Routing schmouting just hand me my driver

[John Connolly]

As someone starting to look under the skirt of golf course architecture, I'm curious about comments I read on here such as "St. Elsewhere GC has such a great routing. I love how the holes move over the property."

I don't think I've developed a good sense of whether a course has the best, or at least a proper, routing. I just kind of march from green to tee wondering where I should play my next tee ball. I am not speaking of residential courses that wind in and out of the development using bridges, overpasses, underpasses - that's rarely fun. I'm trying to focus on classic walking courses where the gca wouldn't have been encumbered with houses, etc.

What is it while playing a course that let's one know if it has been given a good routing? Are there red flags for poor vision by the architect?

[Carl Johnson]

One approach I take is to try to imagine a better routing on the property, although I need a number of rounds to work on it.  If not - which is normally the case - it's already a good routing.

[Phil McDade]

John:

Good question -- kind of hard to define a good routing; I tend to channel the late Justice Potter Stewart, referring to a different subject that provoked varied responses , that I know it when I see it (or walk it, as the case may be). For me, it includes:

-- The course should follow the lay of the land; really serious GCA devotees talk about playing corridors following the land as animals might have once traversed it before the hand of man became involved.
-- The course should have some sense of slowly revealing what comes next; that it's not entirely laid out there for one to see immediately, but that portions of the course reveal themselves depending on where your shot goes (in the best of sense, not some shanked shot that takes you well off-course).
-- Walks between greens and tees should be intuitive -- this is a really big one for me. I really dislike courses where it's not obvious where the next tee should be after putting out on the green. This doesn't mean that green-to-tee walks necessarily have to be short; it's that they should be logical and make sense.
-- There should be a sense of a pleasant walk -- that playing the 18 (or 9) holes should be enjoyable. Not that it can't be rigorous or demanding -- some of the best routed courses I've seen are not the easiest of walks, but they are full of interesting and surprising parts.

Perhaps I can best explain it by pointing to two photo threads of two well-regarded courses here in Wisconsin:

Milwaukee CC, a wonderfully routed course where, with very few exceptions, the course logically leads you around all 18 holes with a sense of drama, interest and variety: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36505.0.html

Contrast to Erin Hills, site of the 2017 U.S. Open, a course with many good holes, several of them outstanding, and a lot of variety, yet its routing left something to be desired: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45966.0.html

[Kevin Lynch]

-- The course should follow the lay of the land; really serious GCA devotees talk about playing corridors following the land as animals might have once traversed it before the hand of man became involved.

Not so sure I agree on the level of devotion to this principle. 

As Phil Young once pointed out, Bethpage Black's 4th hole never would have existed if Tillinghast (or Burbeck) had followed the animal route.  Strictly following the land would have resulted in a hole through the valley to the left of the teeing ground, rather than the elevated 2nd & 3rd shots that make this hole so special. And, if you believe in the Butterfly Effect, the world-class 5th hole may never have existed, either. 

I think the "hand of man" objection is more related to the shaping or the tie-ins of greens, rather than the actual routing.  In fact, I find many holes more interesting when the routing isn't as simple as following the flow of animals or water.

[Carl Johnson]

Another specific - uses natural drainage to best advantage.

[Joe Hancock]

Another specific - uses natural drainage to best advantage.

Also, don't let routing be confused with siting.....a green site moved 10 or 20 yards one way or another may not substantially change the routing, but can make a world of difference in the details of how the hole is played, how it looks, how it flows to the next tee, etc. Same thing w/ tees....

Joe

[Ken Moum]

Unless you start with a flat piece of ground, I think you say that routing IS golf course architecture.  Get it right and you'll have the best course you could build on your site.

Get it wrong and you'll have nothing more than a collection of mediocre and poor holes.

There's a local course here about which I once told Ron Whitten, "There are several holes out there that a backward."  He said the whole place was backward.  He was joking, but the truth is that they took a pretty darned nice piece of ground for a golf course and completely screwed it up.

That course was one of the things that got understand how routing affects playing the game. I still believe there are at least 8 holes that would be better played in the opposite direction.  To give you an idea, when I first saw it, the place had THREE periscopes for blind second shots.

Think about that, one longish par four and two par reachable fives have completely blind second shots! And one other four par is blind on the second shot for about 75% of the people who play there

With such a nice piece of ground, there was absolutely no need to build those holes.  Whenever I play there (rarely) I look for and usually find ways the routing could have been changed to make better holes.

K

[Phil McDade]

-- The course should follow the lay of the land; really serious GCA devotees talk about playing corridors following the land as animals might have once traversed it before the hand of man became involved.

Not so sure I agree on the level of devotion to this principle. 

As Phil Young once pointed out, Bethpage Black's 4th hole never would have existed if Tillinghast (or Burbeck) had followed the animal route.  Strictly following the land would have resulted in a hole through the valley to the left of the teeing ground, rather than the elevated 2nd & 3rd shots that make this hole so special. And, if you believe in the Butterfly Effect, the world-class 5th hole may never have existed, either. 

I think the "hand of man" objection is more related to the shaping or the tie-ins of greens, rather than the actual routing.  In fact, I find many holes more interesting when the routing isn't as simple as following the flow of animals or water.

Kevin:

I'd agree that I'm not a zealot on this point; I'm probably in the upper quartile of GCA geeks who love and appreciate "quirk" -- however that's defined -- and quirky routings and holes are often unconventional ones that don't necessarily take one where nature might otherwise dictate. And I've seen plenty of lesser routings that avoid the unconventional route to their detriment.

[Tom_Doak]

Also, don't let routing be confused with siting.....a green site moved 10 or 20 yards one way or another may not substantially change the routing, but can make a world of difference in the details of how the hole is played, how it looks, how it flows to the next tee, etc. Same thing w/ tees....

Joe

I would call that part of the routing process ... the last thing we need is more parts of the process that people don't understand.

[Tom_Doak]

As Phil Young once pointed out, Bethpage Black's 4th hole never would have existed if Tillinghast (or Burbeck) had followed the animal route.  Strictly following the land would have resulted in a hole through the valley to the left of the teeing ground, rather than the elevated 2nd & 3rd shots that make this hole so special. And, if you believe in the Butterfly Effect, the world-class 5th hole may never have existed, either. 

Of course I believe in the Butterfly Effect ... when you are doing routings, every hole affects at least two others.

The interesting thing about your example is, it's possible you have the Butterfly Effect backwards.  The 4th hole is so counter-intuitive, that I would be surprised if it was one of the first holes Tillinghast decided on.  He might well have decided the 5th was a great hole, so he had to get up the hill on #4 in order to use it. 

There is a process to this that most people cannot appreciate, that's why I'm going to try to write a book about it.  I suspect you'd be surprised which holes I designed different courses around.

[Ken Moum]

As Phil Young once pointed out, Bethpage Black's 4th hole never would have existed if Tillinghast (or Burbeck) had followed the animal route.  Strictly following the land would have resulted in a hole through the valley to the left of the teeing ground, rather than the elevated 2nd & 3rd shots that make this hole so special. And, if you believe in the Butterfly Effect, the world-class 5th hole may never have existed, either. 

Of course I believe in the Butterfly Effect ... when you are doing routings, every hole affects at least two others.

The interesting thing about your example is, it's possible you have the Butterfly Effect backwards.  The 4th hole is so counter-intuitive, that I would be surprised if it was one of the first holes Tillinghast decided on.  He might well have decided the 5th was a great hole, so he had to get up the hill on #4 in order to use it. 

There is a process to this that most people cannot appreciate, that's why I'm going to try to write a book about it.  I suspect you'd be surprised which holes I designed different courses around.

Well, get to writing...we all want see that book.

BTW Jack just said on TV that he designed the back nine at Muirfied Village around #12.

K

[Ronald Montesano]

ken,

I believe that was the broadcaster's phrasing. Jack corrected it to the valley which is now the pond on #12. He indicated that he had land on both sides of the valley and needed to find a way across it.

Tilly would have made it a par three without the water. Jack, it seems at that juncture, hadn't met a pond he didn't like.

[Paul Gray]

-- The course should follow the lay of the land; really serious GCA devotees talk about playing corridors following the land as animals might have once traversed it before the hand of man became involved.

But Prestwick......and a hundred other links courses......

[Paul Gray]

 Jack, it seems at that juncture, hadn't met a pond he didn't like.

 

Even my wife finds that amusing and she knows nothing about golf, save for the rants she has to endure from me.

[Tim Lewis]

I think most golfers, and even many people on this site, see a routing as just another attribute that can either enhance or detract from the quality of a course, while in fact it encompasses a hell of a lot more than that. In my opinion the best way to judge the quality of a routing is to simply judge the quality of the course! If it is a good course then it must be a good routing, and if it is a bad course then it must be a bad routing. There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of a routing is directly proportional to the quality of the course.

Obviously, though, to understand how the architect was able to create a good routing, one most know the property more intimately than simply that which he knows through the playing corridors and the order in which he plays them. When attempting to explain why a particular routing is good, many golfers offer reasons such as "short green to tee walks," "the holes flowed together nicely," and "both nines returned within steps of the clubhouse." These are reasons that can be applied to any course on any piece of property, while in reality the reasons for why a routing is good lie in the ways an architect uses specific features to create interesting holes. This is why the golfer has to know things like where specific holes are in relation to other holes, and the features of a site to appreciate a routing. I have worked on a couple of different maintenance crews over to past couple years, and I have found this to be a very good way to be able to truly analyze a routing. I currently work at Milwaukee CC, because I had heard many say it was a great routing and I wanted to figure out why. Through being able to study how Alison used features such as the ridge that runs between 9 and 10, and along 1, and the Milwaukee River, I have been able to better understand what constitutes a good routing. When asked why MCC has a good routing, many people have responded with evidence such as the fact that both tees heading out, and both returning greens are within steps of the clubhouse, and Alison's decision to move the clubhouse off the high point of the property so that his 18th fairway could lie there. To me though, these are only very minor aspects as to why MCC has a great routing. Instead. I would offer the opinion that the greatness of MCC's routing lies in reasons such as the way Alison used a ridge to offer both 1 and 10 with rousing tee shots, used a small rise in the ground to cut bunkers on both 5 and 6 into, used the ridge to create a exceptional greensite benched into the hillside on 10, used the River and a elevated tee to create a aesthetically enchanting tee shot on 11 while also creating one of the most interesting greensites I have had the pleasure to experience. To me, holes such as these are the essence of great golf course architecture, as they blend both the impalpable pleasures received by a beauty detected by the senses, and the rational pleasures received by the use of our mind. There are few, maybe none, greater joys than to be in the presence of a truly remarkable landscape while simultaneously being presented with an interesting and pleasant task. The better the architect can offer this, by blending the two pleasures, the better the routing, and the course, will be. So then, one cannot simply analyze a routing by simply looking at the course from a broad viewpoint, but rather has to analyze the individual qualities of the holes. I think this is where many people go wrong, because they look at routing as simply the sequencing of holes. I'm no expert, but I honestly think that a good routing has very little to do with the "flow" of holes. Instead, it has very much to do with the individual qualities of holes, because had it been a bad routing many of these qualities would not exist.

So, in conclusion I think the best way to judge a routing is to simply judge how good the course, and the individual holes are in relation to the property, but to understand how a architect was able to create this routing one has to enter into a much more in depth analysis of the property and how it relates to the qualities and sequencing of the golf holes.         

[Michael Felton]

As Phil Young once pointed out, Bethpage Black's 4th hole never would have existed if Tillinghast (or Burbeck) had followed the animal route.  Strictly following the land would have resulted in a hole through the valley to the left of the teeing ground, rather than the elevated 2nd & 3rd shots that make this hole so special. And, if you believe in the Butterfly Effect, the world-class 5th hole may never have existed, either. 

Of course I believe in the Butterfly Effect ... when you are doing routings, every hole affects at least two others.

The interesting thing about your example is, it's possible you have the Butterfly Effect backwards.  The 4th hole is so counter-intuitive, that I would be surprised if it was one of the first holes Tillinghast decided on.  He might well have decided the 5th was a great hole, so he had to get up the hill on #4 in order to use it. 

There is a process to this that most people cannot appreciate, that's why I'm going to try to write a book about it.  I suspect you'd be surprised which holes I designed different courses around.

Interesting stuff Tom - thanks for sharing. I haven't really thought about it before, but if the 4th were to follow the valley, couldn't the green be down and to the left of the 5th tee rather than above and to the right? From memory there seems to be plenty of room to have put the hole along the valley and still met up with the 5th tee.

[John Connolly]

Tim,

Such a well thought out treatise on routing. I'm buying pretty much everything your selling there. I always felt it had to be about more than "good flow" (what is that anyway?) or returning nines. I just had to be. But "what was it?", I always asked. To distill it down to whether or not the holes are good may be as elemental an explanation as one will find. It's really about using the land, the landforms and topography in such a way as to allow an "unveiling" of a hole that has always been there. Good routing then would be one, therefore, where the holes are merely revealed.

A good friend of mine that was a member at Milwaukee for many years and he holds that course in very high regard. Your enchantment with its routing and quality supports his sentiment. Thanks for your great synopsis.

[AKikuchi]

As Phil Young once pointed out, Bethpage Black's 4th hole never would have existed if Tillinghast (or Burbeck) had followed the animal route.  Strictly following the land would have resulted in a hole through the valley to the left of the teeing ground, rather than the elevated 2nd & 3rd shots that make this hole so special. And, if you believe in the Butterfly Effect, the world-class 5th hole may never have existed, either. 

Of course I believe in the Butterfly Effect ... when you are doing routings, every hole affects at least two others.

The interesting thing about your example is, it's possible you have the Butterfly Effect backwards.  The 4th hole is so counter-intuitive, that I would be surprised if it was one of the first holes Tillinghast decided on.  He might well have decided the 5th was a great hole, so he had to get up the hill on #4 in order to use it. 

Interesting stuff Tom - thanks for sharing. I haven't really thought about it before, but if the 4th were to follow the valley, couldn't the green be down and to the left of the 5th tee rather than above and to the right? From memory there seems to be plenty of room to have put the hole along the valley and still met up with the 5th tee.

I've always thought it would be fascinating to see what the grading of the land on the 4th looked like before the hole was built.  The 4th green is a good bit above the 5th tee, so you're right- if the goal were just to get to the 5th tee, 4 could have been shorter and less vertical. But I can also imagine (to Tom's point) that the 5th tee was found, and then a more complete exploration of the possibilities for 4 led to the interesting greensite up on that crown.
-Alan

[Sean_A]

Quality of the walk (which is always relative to the site), the views, green sites, natural drainage (one example of a poor job is at Broadstone - there is space ot route the course differently near the end to get back to the house) and use of natural features (I shouldn't be able to look around and see cool features unused) including using a main feature for more than one hole.  Any talk of the routing could be better etc etc should be strictly left to the professionals and the very, very few who know a project well and know something about routing. When I hear GCA folk go on about routing I immediately switch off because hardly any of them know what they speak of.

Ciao

[Phil McDade]

That course was one of the things that got understand how routing affects playing the game. I still believe there are at least 8 holes that would be better played in the opposite direction.  To give you an idea, when I first saw it, the place had THREE periscopes for blind second shots.

Think about that, one longish par four and two par reachable fives have completely blind second shots! And one other four par is blind on the second shot for about 75% of the people who play there

Ken:

Curious -- are you opposed to completely blind shots into greens on par 4s and 5s? I've played several courses with good holes with such a feature.

[Ken Moum]

That course was one of the things that got understand how routing affects playing the game. I still believe there are at least 8 holes that would be better played in the opposite direction.  To give you an idea, when I first saw it, the place had THREE periscopes for blind second shots.

Think about that, one longish par four and two par reachable fives have completely blind second shots! And one other four par is blind on the second shot for about 75% of the people who play there

Ken:

Curious -- are you opposed to completely blind shots into greens on par 4s and 5s? I've played several courses with good holes with such a feature.

Actually, I am a supporter of blind holes in general.  The much maligned Cottonwood Hills here was criticized
for its blindness, and I never thought about it.

But this is a busy public course and the blind shots require a 50- to 175-yard uphill hike to determine whether it is safe to hit. The situation is incredibly dangerous and slows play on a course where no one understands the concept playing quickly.

I guess my beef with the design comes down to:

Two of those holes would improve DRAMATICALLY if you just played them the opposite direction. And the holes before and after them didn't justify their inclusion.

The other two play up and over a hill. But the top of the hill would have been an AWESOME greensite in both cases.

The danger these shots represent can't be overstated.

K

[Adam Lawrence]

ken,

I believe that was the broadcaster's phrasing. Jack corrected it to the valley which is now the pond on #12. He indicated that he had land on both sides of the valley and needed to find a way across it.

Tilly would have made it a par three without the water. Jack, it seems at that juncture, hadn't met a pond he didn't like.

I wasn't aware that Jack routed Muirfield Village?

[BCowan]

''I wasn't aware that Jack routed Muirfield Village?''  

That guy named Desmond Muirhead.?.?

[Ken Moum]

''I wasn't aware that Jack routed Muirfield Village?''  

That guy named Desmond Muirhead.?.?

Jack sure took credit for it on the Sunday broadcast.  He specifically talked about walking the valleys that make up the middle of the back nine.

[Phil McDade]

That course was one of the things that got understand how routing affects playing the game. I still believe there are at least 8 holes that would be better played in the opposite direction.  To give you an idea, when I first saw it, the place had THREE periscopes for blind second shots.

Think about that, one longish par four and two par reachable fives have completely blind second shots! And one other four par is blind on the second shot for about 75% of the people who play there

Ken:

Curious -- are you opposed to completely blind shots into greens on par 4s and 5s? I've played several courses with good holes with such a feature.

Actually, I am a supporter of blind holes in general.  The much maligned Cottonwood Hills here was criticized
for its blindness, and I never thought about it.

But this is a busy public course and the blind shots require a 50- to 175-yard uphill hike to determine whether it is safe to hit. The situation is incredibly dangerous and slows play on a course where no one understands the concept playing quickly.

I guess my beef with the design comes down to:

Two of those holes would improve DRAMATICALLY if you just played them the opposite direction. And the holes before and after them didn't justify their inclusion.

The other two play up and over a hill. But the top of the hill would have been an AWESOME greensite in both cases.

The danger these shots represent can't be overstated.

K

Ken:

Thanks -- that makes sense then. Most of the ones I've played that I think are solid holes are on private courses where members presumably know what's ahead.