Flat courses - are they necessarily unmemorable?

[Benjamin Litman]

Fair point, Tim. Disclaimer: I'm 34, but I still think Kingston and other flat courses are among the best to play.

I'm with you on the comparison between Royal Melbourne and Kingston (in some ways, I'd make a similar comparison between Streamsong Red and Blue, the former having the better individual holes, the latter having the more cohesive experience). If I could join any club in the Melbourne Sandbelt, it would be Kingston. The intimacy of the routing (crossing multiple roads at RM West and East is quite unfortunate, and among the many reasons people love the Composite course more than either of the individual courses), the genius of the bunkering, the (relatively) low-key nature of the clubhouse, and, as you note, the walkability of the course.

Oh yeah, and this view from the first tee:

[Tim Gavrich]

The stipulation is that the courses must have been built in the last 20 years.

The SC Lowcountry has a number of qualifying courses, I'd say. I like Secession, Old Tabby, Wexford GC, Caledonia, The Reserve, Heritage and others and they're all pretty flat sites.

[BCowan]

Tim,

   Great call with Caledonia, prob one of the best routings i have ever played and it's in Myrtle Beach...  Do you know if the trees around the greens are protected?  The very old oaks i believe.  I don't think they can cut them down? 

[Carl Rogers]

Riverfront, early surviving Doak-Renaissance Design course, is basically a flat, but subtlety not flat course.......very memorable, every hole

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,

   Great call with Caledonia, prob one of the best routings i have ever played and it's in Myrtle Beach...  Do you know if the trees around the greens are protected?  The very old oaks i believe.  I don't think they can cut them down? 

I'm not sure about the protection status of the live oaks around the grounds at Caledonia, Ben, but the folks there want to protect them anyway, so little to no threat of them being felled, except by disease. Maybe some trimming/pruning here or there, but no wholesale single-tree removal. It is a marvelously routed course, even with the quirk of the 8-9-10 loop-de-loop, IMO.

[Jim Sherma]

I think this conversation is a little broad in terms of the definition of memorable. Where flat courses lack memorability is with the visual scale of the property and certain distinct shots. TOC is notorious for this in that many of the drives, especially going out, are very similarly vague. I felt that Ballyneal had a lot of drives that looked similar enough for me not to easily be able to differentiate between them after multiple rounds. On the course I could once I got to the tee but I could not play the round back in order as I can with many other courses.

Ballyneal and TOC are two of the most memorable courses I have played in terms of having fun and memorable shots to hit. The overall experience of having the round unfold was great.

MidPines was another round I remember being greatly enjoyable even though it was not as visually distinct as many other courses although more so than the two I mentioned.

Based on this analysis I thing the answer to the thread is that a flat course is necessarily less memorable visually, but not less memorable from a golfing standpoint.

This is not to diminish that the visual aspect is important, especially for a one and done travelling golfer.

Wanted to clarify before I get beaten up - I do not consider Ballyneal or TOC especially flat courses, just that many of the drives have the visual aspect that lacks a lot of the definition that a rolling site can give. I think flatness versus memorability is very driven by visual definition.

[Jason Thurman]

As I was thinking through this, I started thinking back through my favorite courses and trying to come up with some flat ones in the mix. The thing that sticks out is that I think a lot of courses are pretty flat, but that I don't notice it so much because they're interesting.

Pinehurst No. 2 is pretty flat aside from 4, 13, 14, and 18. Whistling Straits is pretty flat aside from the terracing of fairways - it's certainly not a course where you spend much time factoring elevation change into your shots. Wild Horse is on a pretty flat property overall despite a few notable hills and rolls. Rustic Canyon is pancake flat for all but the stretch from 14-17.

All of those courses still present consistently interesting and memorable holes. They also all make great use of the few hills they have to create a few memorable shots. The downhill tee shot at Pinehurst's 4th, mounds that create blindness on a few holes at the Straits, and the awesome rumbling 5th and 6th at Wild Horse along with the speed slot off the tee on 12 all use their terrain to maximum effect.

Of course, those examples all cheat because they do have some hilly spots. I've only played one truly dead flat course - Raynor's Metairie just outside New Orleans which has about 2 feet of elevation change. I loved it and thought the template holes really shined in a flat locale. Is it memorable? Yes, but perhaps part of that is because it uses such recognizable design concepts on a lot of its holes.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ben,

If I lived in Melbourne, it would be hard to turn down Royal Melbourne, but I really liked Kingston and can imagine why it might be the better club to join.

Besides that, the green complexes, bunkers, vegetation, etc, are exquisite. Normally, I like some elevation change both for shotmaking interest and exercise. But, Kingston is so good I am not sure it matters.

One other point: I came away from Kingston wondering why we don't see more places like. Is it just the Sandbelt soil conditions that make it hard to replicate?

[Rees Milikin]

One other point: I came away from Kingston wondering why we don't see more places like. Is it just the Sandbelt soil conditions that make it hard to replicate?

Not that they were architecturally the same caliber as Kingston Heath and RM, but at one point and time there were some really good courses on the Florida sand ridge that would have been pretty close (at least during the dry months), but they have pretty much been wiped from the map.

[Mark_F]

One other point: I came away from Kingston wondering why we don't see more places like. Is it just the Sandbelt soil conditions that make it hard to replicate?

Tim,

The Sandbelt club I am a member at, Peninsula, is about to embark on a two-year program to fine tune their two courses and get all of those details right.  The South course is first and closes for 12 months in a few weeks. It has some flat terrain similar to KH mixed in with more undulation; if OCCM do their job properly, it should be as good as KH, since it's on better land and is better routed.

[Scott Warren]

Kingston Heath probably gets considered to be flatter than it really is.

You go significantly up, down, over or along hills and ridges at 1, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 17. And there's some nice micro-undulation elsewhere.

Royal Melbourne (West) or Peninsula (North) it ain't, but still plenty going on in the land.

[James Brown]

I think the right distinction is about features vs. featureless.  Overall grade is less imprinting.  TOC is very flat but has lots of features in the 6-8 foot range and it is the model. 

Nairn has 6-8 holes that are on beach plains with minimal vertical features.  But it has lots of other movement.  Calling it "flat" is a bit inaccurate. 

[Bill_McBride]

One other point: I came away from Kingston wondering why we don't see more places like. Is it just the Sandbelt soil conditions that make it hard to replicate?

Not that they were architecturally the same caliber as Kingston Heath and RM, but at one point and time there were some really good courses on the Florida sand ridge that would have been pretty close (at least during the dry months), but they have pretty much been wiped from the map.

Which ones?   Mountain Lake is still a treat. 

[Rees Milikin]

One other point: I came away from Kingston wondering why we don't see more places like. Is it just the Sandbelt soil conditions that make it hard to replicate?

Not that they were architecturally the same caliber as Kingston Heath and RM, but at one point and time there were some really good courses on the Florida sand ridge that would have been pretty close (at least during the dry months), but they have pretty much been wiped from the map.

Which ones?   Mountain Lake is still a treat. 

There are so many that existed in Polk, Lake, Highlands and Pasco County that are now NLE.  Some of the best would have been:

Holly Hill - NLE
Haines City - NLE
Cleveland Heights - The original Flynn 18
Lake Wales CC - When it was still resembled a Raynor
Lakerica (Highland Park) - When it had the original 18 holes
Lake Jovita - The original 18
Lake County Golf Course - NLE
Mission Inn - El Campeon - The original 18 layout
Whatever this 9 hole course was (I walked around this property and it must have been an amazing course): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pasco+County,+FL/@27.8484027,-81.5238005,691m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x88c2aebb637dd1df:0x26c25e2bec0a5ded & 1941 aerial

I also think that a lot of Stiles and Van Kleek's best work was lost and no longer exists.  If you want me to send you old aerials, I will be more than happy to pass them along.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think the right distinction is about features vs. featureless.  Overall grade is less imprinting.  TOC is very flat but has lots of features in the 6-8 foot range and it is the model. 

Nairn has 6-8 holes that are on beach plains with minimal vertical features.  But it has lots of other movement.  Calling it "flat" is a bit inaccurate. 

This is the best post yet.

The smaller the feature, the more subtle and more difficult to spot. 6 to 8 feet is actually quite large. I can think of many so called 'flat' courses with plentiful effective features half that size.

And then finally, even when those natural features don't present themselves on the ground, 'flat' courses can still be great by promoting angles through bunkering and by their very nature allowing the use of the ground game in more instances than more undulating courses.

[Thomas Dai]

Memories tend to be visual. 6-8 ft or less rises and falls, ripples, washboard etc are lovely to play but unfortunaltely relative flatness doesn't always photograph particularly well, except maybe from low angles and in certain light conditions.

However, there are exceptions, as this recent photo tour of Westward Ho!/RND highlights -

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59834.0.html

atb

[Sean_A]

Folks may be talking at cross purposes.  There is humpty bumpty land and also flat lies with more elevation change (among many types of sites).  I would never consider TOC (and Deal) flat...jeepers, who knows how much actual elevation change there is, but it isn't neglible...they are ideal sites for golf.  Its the sites with flat lies and and only a few holes where there is some decent elevation change which I would consider flat...think of Huntercombe and New Zealand.  No question in my mind that it is more difficult to create memorable and good golf on a site like this (never mind about a truly flat site).  Using bunkers to create interest can take a course only so far...and even then it has to be a very clever design to pull off something good.   

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,

What links courses do you consider flat by your definition?

For me, flat courses refer to the macro-topography of the land. Flat courses can have great micro-topography (such as TOC). But it is the holes without the great micro-topography that can appear to let a flat course down... Crucially, the perception of this let down is usually only when those holes are not surrounded by other movement on the flanks... in other words, when they feel part of a bigger space only defined by grasses and zero dunes.... It is on those kind of holes where the micro-movement is most often missed by the one or two time player and the holes are chalked down as boring or unmemorable...

The best flat courses almost always have a feature (or features) on most of their holes that "make" the hole. Those features are what divide the best flat courses from the also-rans... On occasion that feature is man-made in the form of bunkering... It is only on the courses that have next to no holes with natural features that dictate the hole strategy that I think you can definitively say cannot be out of the top drawer...

[Sean_A]

Ally

Yes, I understand your PoV.  I am not sure there is much point in making a distinction about flatness if micro-undulations or type if lies are not considered.  I would never think of TOC as flat simply because there are so few flat lies on the course and just enough elevation change. It is very difficult to think of flat courses using both our criteria....and that is probably quite accurate in reality because there are so few truly flat courses.  Most of the time (thankfully), sites are a mixture of flat and hilly to some degree.  I spose relatively speaking I would consider courses like Princes, Muirfield and Lytham to be on the flatter side, but not completely flat.

Ciao  

[Niall C]

Sean/Ally

Is whether the lie is flat or not really the definition ? On a hard running links, or even a softer one, the ball will generally run to the lowest point and the chances are you will have a flat lie and a level stance even if the surrounding ground has plenty of rumple. Surely the issue is not how flat the lie is but how flat the land is where the ball lands. That will dictate the way the ball bounces and the direction of travel. Even on a "flat" hole a minimal amount of movement can make a significant difference. Braid was a master at designing such features with his shallow mounds and dips right where you would want to land a ball.

Getting back to Mark's point, those are the sort of holes that I think a lot of visitors fail to notice or appreciate.

Niall

[James Boon]

Even on a "flat" hole a minimal amount of movement can make a significant difference. Braid was a master at designing such features with his shallow mounds and dips right where you would want to land a ball.

Getting back to Mark's point, those are the sort of holes that I think a lot of visitors fail to notice or appreciate.

Niall

Niall,

A good point! That minimal movement or those shallow dips and mounds will probably not be appreciated by a golfer unless perhaps he has played a course several times. But if those features happen come into play for him (say an approach does actually kick towards the green off a subtle mound on the left, which would be missed if the approach was sliced right) then even on one visit some of these subtle features could start to be memorable?

A golfer who plays one of these flatter courses several times is likely to get to know such subtle features better, but on one play its asking a lot. However that drop shot approach or blind drive over a dune on a course that certainly isn't flat, is easier to remember because its right there in front of everyone no matter how they play the hole?

Perhaps this is more suited to the recent subtlety thread, but the point I think I'm trying to make is that its certainly more difficult for a flatter course to be memorable but its not impossible?

Cheers,

James

[Thomas Dai]

Little minimal movement features are often best appreciated, spotted at all even, not from the direct line of play bit from a sideways angle or maybe best of all looking backward towards the tee from the fairway or green or behind the green.
atb

[Sean_A]

Sean/Ally

Is whether the lie is flat or not really the definition ? On a hard running links, or even a softer one, the ball will generally run to the lowest point and the chances are you will have a flat lie and a level stance even if the surrounding ground has plenty of rumple. Surely the issue is not how flat the lie is but how flat the land is where the ball lands. That will dictate the way the ball bounces and the direction of travel. Even on a "flat" hole a minimal amount of movement can make a significant difference. Braid was a master at designing such features with his shallow mounds and dips right where you would want to land a ball.

Getting back to Mark's point, those are the sort of holes that I think a lot of visitors fail to notice or appreciate.

Niall

Niall

You have to include the stance in the lie.  Rarely do I encounter truly flat lies with a flat stance.  Of course, we are dancing around the subject...the real importance of uneven etc lies is the necessitated ball/flight control.  This is why links really shines with minimal land movement...the effect of wind.  Once one learns a links he is aware of the dead spots in fairways and may even play toward the rough to avoid the elevation change.  The 2nd at Burnham comes to mind for this.  A 6 foot dip in the fairway can cause havoc with the approach if into a headwind simply because of the difficulty in controlling ball flight.  The course is full of situations like this that fly by nighters completely miss and I believe the reason Doak gives the course a relatively poor rating...he doesn't know the course well enough to accurately judge its quality...this is not an unusual story.  I can only laugh when I see Doak give B&B a 5 and place like Nefyn a 5.  To me its a clear case of falling for visual bling because there is a lot of daylight between the quality of the two.  

Ciao  

[James Boon]

Little minimal movement features are often best appreciated, spotted at all even, not from the direct line of play bit from a sideways angle or maybe best of all looking backward towards the tee from the fairway or green or behind the green.
atb

Thomas,

That might be the way that a GCA aficionado looks at a course, but I suspect that the average golfer will only experience such features if they have a direct impact on their play? And I will admit that whilst I will often look back on a hole I've just enjoyed playing, I suspect if I've just walked off a hole that felt dull I might not go behind the green to look back?

Cheers,

James

[James Boon]

...he doesn't know the course well enough to accurately judge its quality...
Ciao  

Sean,

I suspect that's the case with most people when we have only seen a course once, but I would give Tom enough credit to be able to judge a course better on one play than a lot of people?

It occurs to me that the courses I think highly of, my favourite courses, are the ones I've played the most. They are my favourites because of how much I love many aspects of the course, but an understanding of the subtle features is certainly one of them. Have I played them the most because of these features, are they my favorites because of these features, or have I played them the most because of some other reason and then I've noticed these features (amongst other things?) I can't say! 

When expressing opinions about my favourites, or alternativly courses I dont like or have found dull, here on GCA or to friends hopefully isnt likely to cause too much issue. But I have got to the point now were I am trying to refrain from knocking courses, or building them up too much for that matter, when I've only played them once. Expreience has told me that its only fair to give a course more than one play when judging it. Perhaps this thread isnt the place for it, but it does bother me when raters can rate a course they have only played once?

Cheers,

James