Why Originality Is My #1 Criterion for Ranking Courses

[Tom_Doak]

If you are publishing a list of the best courses in the world, I think you are saying these are the courses that people should most want to travel to play.


If you are going halfway around the world to see a course, do you want it to be a close facsimile of the course where you belong in America?  For me, it shouldn't just be "better" -- it should be demonstrably "different", and represent its own place in the world.


There should not be any checklist that you can master in order to create one of the top 100 courses . . . there is also an "it" factor that you can't easily plan out.




Before you argue with me, let's run a test:


Think to yourself why Pine Valley, Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, and Augusta National are among the greatest courses.




I'm sure you will come up with lots of well-intentioned, complicated arguments.  Mine is much simpler:


Pine Valley is the Pine Barrens of NJ, with all of its rugged character and native plants forming a difficult test.


Pebble Beach and Cypress Point are among the most beautiful spots of the California coast, and they give you every bit of it they have.


Augusta National is that beautiful hilly old Civil War nursery - there's no other place like it and you could not begin to copy it.
[If there was a golf course in one of the great English gardens like Stourhead, it, too, would be probably be one of the world's great courses.]




You can do the same for all of the really great courses in the world.  They all have something special about them that make them different.  Sean Arble questions Woodhall Spa, because Sean thinks bunkers are overrated . . . and Woodhall Spa's claim to fame is that its bunkers are like nowhere else.  Others of our UK contingent question Rye, and say we Americans have it overrated . . . but there is no other links course that makes use of dune ridges in as many different ways than Rye does.  [Prestwick is a distant second.]


Yes, to the person who objects, it IS possible to have a course that's unique but still not really great.  But it's harder to do than you imagine.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


If you mean unique because the course uses what the land and setting present in innovative ways,  I agree completely. And I would harken back to the thread you started about Pasatiempo. If you mean unique because someone took a desert in Nevada to build an unnatural course, I would not agree. Although PH2 is a dilemma based on my statements.


I also think that unique and quirky are different. I love quirk, but North Berwick is unique, and Elie is not.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I also think that unique and quirky are different. I love quirk, but North Berwick is unique, and Elie is not.

(Well, other than the first tee shot.)


But yes, I agree with you.  North Berwick is unique, and Elie is not.


And then you get to my #2 criterion:  how many really great golf holes does the course have?  North Berwick has a lot.

[Lou_Duran]

And here I thought that golf was a game of tradition, preservation of history; its architecture a variation in theme of relatively few templates or hole concepts; an oasis or respite of familiarity and comfort in a rapidly changing world.  Three of the four you mentioned at the outset are highly exclusive; Pebble Beach is for most financially prohibitive and exclusive in that sense.  And yes, I consider exclusivity to have a large impact on rankings. Do most golfers really value "originality"?  How well have the Muirheads, Enghs, Stranzs of the golf world fared?


 

[Ira Fishman]

I also think that unique and quirky are different. I love quirk, but North Berwick is unique, and Elie is not


(Well, other than the first tee shot.)


But yes, I agree with you.  North Berwick is unique, and Elie is not.


And then you get to my #2 criterion:  how many really great golf holes does the course have?  North Berwick has a lot.

And now you have solved my dilemma about PH2 in my modified post.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Focusing only on the language that Tom uses, unfettered as I am by actual knowledge of/experience with the courses he mentions:

Pine Valley uses its rugged character and native plants to provide "a difficult test".
There is no place like Augusta because it's a Civil War nursery on very "hilly ground".
Rye "makes use" of the links-land dune ridges, and does so in a "variety" of ways.
Pebble and Cypress enjoy the great (and rare) advantage of sites on the stunning California coast and "give you every bit of it they have".

So, to me, Tom seems to have highlighted (in no particular order): the ability of top-flight architects to route a course that truly showcases its beautiful/natural setting; the immense value -- in terms of designing a great course -- in starting with a site that has significant and dramatic elevation changes; the importance that many golfers in all times and places have placed on a golf course providing a true & stern challenge to their games, asking them to hit many different shots and 'every club in their bags'; and that one measuring stick for how talented an architect is, and for the quality of his/her efforts, is how well they have managed to use the naturally-existing features in their designs, and how intriguingly they have incorporated these features into the whole. 

In other words, "original" all these courses may well be; but the main reason they are "great" is a 'common' one, ie because good-to-great sites were put in the hands of good-to-great architects, who then honoured what they'd been given and bowed to the unique sense of place to design good-to-great fields of play that continue to serve exceedingly well the wonderful game of golf.

In short: it seems to me that Tom, the architect, sees and admires what are -- by every traditional definition/description -- these great courses and great examples of gca that *just happen to be* original, but for some reason he makes the #1 metric for that greatness the originality itself.

And I don't quite understand it: a
traditionalist who strives to move as little earth as the golden age greats, wrote a book on Dr Mackenzie and named his firm 'Renaissance' making 'originality' a dominant criterion for rating courses. Of course Tom is original -- but it's precisely because he didn't set out to be.
 
 

[Ian Andrew]

I love quirk, but North Berwick is unique, and Elie is not.

The long ridge that enters into the front of the green and continues on as a contour on the 4th is as unique and memorable a feature as I can think of for how a green contour begins. I always thought that green site was worth the visit alone...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Every sui generis course is not great but every great course is sui generis.

Each great course brings a unique and special value to the global collection of course arch, so that if one were wiped permanently from the planet never to be replaced nor rebuilt, the total value of golf course architecture would be diminished.

These values should be expressed not in ordinal rankings but quantitatively.

A course would be "rated" according to how much value its existence added to the total value of golf course architecture. So it wouldn't be rated so much as it would be valued.

[Carl Rogers]

How do or why do the Mac-Raynor-Banks courses rate so highly if "originality" is so important? ..... Just a question .... No fight.

[William_G]

the real point here is that after the top courses, you are left with mostly unimaginative golf courses that don't bring anything to the site or even diminish the site

[Peter Pallotta]

If I ever get to Bandon to play Pacific Dunes and then wanted to rate it, I'd feel bad making 'originality' my #1 criterion. I'd feel like I was doing Tom and his talents a disservice by highlighting (even in my own mind) the fact that there's no place like the Oregon coast anywhere else in America.

[Tim_Weiman]

How do or why do the Mac-Raynor-Banks courses rate so highly if "originality" is so important? ..... Just a question .... No fight.

Carl,


Does NGLA remind you of somewhere else?


What about Yale?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,


I completely agree with you. The whole point of travel is to see something different, a course with it’s own character.


The best compliment I can give you is that I have never felt there was a “Tom Doak course”. Each stands alone, in my experience.

[PCCraig]

Tom Doak-


I agree but the best way I’ve heard it said was from my friend Jeff Mingay who uses the phrase “sense of place” to describe courses where you could be in no other place (course) where you are at that moment. That originality and uniqueness is what breeds exceptional experiences on golf courses which tends to go hand and hand with memorable experiences.

[Neil Regan]

[If there was a golf course in one of the great English gardens like Stourhead, it, too, would be probably be one of the world's great courses.]
.

That could be true.
It should be true.
Alas, I don’t think it is true.
There are several, even many, of the great English gardens and parks that are now home to golf courses.
I don’t think any would be named as one of the world’s great golf courses,
though some are certainly very good.
Stoke Park, Moor Park, Stowe House are just 3 of many designs by Capabilty Bown which are now partially golf courses.


From a golfers point of view, they are fine places to play and quite beautiful.
From the point of view of the garden trust people, the golf courses mostly detract from the the great parks,
though not nearly as disastrously as other developments such as housing, parking, commercial parks, and bad neglect.


Here is a recent report by the Gardens Trust.
It has an aerial of Moor Park Golf Course as its cover, as an illustration of the “increasing threats” to the great heritage.


http://www.capabilitybrown.org/sites/default/files/vulnerability_brown_for_website_with_hyperlinks_smaller_file.pdf


“Golf courses were in the 1980s-2000s the must-have facility, about which the Garden History Society and others campaigned in the 1990s. Fairways, bunkers and planting, club houses and parking did serious
damage to Brown’s concept. Luton Hoo, a Grade II*
Brown masterpiece, is a case where even the relatively sensitive hotel and golf course conversion damaged the unity of Brown’s design. The threat of golf has receded: economy and lifestyle changes have seen a decline in golf club members since 2004; clubs are struggling, some are closing. But what happens if they are abandoned? Will anyone remove the golfing landscape and reinstate the Brown park design in such a costly exercise?”




I agree with Tom’s idea, quoted above.
There is every good reason that a golf course in one of the great English parks could be unique and great.
A fundamental goal for those parks, for all great landscapes, is to discover, preserve, or create the genius loci, the unique spirit of the place.
And that of course is the goal of any golf architect trying to create a great course.
It seems, however, that even the best of those that have been built in these parks have ignored the great designs in which they are but a part.
Sort of like snapping off a large piece of marble from a Michelangelo sculpture to carve your own smaller masterpiece.
The parks had their genii. The golf courses may or may not have created their own, but they lost the spirit that was there before them.


This subject has been discussed quite well at some length here years ago.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,25547.0.html




If the upcoming book discussion choice is  Wethered & Simpson’s book The Architectural Side of Golf, then the chapter “In an English Garden” would be worth some close attention.

[Ken Moum]

I also think that unique and quirky are different. I love quirk, but North Berwick is unique, and Elie is not.

(Well, other than the first tee shot.)


But yes, I agree with you.  North Berwick is unique, and Elie is not.


And then you get to my #2 criterion:  how many really great golf holes does the course have?  North Berwick has a lot.

I thought Elie made it on to my "unique" list because it has 16 par fours.


Now, maybe my golf universe is too small (certainly smaller than yours) but the only way it could be better in my eyes is if it had two more.

[William_G]

Tom,


I completely agree with you. The whole point of travel is to see something different, a course with it’s own character.


The best compliment I can give you is that I have never felt there was a “Tom Doak course”. Each stands alone, in my experience.

at least that's what TD wants you to believe, but is that the proper thing for golf?

[Sean_A]

Interesting Tom.  I can't say as I disagree about originality, but as Pietro states, it does have a rather natural selection effect. Seeking originality strikes me a situation where the search is never ending, because one never knows what is around the corner. On this basis, very few (even well travelled) people are qualified to rank courses at least on a world scale.

Of course, originality is only the #1 criteria for you, this leaves plenty of scope to justify pretty much anything in terms of rankings    That however, would be the same for anybody no matter their #1 criteria is. All in all, originality is probably a better starting point than anything else that comes to mind.  It certainly beats the hell out of using every club in the bag, its all out there in front of you, consistency of design etc etc.

You mention bunkers and as an archie who generally leans toward strategic design and who became (and remain) rightly famous for your work in sand, I think you place a high value on bunker employment. That isn't to say you aren't happy to lessen the importance of bunkering on the right site...I expect you are. However, in the specific case of Woodhall Spa, I do question why there are so many bunkers.  Yes, the site is obviously conducive to bunkering and without question sand adds a lovely element to the texture of the course.  However, the employment of the bunkering is a bit over-bearing in that often times it is of the penal type. 

Woodhall Spa is what I would call a penal design, although it does have strategic design elements as well. While I think penal architecture is valid and necesssary in creating good architecture, I generally think it should be used in smaller measures. At some point, when courses tip over to being mainly of the penal type, playability and variety are sacrificed.  I then have to wonder why the course exists as is? I do ask because there are valid reasons for heavily penal architecture and they are mainly related to top echelon golfers.  Woodhall Spa doesn't host top golfers.  If it did, the course would be ripped apart.  From this PoV, Woodhall Spa's penal style isn't effective as a true challenge for the best players. Which then leads me to question of why is the originality of the bunkers important enough to rank it among the very best courses in the world?  I look down the road at a place like Ganton, which is also famous for its bunkers.  While no ugly duckling, I think few would say Ganton has the texture of Woodhall Spa.  However, in terms of placement, the bunkers are a more provacative set because they are more grounded in the strategic school of thought, but that isn't to say there isn't a healthy does of the penal type.  IMO, it is almost impossible for courses with loads of bunkers to heavily represent the strategic school...Muirfield may be one of the few examples on the planet. Interestingly, I haven't heard anybody say Ganton is easier than Woodhall. 

It could be that the recent work at Woodhall Spa has mitigated some of the penal aspects of the design.  For example, maybe fairways are a bit wider and/or the rough a bit less harsh.  Maybe some flanking bunkers have been removed and diagonal/centreline bunkers added. I shall have a look in the spring.

However, we haven't touched on the obvious elephant in the room. Surely, the interest greens present should be a high priority for rankings.  Now, I can understand if a course displays a few elements which are so outstanding that other elements may lose some importance.  I guess that is how originality became your #1 criteria and thats fine.  However, when discussing the very best courses in the world, a glaring issue such as hohum greens is very hard for me to overlook.  I know you try to defend Woodhall's greens, but there can't be many top 150 courses in the world with such uninteresting greens as Woodhall's. You obviously disagree, but with the issues of over-penal bunkering (to little effect) and unimaginative greens, it is hard for me to take Woodhall seriously as one of the very best courses on the planet.  I love texture and the role bunkers play for texture as much as anybody, but I have a hard time trying to justify Woodhall for top 50 GB&I let alone as a contender for top 50 world.  At a more local level, is the bunker originality enough to carry the day over Ganton...or the other big gun northern inland Notts?  Its a close run thing, but for my time, Woodhall come out bottom of the three.

Happy Hockey

[Thomas Dai]

Does or should ‘fun’ come into this debate?
Unless you’re in the golf business in some way or another or one day wish to be then golf is presumably a leisure activity, a hobby, a pastime for you. And if you play a course that isn’t fun, even one that you may admire in some way or another for a number of reasons, will you walk off the 18th with a big smile wanting to return asap or grimacing that you’re knackered and moaning that you’ve had a miserable 4-5 hrs and have no desire to return and repeat the experience?
Each to their own?
Atb

[Ryan Coles]

Seems ironic considering the amount of time spent discussing green sites on here, but I would say UK golfers, pay little to no attention to the interest greens provide. I think the US is a bit different even for the retail golfer as it seems to be something US golfers discuss or appreciate.


UK greens, are in the main, lacking quite a lot of interest in even the very top courses. I'm not saying they need buried elephants to provide interest, but even at some of our fabled links, the greens are quite underwhelming. I know strong winds play a part in this, but I wonder how many appreciate how great the greens are at say Royal Portrush, compared to some others on the Open rota.



If you asked most UK golfers to compare the overall merits of Woking to Hankley, I'd guestimate that less than 10% would even mention the greens beyond their condition.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak-


I agree but the best way I’ve heard it said was from my friend Jeff Mingay who uses the phrase “sense of place” to describe courses where you could be in no other place (course) where you are at that moment. That originality and uniqueness is what breeds exceptional experiences on golf courses which tends to go hand and hand with memorable experiences.

Pat:


I've seen Gil Hanse use that phrase a lot lately, too.


It was drummed into all of us as a part of landscape architecture curriculum.  Yet, I don't often see it applied well in golf architecture.


I was not thinking about it when I did it, but one of my first and best applications of it was on the 18th at Stonewall.  Two of the founders wanted the green by the pond, or the pond extended to the green site, which I resisted because I thought putting the finishing green by a pond was starting to become a cliche.  After a month of struggling with it, I put the green as far away from the pond as I could - pushed up close to the clubhouse buildings, a complex of old Amish barns that were being restored. 


At the time, I thought it was something like the 9th at Muirfield, close to Greywalls.  But in hindsight, the barns were the one thing that really gives the property its own identity - a Pennsylvania Dutch, Amish one at that - and I managed to make that an integral part of the golf course in a way the other 17 holes didn't, quite.

[Tom_Doak]

How do or why do the Mac-Raynor-Banks courses rate so highly if "originality" is so important? ..... Just a question .... No fight.

Carl,


Does NGLA remind you of somewhere else?


What about Yale?

Oooh, this one is important.  Let's go further:


I would certainly say the two you mentioned have their own character, above and beyond the template holes.


Also yes:  Yeamans Hall.  Fishers Island.  Mid Ocean.  Lookout Mountain.


Maybe yes:  The Creek.  Chicago Golf.


Maybe no:  Piping Rock.




The reason I wrestle with people's love of the templates so much is that they are the opposite of native character, unless you know how to tailor them to the ground.  The holes that save Old Macdonald from that fate are #3 and #7, and maybe #5 and #16, each of which has been criticized for not quite conforming to the template.


In a way they are much the same as jagged-edged bunkers.  Where they fit the landscape, they're great, but there are also landscapes where they don't fit.  When Rees Jones complains about them, he is really lamenting the fact that he never got to work on the right kind of ground where they would fit in.

[Peter Pallotta]

Geez, so many many ways to look at this, as I think about it more.
If I woke up this morning with a longing to play & experience "template holes", my #1 criterion -- today, with that unfulfilled desire dominating my thoughts -- would simply be how many template holes a course had, and how closely/well those holes reflected the templates. Neither the "native character" nor the "tailoring" of those holes to the given site would be at all important to me -- today. Both those architectural qualities are good and important, yes, but they don't exist in a vacuum, independent of a particular want.     

[JESII]

Maybe Peter, but my thought is that the templates became templates because CBM decided these particular holes represented the full range of quality shots (Shot Values since it's Ranking Season...) needed in the design of a golf course.


I may not be all that well studied on the templates, or the CBM/Raynor/Banks tree, but I woke up longing to play the template holes it would be to see how well presented those shot requirements were.


The non-template holes I play most of my golf on present varying degrees of quality of those same shots, which dictates a good part of my enjoyment/judgement/opinion of a course.

[JMEvensky]

Sully, I'm taking Peter's side on this one-- if I understand him correctly.


Template holes are, by definition, somewhat formulaic. We each like those particular formulas.