Pet hates in course routings

[Tom_Doak]

You referenced the 4th at St Pats which most certainly classifies as a walk back for the 6,900 set of tees. But crucially, Tom has the most used two sets relatively near the 3rd green. Putting tees right next to greens is very difficult in that landscape. Even more so in a place like Carne.

I recall walking a long way back and considerably upwards to a pretty much invisible very far back tee on the 4th at StP. Great view and spot for photos, hell of a tee shot from there into the prevailing wind (or maybe flip a wedge over the fence onto the 14th of the OTM course!). I did notice a few other way back tees too some pretty small and wondered how they were found and about their construction given the incredibly soft and spongy dunes that would had to been traversed finding and building them. I wonder how often they are used and how much longer a round takes when they are used?
Atb

I would bet that the tee on the 4th is hardly ever used, and out of the 9000 people who played this year, maybe 200 of them even knew it was there.  Frank Casey wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, and he's pretty good!


That tee was built to establish the hole as a par five.  From the tee normally in use the hole is 450 yards and we would have to call it a par-4, which it isn't, into the normal breeze.  So I found a back tee and swapped pars on 4 [into the wind] and 16 [downwind and downhill].  There will be some days people think I'm crazy, but on average, it's the right call.


They don't slow up play if hardly anyone uses them. 

[Sean_A]

The 4th is an ideal tee set up because the 3rd bisects tees. But many holes are run on which creates walks for most. One thing I really don't like about St Pat's is the tee marker colours. I couldn't tell which colour was which from the paths which was annoying. Just a bit too far in the clever department.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

You referenced the 4th at St Pats which most certainly classifies as a walk back for the 6,900 set of tees. But crucially, Tom has the most used two sets relatively near the 3rd green. Putting tees right next to greens is very difficult in that landscape. Even more so in a place like Carne.

I recall walking a long way back and considerably upwards to a pretty much invisible very far back tee on the 4th at StP. Great view and spot for photos, hell of a tee shot from there into the prevailing wind (or maybe flip a wedge over the fence onto the 14th of the OTM course!). I did notice a few other way back tees too some pretty small and wondered how they were found and about their construction given the incredibly soft and spongy dunes that would had to been traversed finding and building them. I wonder how often they are used and how much longer a round takes when they are used?
Atb

I would bet that the tee on the 4th is hardly ever used, and out of the 9000 people who played this year, maybe 200 of them even knew it was there.  Frank Casey wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, and he's pretty good!
That tee was built to establish the hole as a par five.  From the tee normally in use the hole is 450 yards and we would have to call it a par-4, which it isn't, into the normal breeze.  So I found a back tee and swapped pars on 4 [into the wind] and 16 [downwind and downhill].  There will be some days people think I'm crazy, but on average, it's the right call.
They don't slow up play if hardly anyone uses them. 

Thanks for the insight. I only spotted the super-back tee when some of the guys I was playing with wanted to play the closer back tee whereupon I noticed a path leading upwards and even further back!
Fabulous hole the 4th.
atb

[Kyle Harris]

Parallel holes in same direction
Only two par fives over by fourth hole


Reminder:  It’s pet peeves about routing not just golf holes.

You forgot "Routing split by major suburban road"

[Kyle Harris]

Few are truly "pet peeves" because so much of a good routing is about preserving suspension of disbelief. Something doesn't work until it does and something works until it doesn't, etc.

I tend to evaluate negative space in the routing and where the golf course is asking me to traverse the property with my ball in pocket. That was always my gripe with the erstwhile World Woods Pine Barrens, especially the one parcel of nothing between 1/2, 6/7, 11/12, 17/18. It just was "there" and for me interrupted the sense of journey, exacerbated at the end of the round by the walk between 16 and 17, too. Too much boring negative space serving a handful of fine golf holes at the expense of the whole.

Tangential to this is if the routing exists to avoid something that a subset of the population may find undesirable and it's *obvious*. The biggest example of this being consistently walking up from a green to the next tee in order to play downhill again. Especially egregious when the uphill walk is completely constructed!

If the golf course doesn't have a compelling answer to "Why are you asking me to change directions?" I accept lots of variations on the back and forth parallel routing of continuous holes and the answer to the question above can certainly be an essay.

[Tom_Doak]

There seem to be at least FOUR separate threads going on here:

• Routings
• Architecture/Design
• Maintenance Meld
• Setup

I bring this up because already-built courses have virtually no control over 1 and 2, have a good amount of control over 3, and almost total control over 4.

It’s also a good observation that all four things go together.  You can’t make a great routing independent of all the other factors - it has to feed into the intended strategic design and the drainage and the maintenance.  Whereas a bad routing gives you expensive problems to fix.

[mike_malone]

Parallel holes in same direction
Only two par fives over by fourth hole


Reminder:  It’s pet peeves about routing not just golf holes.

You forgot "Routing split by major suburban road"

Good point.

[Tommy Williamsen]

.

[mike_malone]

Parallel holes in same direction
Only two par fives over by fourth hole


Reminder:  It’s pet peeves about routing not just golf holes.

You forgot "Routing split by major suburban road"

Still a great course.

[Joe Bausch]

I am not a fan of more than one par five number 1, 9, 10 or 18.  Some courses have two or three.  Not sure I have seen four.   I don’t mind the holes.  I just find that they often lead to a steady diet of par fours somewhere else.  If the par fours are great, that is fine but they usually are not.

Holes that run back and forth or at 90 degree angles.  Our front nine is that way but I should not be routing courses because I have never come up with a better solution.  The best routed courses seem to often fan out from the clubhouse. 

I am not a fan of turning around and walking backwards.  It disrupts the flow of the round.  There needs to be some spectacular reason to do it.   

I know why it happens but I hate it when courses have one green, a par three and then a tee near the ocean.   That is not a course on the ocean but a housing course with a postcard opportunity.

If the holes are great, I can overlook all of these.

Jason,
There goes your invite to Rolling Green which has 9 and 18 as fives. But there are three par threes on the back which soften your concern for too many par fours. We do have a unique routing of 7 and 9 as fives and 17 and 18 as well.
You’re invited anyway and I’ll let you decide if the par fours are good enough.

Mike


I am pretty confident the last sentence of my post will carry the day.  Look forward to it happening someday.

And while you are in the area playing RG, you can play Wyncote (1, 9, 10, and 18 all par 5s).

[Brock Lynch]

Holes in which shots collect in the same small area.


How do you avoid this?

[Tom_Doak]

Holes in which shots collect in the same small area.


How do you avoid this?

I saw this twice in three holes at Pinehurst #2 the other day.


Sometimes, it's the best solution to an otherwise pesky drainage problem.

[Brock Lynch]

Yes, #2 has quite a few of these around the greens.


For fairways that tilt so much that shots tend to the same area, is it ever considered to leave the fairways a bit longer to keep balls from rolling so much. Seems like a good solution, but I find it rare that courses do this.

[Kyle Harris]

Holes in which shots collect in the same small area.


How do you avoid this?

Slow the grass down.

[mike_malone]

I am not a fan of more than one par five number 1, 9, 10 or 18.  Some courses have two or three.  Not sure I have seen four.   I don’t mind the holes.  I just find that they often lead to a steady diet of par fours somewhere else.  If the par fours are great, that is fine but they usually are not.

Holes that run back and forth or at 90 degree angles.  Our front nine is that way but I should not be routing courses because I have never come up with a better solution.  The best routed courses seem to often fan out from the clubhouse. 

I am not a fan of turning around and walking backwards.  It disrupts the flow of the round.  There needs to be some spectacular reason to do it.   

I know why it happens but I hate it when courses have one green, a par three and then a tee near the ocean.   That is not a course on the ocean but a housing course with a postcard opportunity.

If the holes are great, I can overlook all of these.

Jason,
There goes your invite to Rolling Green which has 9 and 18 as fives. But there are three par threes on the back which soften your concern for too many par fours. We do have a unique routing of 7 and 9 as fives and 17 and 18 as well.
You’re invited anyway and I’ll let you decide if the par fours are good enough.

Mike


I am pretty confident the last sentence of my post will carry the day.  Look forward to it happening someday.

And while you are in the area playing RG, you can play Wyncote (1, 9, 10, and 18 all par 5s).

I have always liked 1 and 10 because the doglegs are opposite. 9 and 18 are so far apart I never realized that they were par fives. I prefer 9 ( at least the original 9).


You would love Jason so if he comes I will have you over.

[David_Tepper]

"Holes in which shots collect in the same small area."

This can be a real problem based on the links courses I have played over the past 20 years. The humps & hollows are part of the attraction/charm of links golf, but certain areas on some holes do seem to collect an unusually large number of balls. Towards the end of the golf season there are more sand-filled divots than turf in those hollows. 
 

[Tim_Weiman]

As a corollary from this - the mirroring of finishing holes. 9 and 18 are parallel to each other, perhaps separated by the same lake, perhaps playing to a shared green.

This is my pet peeve, and I must have seen thirty courses built in the 1980-2000 timeline by the Dyes and Jack Nicklaus that did it.  It means that they didn’t have much topography to inspire something different, so it’s a quick indicator that the rest of the course is going to be lacking in creativity.


After that, the only thing I hate are preconceptions, which must be why I clash with Ben here so often.  An architect should avoid them, so why would he answer to those of a critic?  Lots of the rules expressed here are things a golfer would rarely notice about a course if they weren’t looking to nitpick.  (For example I’ve yet to hear someone who just played St Patrick’s or NGLA complain that the par-3 holes played in the same direction - it took a guy who hasn’t been there and is looking to find “fault” with it.)


Likewise, while I share Ally’s reluctance to route holes back and forth in parallel, there are many sequences on great courses that do just that.  The best stretch of High Pointe did it, but those are the very holes Ran says may be the best stretch I ever built . . . the topography makes them different even though they are side by side.

Tom,


I wouldn't call it 'clash' - I would call it a 'constructive discussion'

I just found it odd that you have drawn up a layout that has 3 par threes in a similar compass point - Haven't had a good reason from you yet why this was the case. Was it the landscape, views or to fit in with the other holes in the routing?

Said that I am not really a fan when i see course layouts with 3 par 3's in a similar direction it does put me off.

Unless there is a good reason for doing so. Thank you to John Mayhugh for spotting NGLA is similar could the rest of the holes/course outweigh having 3 par 3s in a similar direction - on a strong course Yes on a weak bland course No.


Cheers
Ben

Look forward to more 'clashes' (your interpretation) or 'constructive discussions' in future

Ben,


There is no way that criticizing the direction of Par 3s at St Patrick’s is “constructive discussion”. Tom Doak is exactly right. Only a person who hasn’t played the course would think that.

[Ben Stephens]

As a corollary from this - the mirroring of finishing holes. 9 and 18 are parallel to each other, perhaps separated by the same lake, perhaps playing to a shared green.

This is my pet peeve, and I must have seen thirty courses built in the 1980-2000 timeline by the Dyes and Jack Nicklaus that did it.  It means that they didn’t have much topography to inspire something different, so it’s a quick indicator that the rest of the course is going to be lacking in creativity.


After that, the only thing I hate are preconceptions, which must be why I clash with Ben here so often.  An architect should avoid them, so why would he answer to those of a critic?  Lots of the rules expressed here are things a golfer would rarely notice about a course if they weren’t looking to nitpick.  (For example I’ve yet to hear someone who just played St Patrick’s or NGLA complain that the par-3 holes played in the same direction - it took a guy who hasn’t been there and is looking to find “fault” with it.)


Likewise, while I share Ally’s reluctance to route holes back and forth in parallel, there are many sequences on great courses that do just that.  The best stretch of High Pointe did it, but those are the very holes Ran says may be the best stretch I ever built . . . the topography makes them different even though they are side by side.

Tom,


I wouldn't call it 'clash' - I would call it a 'constructive discussion'

I just found it odd that you have drawn up a layout that has 3 par threes in a similar compass point - Haven't had a good reason from you yet why this was the case. Was it the landscape, views or to fit in with the other holes in the routing?

Said that I am not really a fan when i see course layouts with 3 par 3's in a similar direction it does put me off.

Unless there is a good reason for doing so. Thank you to John Mayhugh for spotting NGLA is similar could the rest of the holes/course outweigh having 3 par 3s in a similar direction - on a strong course Yes on a weak bland course No.


Cheers
Ben

Look forward to more 'clashes' (your interpretation) or 'constructive discussions' in future

Ben,


There is no way that criticizing the direction of Par 3s at St Patrick’s is “constructive discussion”. Tom Doak is exactly right. Only a person who hasn’t played the course would think that.

Tim,


I do admit that i haven't played the course and probably won't for the foreseeable future and you are one of the lucky few who have - looking at Dan Callahan and Sean's Photos plus Clyde cigarette pack layout sketch I am really surprised that Tom has designed 3 par threes that is on three similar compass points especially a links course where wind can be a huge factor and two of them are uphill one looks pretty flattish. Photos don't always show everything especially contours.


Afraid that Tom Doak to me hasn't really put forward his points why he did this approach in design terms on this particular course was it to fit in a particular routing? or it felt right that way from his view? to fit in with the setting? for those (including me) who are unlikely to visit and play the course that's the type of questions as part of a constructive discussion - isn't that what GCA is all about?.


A number of GCA'ers are not familiar with critiques which are part of an Architect's or Landscape Architect's training these are the sort of questions that can be put forward. I know a number of you guys are trying to 'protect' Tom Doak fair dinkum his courses are pretty good however are they perfect?


Cheers
Ben

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ben,


The reason I started this thread was to identify individual pet hates, based very much on your initial distaste for three threes on the same orientation.


The reason it classifies as a pet hate is because it seems very high on your list of don’t’s whilst it is a much lower consideration on many other architect’s priorities.


As you should know more than most, there is no such thing as a perfect golf course for all people. Similarly, there is no such thing as a routing that every person who plays golf will consider “perfect”. Every decision in routing has multiple knock-on effects, some beneficial and others that might be considered a compromise. You can’t just pick a piece of land and design the 18 best holes in a silo, disregarding all other holes. You would end up with crossing fairways, greens that don’t connect to tees, and countless other unacceptable compromises. As you also know, it’s uncanny how often you end up with 17 or 19 holes in early attempts at stick routings.


I suspect that - at St Patricks anyway - three threes in the same direction was so far down Tom’s list as a compromise that he barely realised it. If you barely realise something, it’s usually pretty easy to move on from it when you eventually do. The orientation really has very little to do with whether they play alike or not. As Sean correctly stated earlier, the bigger similarity is the way that 5 and 17 promote a kick-in shot from the right.


In other words, there may be no constructive discussion to be had; because it took up so little brain space in among the thousands of other decisions that needed to be made by the design team.

[Thomas Dai]

The orientation really has very little to do with whether they play alike or not. As Sean correctly stated earlier, the bigger similarity is the way that 5 and 17 promote a kick-in shot from the right.

An aside ... a discussion on the 17th tee at StP ..... is the best shape of shot a draw (R/H) with the intension of using the slope to kick the ball in from the right or is it a fade (R/H) with the intension of holding the ball softly against the slope? Answers on a postcard.
atb

[Ben Stephens]

Ben,


The reason I started this thread was to identify individual pet hates, based very much on your initial distaste for three threes on the same orientation.


The reason it classifies as a pet hate is because it seems very high on your list of don’t’s whilst it is a much lower consideration on many other architect’s priorities.


As you should know more than most, there is no such thing as a perfect golf course for all people. Similarly, there is no such thing as a routing that every person who plays golf will consider “perfect”. Every decision in routing has multiple knock-on effects, some beneficial and others that might be considered a compromise. You can’t just pick a piece of land and design the 18 best holes in a silo, disregarding all other holes. You would end up with crossing fairways, greens that don’t connect to tees, and countless other unacceptable compromises. As you also know, it’s uncanny how often you end up with 17 or 19 holes in early attempts at stick routings.


I suspect that - at St Patricks anyway - three threes in the same direction was so far down Tom’s list as a compromise that he barely realised it. If you barely realise something, it’s usually pretty easy to move on from it when you eventually do. The orientation really has very little to do with whether they play alike or not. As Sean correctly stated earlier, the bigger similarity is the way that 5 and 17 promote a kick-in shot from the right.


In other words, there may be no constructive discussion to be had; because it took up so little brain space in among the thousands of other decisions that needed to be made by the design team.

Good response Ally as you probably know St Patricks better than most on GCA apart from Tom Doak and his crew. You have probably answered most of questions regarding St Pats better than Tom Doak did. This thread is interesting as various people have different pet peeves.


Yes everyone is different in their thinking towards golf course design. Pars 3 in the same direction is not really high up on my list when designing golf courses like you said there are a lot of other more important elements to really think about.


For me it can be a bit of a peeve when playing golf courses as a golfer mindset not a designer mindset 'Could this be laziness on behalf of the designer or whoever did it' where you can see 'oh that is a great location for a par 3 why didn't they use this part rather than this'. This is based on most of the courses I have played on which are average or so-so.


Its just a big surprise to me seeing that its on a Tom Doak designed course with 3 par 3 holes on a similar compass point especially a links course where there is a large expanse of land. Has Tom done this before on his other courses which would be interesting to know. Looking back one wonders whether Tom in his mind say 'could i have done this better' this also relates to other Architects as well its probably better to keep it to ourselves.   


When walking around the golf course you can lose sense of direction at times and visualise 'hey that's the best location for a green and this is a good direction to go towards it' you do tend to forget what compass point it is


Was it Jim Carr that said about Old Head - you could design 110 holes here and only have 18 holes. Routing a course is a skill - it is like a complex jigsaw to fit over a 3D surface and taking into account a lot of factors to get it right as much as possible.

Lots of people don't realise how many routing plans we Architects go through - lots and lots of tracing paper!!

[Ben Stephens]

The orientation really has very little to do with whether they play alike or not. As Sean correctly stated earlier, the bigger similarity is the way that 5 and 17 promote a kick-in shot from the right.

An aside ... a discussion on the 17th tee at StP ..... is the best shape of shot a draw (R/H) with the intension of using the slope to kick the ball in from the right or is it a fade (R/H) with the intension of holding the ball softly against the slope? Answers on a postcard.
atb

Dai


Its quite clever then as it gives you options to play into the green whether you hit a fade, straight or draw shot options using the green or kick plate.


You couldn't do that on a flattish green and surround which the majority of golf courses are. At Rutland i have added a few kick plates in areas which gives the player an alternative option to hit the green.


Doesn't it also depend on the location of the flag - if the flag is so far away from the kick plate surely it requires a different line and shot.


Cheers
Ben


by the way Nadolig Llawen a Blywyddn Newydd Dda!

[Kalen Braley]

A lot of these discussion points remind me of convos I've encountered over the years as it relates to how people do thier work.

Agile has been widely accepted and its manifesto is this:

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

As a GCA it would be nice to have something similar as a quick and dirty way to express your "values" to your clients
And if that includes "Par 3's on all compass points over all in the same direction"...then so be it!

[Ally Mcintosh]

A lot of these discussion points remind me of convos I've encountered over the years as it relates to how people do thier work.

Agile has been widely accepted and its manifesto is this:

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

As a GCA it would be nice to have something similar as a quick and dirty way to express your "values" to your clients
And if that includes "Par 3's on all compass points over all in the same direction"...then so be it!

Every GCA has a set of values as part of their sales pitch. Some even follow through on them. Many clients wouldn’t know the difference.

[Bruce Katona]

Courses with all medium to one shotters.  If almost every course has a minimum of 3 one shotters, there should be a short, medium and long par 3......IMHO


My swing generates a naturally lower ball flight; I find much more pleasure in playing a course where if I'm slightly out of position I have the ability to attempt to hit my approach shot into an open quadrant of the green, not guarded by a raised lip, grass hollow or bunker.


My last is long rough - not fescue - long rough.  Golf is hard enough; quickly locating wayward shots speeds up play and allows for either a recovery or heroic shot.  Ankle high rough where the only play, if you locate your ball, is to wedge it back into play, makes for a very long day.