought was a better course, but that (and the AP name) lost me the job.  In fact, we interviewed against AP a few more times for them, but never got one, even though the guy kept shaking his head thinking my plan was a bit better. 

Can't beat the names with quality routing, I guess, even assuming they can tell the difference as this guy could.  But, in general, for those of whose green jackets come from Macy's, I always figured a string of nice courses they enjoy would be a good selling point.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Yeah we have similar experience and estimates.  Of guys who do more than a dozen new courses, I would guess 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 are pretty good.  Of course, those of us with egos divide the routers on a me/them (unwashed heathens) basis......

I guess I just can't relate because I never took it easy when routing.  Moving dirt on 3 holes is better than 4, like a bogey beats a double bogey, to me at least.  Of course all projects are different so that might be 16 vs. 18 on some sites.  Of course, I also don't follow the mantra of no earthmoving as strongly as a CC do.  To me, its all about good golf holes in the end, whether with more earth, some longer walks as on another thread, etc. 

I did lose a real estate deal to AP years ago when the developer insisted they keep the land planners routing.  I showed them some changes that actually improved frontage, and got what I thought was a better course, but that (and the AP name) lost me the job.  In fact, we interviewed against AP a few more times for them, but never got one, even though the guy kept shaking his head thinking my plan was a bit better. 

Can't beat the names with quality routing, I guess, even assuming they can tell the difference as this guy could.  But, in general, for those of whose green jackets come from Macy's, I always figured a string of nice courses they enjoy would be a good selling point.

Macys???   How bout Target?    also Jeff, I really don't know that many people in our business with an ego...I rpobably just haven't been around them...

[Mark Smolens]

TD,

You touch on an interesting point or two, perhaps inadvertently.  You did have a mentor, but didn't happen to work on that phase as much as other interns.  At the same time, you learned somewhat through osmosis.  On the other hand, what intern hasn't said to himself, "I would do it different if I was in charge?" Probably the reason most of us hang out our shingle.

And, we all have to realize that even our mentors have their limitations and or too well established patterns that over time, sort of force them to look at things only one way.  The intern needs to recognize those, if they exist, and pattern their thoughts only after the best of their boss, but their own thoughts, and maybe thoughts borrowed from competitors.  At least you were pretty sure you had the among the best of the mentors, but even Pete's judgment was influenced by the number or real estate courses he worked on.  Certainly Honors Course was a good model for you to learn from.

True genius comes from those who take different looks at things.  That's why my best routings always come after NOT working on them for a week or month.  I get a fresh perspective over sitting down in an office and banging one out.

As to routing along the contours of the hill, my mentors made the analogy of showing me rail lines and roads on USGS maps.  You rarely see things (like trains, that really struggle on those uphill grades) routed up and over without tunnels.  And, to date, tunnels haven't been an option on anything other than miniature golf courses......

And the Reverse Jans 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

then you just might be the most fortunate man ever to be in the biz!

No, seriously, while big egos are the norm, most of us do a pretty good job of tucking those down pretty well.