[Ran Morrissett]

When Harbour Town came into being in the late 1960s, it was profoundly different from what was being built but also what was considered excellent. It was diminutive, with small greens (sometimes intermediate) and modest length. At first, the professionals were wary but soon gained an appreciation for the shot making it demanded. Harbour Town was a game changer in part because it demonstrated that a tournament course could be a tournament course without looking like a “championship” course.
 
All the courses being trumped these days seem to be of the large scale, big-boned variety. Most are situated on treeless environments that dictate such scale. Alas, some might be a bit too wide, pandering to the faulty new equation easy = fun = great. The best, like Chambers Bay, are well conceived and feature greens that reward approach shots from select areas in the wide fairways. I am one of the many fans of these big, heroic (and easy to photograph) courses!
 
Nonetheless, too much of the same isn't ideal. Creativity stagnates if only one form is being embraced (that is true in all forms of design, not just golf course architecture). Who else yearns for a new 6,500 yarder to become a headliner with greens in the ~ 4000 square foot range?  Indeed, if a charmer like Pulborough was to emerge, do you suppose it would even be welcomed, let alone praised? Or is everyone now conditioned to 'big is better'?
 
There are few courses built in the past dozen years that embrace what I speak. Sweetens Cove does but is it asking too much for an eighteen holer to spring to mind? Austin Golf Club might count but that was a while ago. Hence the question: Is it time for another Harbour Town? Maybe I am phrasing the question wrong but I’ll say this: if all we have to look forward to is large scale courses from now on with big, bigger and biggest greens, we are missing out.

[Adam_Messix]

Ran

In this day and age with so few golf courses being built, the bigger question is whether some developer would take a chance building something that breaks from the norm?  A course in Harbour Town's style  (narrow, small greens) needs to be private with limited play.  Doak mentioned this in the CG. 

Daring to be different takes courage.  But in the case of Harbour Town, and later High Pointe/Stonewall with Doak; bucking the trend could help turn the business in a different direction.

[Tom_Doak]

Ran:


I think our friend Ted was right in describing one of the many new large-scale courses as a "theme park".  That's what a lot of them are built to be.


But maybe you are asking too much to put everything you want in one place.  The idea that every "large" course has to have big greens is a lie -- Sebonack is one contrary example, no one ever says those greens are visually out of scale. 


As for limiting oneself to 6,500 yards, it's easier to talk about it than do it.  [Why didn't you ask Rod to make Cabot Links 6,500 yards?  Because you were chasing rankings, like everyone else.]  In fact, Harbour Town was probably the last modern golf course built without a thought to rankings ... its runaway success was what made everyone else start thinking about rankings.


Incidentally, the new course at Forest Dunes is around 6700 yards from the back, with medium-sized greens.  I figured with all the attention going to the reversible concept, nobody was paying attention to those other aspects of the course, so I could get away with coming back toward sustainable choices.
[size=78%] [/size]

[Matt Kardash]

Ran:

As for limiting oneself to 6,500 yards, it's easier to talk about it than do it.  [Why didn't you ask Rod to make Cabot Links 6,500 yards?  Because you were chasing rankings, like everyone else.]  In fact, Harbour Town was probably the last modern golf course built without a thought to rankings ... its runaway success was what made everyone else start thinking about rankings.

Tom, in fairness Cabot Link is "only" 6854 yards, which with today's technology is a shorter course than Harbor Town at 6500 yards in 1969. When I played Cabot 2 years ago I played it from the back tee with 3 gentlemen that I didn't know. They were all pushing 70 (I was 31 at the time), and none of them had any problems playing the course from the tips with me. It was kind of refreshing.

But to answer Ran's question. I think a little more variety would be good. I miss the smale scale course. Honestly, I found Chambers Bay at the US Open to be the breaking point of these huge modern courses with crazy greens. Seeing players hit greens only to have their balls roll off them 60 yards away into a terrible lie in the rough was a bit much for me.

With that and Cabot in mind, I will say Rod's course at Cabot Links is a good example of a big course that also felt small in scale. It feels like a neighbourhood course. It felt like no other modern course. He wasn't afraid to not overwhelm the senses with bigger and bolder features.

[Sean_A]

Is it too early in the design cycle to talk about small and narrow?  The wide and forgiving mantra is just getting into full stride.


Concerning greens, couldn't agree more.  Somehow, archies have to find a way for wide and forgiving not to equal huge roly poly greens.  The first place to start is to stop worrying about flat bellies.  I always hear if courses are forgiving then the greens must present a severe challenge to keep flat bellies honest.  It is mainly the perceived market needs which is limiting the architectural palette.


All that said, its never not a time for a new Harbour Town. Isn't the reverse course going to create some havoc in the design field?  Hopefully will see the value of such a project through the eyes of pure design rather than filtered through the false lense of the pro game.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Somehow, archies have to find a way for wide and forgiving not to equal huge roly poly greens.  The first place to start is to stop worrying about flat bellies.  I always hear if courses are forgiving then the greens must present a severe challenge to keep flat bellies honest.

But small greens are much more challenging for the flat bellies [and everyone else] than "huge, roly poly greens" are.


Every defense I read of big greens goes back to visual scale.  There are a few instances where I feel that's justified [Kapalua is one], but even there, it's only a few greens like the 7th that would have looked stupid if they were small.  Pacific Dunes has some small greens -- the 6th and 11th, two of the best holes, are each 4500 square feet -- and no one ever complains about those holes visually.


However, if you're going to have 4500 square foot greens for 18 holes, you have to be very careful of how you design the areas around the greens or they are certain to get worn out over time.  You can't surround them with bunkers or the walk-offs will always be dead.  Harbour Town, as cool as it is, just does not work very well at 60,000 rounds per year ... Mr. Dye has always been embarrassed about that, even though they had no inkling it would ever be anywhere near that busy.


P.S.  Does not Chechessee Creek fit the bill?  I didn't play, so I didn't notice how long it is, but the greens are definitely Harbour Town small.  If so, perhaps its relatively quiet reception and its absence from the GOLF DIGEST rankings are the answer to Ran's question.

[Sean_A]

Tom


Of course I don't mean all or even most greens have to be small...variety is always important.  I also take your point that small greens need lots of exit areas...I have no problem with that.  In fact, I rather like surround features which can also act as "ramps" for walking and chipping.  Raynor has some stuff like this, so did Fowler and even Hutchison at Kington.  I do think scale and creating challenge are used as prime reasons for huge greens...so I am not convinced that either smal or huge greens are easier.  Difficulty has more to do with the surrounds, approach and nature of the green.  Size in and of itself is not the telling feature for difficulty.


Ciao   

[JC Urbina]

Ran,


Regarding game changers, I have often felt that the new game changer is about the footprint and the amount of time required to play this wonderful game.  Pete and the developers of Harbour Town were looking for something different in the era of Jones.


I think the new game changer is a golf course I have laid out that uses the same footprint as a nine hole course but allows you to play 18 holes at a much quicker pace.


You could play Nine and check out or play on.


If the right land form was found you could also irrigate the golf course with a very unconventional approach to rain.

[Jason Way]

To me, this speaks to the conflict between the qualitative and quantitative perspectives. 


Especially in the U.S., we are obsessed with the quantitive - yardages, par, rankings, statistics...the list goes on and on.  We love our numbers. 


Tom's quote speaks to this:


"I figured with all the attention going to reversible concept, nobody was paying attention to those other aspects of the course so I could get away with coming back toward sustainable choices."


He is way outside the box with The Loop, and yet some people will likely still downgrade it because the yardage is less than 7,000 yards.


In the realm of public and resort golf, I don't see many of these truly creative, different projects happening until we shift more in the direction of qualitative again, which is not going to happen any time soon. 


There is the potential for a deep-pocketed and strong-willed owner of a private club to create the next Harbour Town though.  I keep waiting for news that one of these folks has purchased a struggling country club on a smaller piece of land and renovated it along those lines.  Perhaps this group knows - any projects like that in the works?

[Ben Malach]

Ran,


I have spent a lot of time thinking about this.
I currently think that we are in a good place. The right people seem to be running the firms that are getting the important contracts and those firms are run in a way for younger people with ambition and skill can rise up. I know that 2 of the younger individuals on the Cabot project have started their own firms. I am also sure that Tom and the other architects on this board could name a bunch of young architects that just need a shot. Who started and worked on some of their projects.
This is part of how the end product changes. If we look at the example of Pete Dye in the 1960-1970's. A lot of the reasons behind his style changing was the people around him. The talent molds the project from the idea of the architect into the form of a golf course.


The other half of the equation is clients. Which is the more challenging part but I think will always be.
We can go back to Alister MacKenzies complaints about the committee at Alwoodley to find examples of the architect being restrained by his employer. But I think that hopefully the process that lead to Streamsong, Bandon Dunes,  Cabot Links and Sand Hills will be examined by more clients and put in to practice. I think that by looking at the trades the clients are more passionate about the form of the game that we love so dearly on this form. This is leading them to take bigger risks. Look at the Forest Dunes project I never though that I would see the day that someone would build a reversible course for public play. There are other examples of people taking risks now with building there new courses. I also do not want to overstate this as a wide running trend. But I do believe there is change occurring if only in pockets. But they also happen to be the ones getting the most attention from the golf media. So maybe that will encourage more of an across the board change. Allowing for more interesting projects to occur.


Where I do think we need a Harbour Town moment. Is on the courses that the PGA tour plays. The vast majority of them are golf that is not up to snuff. It is also the entry point of may casual observers to the game and the interest it provides. Which is not wrong but the current schedule does not show off the game to its fullest potential. Leaving a gap to be filled. This used to be done by the wonderful world of golf. But ever sine that program stopped there is a massive gap in the quality of golf shown on television. 

[jim_lewis]

All courses are 6500yds or less, if you are willing to play the correct tees. I don't know why we insist on judging courses by the way-back tees. Now smaller greens would add more challenge to the bombers who want to play at 7500yds. I like that.

[Tom_Doak]

All courses are 6500yds or less, if you are willing to play the correct tees. I don't know why we insist on judging courses by the way-back tees.

Jim:


The problem with playing the middle tees of a big course is that you usually have to walk the whole 7500 yards [plus green to tee] in order to play them.  Scaling down the yardage of the course also scales down the acreage AROUND the holes.

[Bob Montle]

I love this post.

IMHO, the best thing about GCA is reading what Ran and Tom have to say.

[Bob Montle]

Hmm.  Crazy thought (maybe foolish thought) but what about double greens?  Small pin locations but still large greens?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ran - you have obviously and successfully devoted many resources and many years to experiencing and promoting quality golf course architecture. In that context, a question: where does the "variety" you mention stand on your own personal heirarchy of  gca values? In other words, how important relative to other goods/ideals is the propagation of the big-world theory for you? Does it, for example, rank higher than, say, sustainability/a new and greater degree of sustainable maintenance practices? Higher/lower than fostering the greatest possible number of strategically astute designs that are truly playable by all? Higher/lower than "growing the game" via the promotion of basic and low cost designs/courses that may lack architectural flair and aesthetic beauty but that cost little/much less to play? Etc, etc.
A genuine question, not a rhetorical one, to which I'd be very interested in reading your answer.
Peter

[James Brown]

Harbourtown is fun to play.  Methinks that bold in today's marketplace might just be building courses that are fun to play and make no pretense to holding pro events.  Great conditioning.  Fast and firm with lots of interesting features.  Long enough for most amateur golfers to hit all their clubs.  A little bit secluded.   Streamsong and Bandon and Cabot are just a few of the myriad of sites that are possible for this type of golf. 

[BCowan]

To me, this speaks to the conflict between the qualitative and quantitative perspectives. 


Especially in the U.S., we are obsessed with the quantitive - yardages, par, rankings, statistics...the list goes on and on.  We love our numbers. 


Tom's quote speaks to this:


"I figured with all the attention going to reversible concept, nobody was paying attention to those other aspects of the course so I could get away with coming back toward sustainable choices."


He is way outside the box with The Loop, and yet some people will likely still downgrade it because the yardage is less than 7,000 yards.


In the realm of public and resort golf, I don't see many of these truly creative, different projects happening until we shift more in the direction of qualitative again, which is not going to happen any time soon. 


There is the potential for a deep-pocketed and strong-willed owner of a private club to create the next Harbour Town though.  I keep waiting for news that one of these folks has purchased a struggling country club on a smaller piece of land and renovated it along those lines.  Perhaps this group knows - any projects like that in the works?

Great post.

I think the best example of forward thinking besides sweetens is diamond springs.  The course doesn't have any rough.  One cut throughout the course. I love the parking lot, clubhouse even though it's not used, and the course.  It blew me away and I wanna drive 2 hrs to play it in the near future.  I believe the maint is very very low.  I've been to harbor town walked around, 18 looks cool but the rest looks like an arb to me.  It's not exactly a great value either.

This whole under 6500 yards courses is so over focused on gca and is an example of 3 by 5 note card of allowable GCA opinion.  A little tee that 3% use shouldn't bother anyone, and as how lazy our culture is a little extra walk ain't going to hurt anyone.  Plus many courses don't manage turf between tips and 6500. 

[jeffwarne]

I always have enjoyed small greens.
Makes for very interesting recoveries.
Which  Is why my pet peeve about the modern fad of super tight chipping areas, which practically speaking cause too much putting and hybriding-boring.

Never loved Harbor Town-always preferred Long Cove which has much greater variety-though HT has some cool holes and shots.

[Mike_Young]

Ran,
HT was , for me, the beginning of the use of golf to develop poor land for housing.  I also view it as the beginning of the use of professional golfers as architects in order to promote lot and condo sales.  In other words it was a catalyst for the expense involved with golf today.   So in that way , yes, we do need another Harbour Town.  I don't know if it will be small greens, large greens, tree lined, open but it will be a new model and it will be something that today's golfer can support. 

[Rich Goodale]

Ran,


Regarding game changers, I have often felt that the new game changer is about the footprint and the amount of time required to play this wonderful game.  Pete and the developers of Harbour Town were looking for something different in the era of Jones.


I think the new game changer is a golf course I have laid out that uses the same footprint as a nine hole course but allows you to play 18 holes at a much quicker pace.


You could play Nine and check out or play on.


If the right land form was found you could also irrigate the golf course with a very unconventional approach to rain.

Jim

I think that based on the post above you are most likely to design and build the next "Harbour Town," assuming that this thread is about disrupters/game changers (which is what the game of golf really needs these days).

Good Luck!

[Tim Gavrich]

Did Todd Eckenrode accomplish this, at least somewhat, with his recent renovation of Quail Lodge? That course is 6,500 yards, with what look to be fairly modest-sized greens

It's a shame Shell's Wonderful World of Golf went by the wayside and hasn't been revived. It seems that that show did a good job of highlighting courses that the PGA Tour-viewing public wouldn't normally get to see.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom beat me to it.
I consider Chechessee to fit the bill.
Low scale,but in a very good way, smallish putting surfaces and intimate feel of the course for sure.
I consider it to be exactly what golf can be in the future, if architects and owners get together to allow it to happen.


I also think that Mike DevRies has tried to do the same thing at Cape Wickham, although the locale and scenic values of the course may well distract form the intimacy of the course itself.
The greens are certainly not oversized or crazy with contour it certainly has a very old style feel to it.

[Michael Goldstein]

I was out playing on Sunday night and was having this exact conversation.



I don't have much to add but it's fascinating to read the comments below by Tom and Jim Urbina.


This question of scale is one of two burning questions I find myself asking when considering golf design (the other question being 'are blind shots good or bad?'). 


It would be fascinating to see the result when a top architect secured a commission to build a new course (or a full renovation) on a very small site. This would require an open minded client in relation to par, distance, double fairways / greens and so forth. A project like this might be more possible in a country like NZ where we aren't so worried about liability from flying golf balls!


In relation to rankings, I'm not sure that shorter courses with a par of 70 or less will never have a place on ranking lists. Tastes will continue to change.


Small courses could be a game changer in Metropolitan areas - if we can build golf courses that use less land then that frees up capital.  not to mention the reduced ongoing costs of maintenance.  Small golf courses also mean faster golf and more sociable golf. 



 

[Jim Nugent]

Ran, I have just the course design for you.  Close, anyway.  I posted about it several times before, and generated so much excitement, I got a grand total of...

... zero responses. 

But being tone deaf, or a glutton for punishment, I'll give it another go.  We can build a course that measures well under 7000 yards (probably 6500-6700), that challenges the pro's and is a blast for average golfers.  The course will require the world's best to play every club in their bags, including hitting long irons and even fairway metals to reach some greens in regulation.  It will also give bogey golfers a fighting chance to score well, while having a great time on the course. 

One of the keys (for the pro layout) is to have six par 3s, four par 5s, and 8 par 4s.  We load up with par 3s, because they are the toughest holes against par for pro's, yet the easiest for bogey.

Two of the par 3s can be short, in the 130 to 170 range.  Two should be ultra-long, 250+.  The other two should come in between 190 and 220.  All these distances are from the tips. 

One of the ultra-long par 3s should be in the mold of #16 at CPC.  A long heroic shot to reach the green off the tee; or a short, safe route that does not go for the green and turns the hole in a par 3.75. 

Already the pro's must hit long iron or fairway metal to reach the green in regulation -- twice.  For bogey golfers, either turn these holes into par 4s (which brings the course back into the typical par 72 alignment)... or keep them as par 3s with shorter tees. 

Make at least one par 5 like 13 or 15 at ANGC.  i.e. a par 4.5 where the wrong choices or shots can lead to double.  We can also build one true 3-shot hole for the pros.  The others should require long iron or fairway metal to get home in two. 

The par 4s run the gamut, from driveable (but dangerous like Riveria #10) to some 500+ yard monsters.  The more half-pars the better, on both sides of the equation. 

I don't know much about green sizes.  If we want to make a CBM-style short hole, would probably need a real large green there.  Overall, I'd want someone like Tom Doak to design the greens, to build challenge (and challenging hole locations) for tour players while keeping them fun for bogey. 

6700 yards for pro's, maybe 6000-6200 from the next tees up.  Par 70 (or 71 or 72 for bogey).  Fast and firm.  Half-par holes galore, with greens that can drive the best crazy, if they hit to the wrong spots or play their drives without thought.  Even better if located in an area with plenty of wind that regularly changes direction. 

[Tim Gavrich]

Here are lengths for 18 holes, from shortest to longest:

Par 3: 105/140/175/200/225/255
Par 4: 275/305/340/375/405/430/455/475/490
Par 5: 525/565/600

6,340 yards, Par 69

Purely based on length, why couldn't a course of this length/par challenge even professional golfers? Couldn't it be built on fewer than 120 acres, and still leave room for spectators and a nice practice facility? When a tournament rolls around, change the par for the 525-yard hole and then have the course be par 68, if you want to "protect par" a bit more.

Doesn't Rye Golf Club get universally praised whenever it hosts Open Championship qualifying? So why is it the only "championship" golf course of its kind?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()