Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jason Topp on May 23, 2017, 10:21:16 PM
-
Playing a local course a few years ago, I found a tiny bunker behind the 10th green. It was maybe 3 feet in diameter, almost never came into play but gave me a chuckle each time I passed it. I knew that the architect, Bobby Weed, had thought about the small stuff. I imagined the one player who ever wound up in that bunker and his irritation at facing an awkward and "unfair" recovery from a spot that appears to yield a simple chip.
The last time I played the hole, the bunker was no longer. Getting rid of that bunker was no doubt a practical decision. I doubt anyone else thought of the thing other than to think it stupid. To me a special detail and a mark of a craftsman with a sense of humor has disappeared.
Enough about me. What have you learned lately?
-
Why, just today I learned that a stunning clubhouse visible from the property adds a sense of occasion to the course. Such is emphatically the case at Whistling Rock in South Korea.
-
Stand bags slow down the game
-
I will be the only archienerd on our greens committee.
-
I guess in the past 3-5 years the thing which has hit me the most is that conditioning and cut lines, if done well, are an extension of design. I never worried much about conditioning and still don't, but in the rare moments when a good super and good weather meet for more than a few days at a time, it can be a magical experience.
Its not something I learned about architecture, but how to look at architecture. In the past few years I have been trying to look at what is in the ground rather than look for what I like. Its tough to do.
Ciao
-
I think I understand fairway bunkering better, specifically how having a bunker near the preferred line of play from the tee shot encourages you to decide whether you want to take on the hazard to leave an easier approach shot. Followed closely by the use of angled greens to encourage the player to think about which side of the fairway from which you'd want to approach the green.
-
Last week, I played three Ross courses on consecutive days. It was the first time I truly appreciated the attractiveness and quality of his short and mid range downhill Par 3s. Particularly eye opening was how the greens have a variety of pin locations each of which changes the hole in a meaningful manner in terms of club selection, ball flight (not that I actually can pull off the ideal one), and difficulty of chips and putts. Also a bit proud that my wife birdied Number 3 at Pine Needles and Number 2 at Mid Pines.
-
I just got back from a few days at Ballyneal, and while all the holes are fantastic, the 8th stood out on this trip. I think you can learn all needed about great strategic design by playing this hole a few times.
-
Not recently, but a few years ago establishing where the pre-1930 mens tees were and playing from there with a handful of hickory clubs and an appropriate ball.
Lots to learn about why features were put where they were and when you consider the construction and maintenance methods/costs of the time why features were built the way they were. History can usually tell you quite a bit.
atb
-
I've learned how picky I am about drainage, and how adamantly I equate good drainage with good design. Unless there's been a major downpour in the last day, I don't want - and don't think I should need to - step gingerly along any fairway so as to not soak my feet on my way to an otherwise perfect tee ball that is half sunk where it landed and is now covered in mud. I've learned that I believe this: that no golf hole is a great golf hole if it does not drain well.
Peter
-
Sometimes really significant improvement can be cheap. My home club has recently appointed a firm of architects to consult on its bunkering. I have been complaining for years about the width of our fairways. After one walk round the consultants commented on the ridiculous narrowness of some holes. Two days later half a dozen fairways were at least 10 yards wider and the course was hugely improved. The extra cut wasn't pretty but it's settling in now. I just hope they don't stop there.
-
What I’ve learned is the power of aesthetics when it comes to the consideration of golf courses for a lot of people. Not only the internal factors on the course but also the external views. I used to think that was just an overseas visitors view of things and that us locals were impervious as to whether the backdrop to a green was the Kessock Bridge or simply the local caravan park.
I’m not so sure now. The most recent Golf World UK magazine gave its Top 100 Scotland list. As well as the usual sea-side bias (Gleneagles Kings at 19 was the highest inland course) there was also a distinct lack of obviously urban courses. Can’t recall off hand the wording of the criteria but I think it was 20 or 25% for the aesthetics. Is this what course design has come down to, having a nice view ?
Niall
-
This principle, written clearly and concisely by Geoff Ogilvy in Golf Magazine, is something that I'd known subconsciously, but examining courses through this prism has given me a much finer appreciation for superlative holes.
All in all then, the drive epitomizes perfectly a simple, but hugely effective strategic principle: the more you “take on” a hazard, the easier every subsequent shot becomes. But play away from the trouble and the angle for the next shot gets worse, something that is true on Pebble’s 18th both off the tee and for the second shot.
Having joined this board as an "informed amateur," for lack of a better phrase, I've felt that my sophistication about the tenets of GCA has increased immensely, which is a fun and good thing. That and reading Tom Doak's Anatomy, which is now equally dog eared and indispensable.
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/geoff-ogilvy-what-makes-18th-hole-pebble-beach-great
-
Pat,
Interesting you should mention PB 18. Its been discussed on here before, but it really has become a better hole with advance in technology. Given so many on tour can reach it now you see a lot more exciting shots into that green in 2...and with so many possible outcomes, its been a fantastic finisher now more than ever..
-
I've learned how picky I am about drainage, and how adamantly I equate good drainage with good design. Unless there's been a major downpour in the last day, I don't want - and don't think I should need to - step gingerly along any fairway so as to not soak my feet on my way to an otherwise perfect tee ball that is half sunk where it landed and is now covered in mud. I've learned that I believe this: that no golf hole is a great golf hole if it does not drain well.
Peter
Yay, you!
And seriously, I still learn something every day, still study golf courses in the field and on the net, and now probably have more new ideas than I will ever have golf holes to build moving forward.
As Randy Thompson and I discussed not long ago, the real lesson I will have to remind myself of is not to cram too many ideas into one hole......
-
I just got back from a few days at Ballyneal, and while all the holes are fantastic, the 8th stood out on this trip. I think you can learn all needed about great strategic design by playing this hole a few times.
Brett - is that the short par 4 with a bit of a double fairway?
-
I guess in the past 3-5 years the thing which has hit me the most is that conditioning and cut lines, if done well, are an extension of design. I never worried much about conditioning and still don't, but in the rare moments when a good super and good weather meet for more than a few days at a time, it can be a magical experience.
Its not something I learned about architecture, but how to look at architecture. In the past few years I have been trying to look at what is in the ground rather than look for what I like. Its tough to do.
Ciao
Sean - My course, Windsong Farm, is a good example of your first point. It is somewhat links-like in that it is exposed to wind, features many ground game options, deep bunkers and wide fairways. The course plays very differently every day and reaches its peak when a dry cool period gives the firm ground a bit of a shiny appearance. When it rains a lot, it is pretty much like other courses.
Could you expand a bit on your second point? I am not quite sure what you mean.
-
Pat,
Interesting you should mention PB 18. Its been discussed on here before, but it really has become a better hole with advance in technology. Given so many on tour can reach it now you see a lot more exciting shots into that green in 2...and with so many possible outcomes, its been a fantastic finisher now more than ever..
That makes sense. I remember being thrilled by Vaughn Taylor's second shot there last year, a rare occurrence for layups. And rereading my original post, Christ, that's overwritten. Call it nerves.
-
I think I understand fairway bunkering better, specifically how having a bunker near the preferred line of play from the tee shot encourages you to decide whether you want to take on the hazard to leave an easier approach shot. Followed closely by the use of angled greens to encourage the player to think about which side of the fairway from which you'd want to approach the green.
JJ - you describe a fundamental tenant of strategic design. One of my favorite courses has a bunch of fairway bunkers precisely where I would otherwise aim a tee ball. One of the design challenges today is that a good drive can be 180 yards for my father and 280 for my son. The standard response to such a conundrum are a bunch of tee boxes, but if I am playing with my father and my son I want to play from the same tee box so I can provide appropriate commentary for each of them.
-
Not recently, but a few years ago establishing where the pre-1930 mens tees were and playing from there with a handful of hickory clubs and an appropriate ball.
Lots to learn about why features were put where they were and when you consider the construction and maintenance methods/costs of the time why features were built the way they were. History can usually tell you quite a bit.
atb
I played Rustic Canyon recently and joined up with a former European Tour pro playing with hickories and a good amateur (maybe a 2 or 3 handicap) with 70's era equipment and me with modern equipment. It was pretty interesting although my focus wound up being much less on course architecture and much more on how good the pro was despite the old equipment.
-
I just got back from a few days at Ballyneal, and while all the holes are fantastic, the 8th stood out on this trip. I think you can learn all needed about great strategic design by playing this hole a few times.
Brett - is that the short par 4 with a bit of a double fairway?
Jason,
Its the par 5 with the wicked cool green and options a-plenty!!
-
I think I understand fairway bunkering better, specifically how having a bunker near the preferred line of play from the tee shot encourages you to decide whether you want to take on the hazard to leave an easier approach shot. Followed closely by the use of angled greens to encourage the player to think about which side of the fairway from which you'd want to approach the green.
JJ - you describe a fundamental tenant of strategic design. One of my favorite courses has a bunch of fairway bunkers precisely where I would otherwise aim a tee ball. One of the design challenges today is that a good drive can be 180 yards for my father and 280 for my son. The standard response to such a conundrum are a bunch of tee boxes, but if I am playing with my father and my son I want to play from the same tee box so I can provide appropriate commentary for each of them.
It gets even more fun when the architect suddenly places bunkers on the opposite side of where you would want to hit an approach. We have that on at least two holes at my home course, one of which (http://warrengolfcourse.com/the-course/no-16/) messes with even the varsity players who play the course regularly. I realized the intended strategy by accident over time, hitting shots wide right and having an easier shot in.
Small aspect of GCA in the grand scheme of things, but that helps orientate me as I play a hole for the first time.
-
I just got back from a few days at Ballyneal, and while all the holes are fantastic, the 8th stood out on this trip. I think you can learn all needed about great strategic design by playing this hole a few times.
Brett - is that the short par 4 with a bit of a double fairway?
Jason,
Its the par 5 with the wicked cool green and options a-plenty!!
Got it. I almost killed someone on that hole with a shank.
-
I've learned that the old saying, form follows function, is no longer the way it is. In modern golf design and const it is, only once the function is 100% guaranteed do we start to think about form.
We now have the most expensive and best functioning (draining) bunker liners of all time, yet we seem to go to greater lengths than ever to make sure not a drop of water ever drains into a bunker. Forget the appearance of the hole in the ground developed by animals getting out of the wind, those animals would never take shelter in the modern golf bunker in the sky.
Building a green, it's all about pinnable space so easy on anything over 2%.
Better make sure those irrigation heads only water that specific grass, so the front corners of the greens need three heads, one for the green, one for the approach, and one for the rough...but add some extra drainage in the approach anyhow in case we start using 3 as if they were one...
Luckily it is getting so out of hand that there are some who are pushing back...but the machine is hard to fight.
-
There has been a lot written on this website about what length of course the women should play. A common figure I have seen is that the women hit the ball about 2/3 as far as men. Therefore, one would think the standard women's tees should give a course 67% as long as the standard men's tees.
I looked at my club's scorecard. I find the standard women's tees are 92% as long as the standard men's tees. It's perhaps worth noting that I think the standard men's tees are too long, certainly longer than our competition.
I decided to look at all the area courses that have been produced in a more recent time frame than when I was middle aged and women's tees were like my club's, a token shortening. I found that these newer courses did not have that significant a reduction for the women's tees. They came in from 86% to 90% as long as the standard men's tees.
The courses that showed more difference were Gamble Sands, and the Bandon courses. They had two sets of tees shorter than what would be analogous to the standard men's tees. These shorter tees came in at 77% to 82% and 86% to 92%. Perhaps windy sites led to these. ?? ?? ??
No one in this area seems to be making courses 2/3 as long for the women as they are for the men. At least they are not advertising in with their scorecards found online.
-
Garland makes a great point. It particularly diminishes the game for an average woman when hazards across the fairway are placed based upon the men's tees. We have two holes at our club where even with a good drive a woman has to lay up short of a water hazard the bisects the fairway.
-
There is no question women are abused when it comes to golf design. Part of the problem is men are abused (in that most play courses far too long for their abilities) so as a consequence of women as an afterthought they too are abused. I am amazed there haven't been more courses developed and designed by women for women. Given the current concept of 7000 yard courses, I think it is nearly impossible to incorporate women's tees into a design without the cart being a necessity.
One of my great surprises these past few years was playing Formby Ladies...very good course. Even at 5375 yards the course is a bit of a stretch for a large percentage of women, but you get the idea of what is needed. If we premised a course with Ladies Champ tees at 6000 yards tops (or men's back tee), then ranging a course down to under 5000 yards is feasible for a walking course. I am convinced with the land some of these top archies had these past dozen years several world class courses could have built that were no longer than 6000 yards. Until women get into the business with their own money, women will continue to be abused.
Ciao
-
Interesting data and thoughts from Garland and Sean.
For years at the course I play most often we had ladies red tees and ladies forward blue tees. The forward blues were never used so were removed a year or so ago.
atb
-
When I realized yesterday was the 40th anniversary of my first day at Killian and Nugent as a newly minted golf course architect.....I learned I was old! Up until then, was having enough fun that it hadn't crossed my mind! :D
-
Congratulations, Jeff! It's one in a thousand who manages to make his living doing what he loves, and for his whole life! Well done.
But - don't look back: something may be gaining on you!
-
Just back from another Bandon trip, I've cemented my affection for the value of ground hazards, the humps, bumps, ditches, fescue grass and how all of them are affected by the greatest hazard of them all: wind and weather in general. I had some great scoring rounds when the weather was indolent and tough scoring rounds when the wind kicked up and completely altered the way I had to play. The other thing I learned is that each of these courses tends to impress me in different ways every time I play them. Trails is probably in the best shape of all, especially the greens, but Pacific and Bandon both played tough, fair and fun.
-
[size=78%]Jason,[/size]
Ballyneal #8 is a brilliant par 5 (4 1/2). It plays different with the wind, but is reachable for many in 2. The beauty is there is a large blow-out bunker that makes the bombers think about something less than driver. However, there is a slot with a small "bowl of achievement" on the left that will egg them on. If you do find the slot or left angle you are tempted with a view of the green. However, you still need to challenge the next blowout bunker 50 yd short and left of the green to get the run onto the green, otherwise most shots hit at the middle of the green will funnel down into a deep swale off right of the green. The green itself is full of fun and exciting bowls and contours. Not only a beautiful hole, but full of strategy, challenge. Sometimes triumph and sometimes tears.
If there, try teeing off just left of the 8th green for 9 fairway. It's a nice blind shot...
-
At my prior club we built a bunch of forward tees to allow the women to play from a distance closer to the 2/3 guideline above. It was a disaster. The vocal women did not like them at all. They preferred playing from their normal tees at a par of 74 rather than playing a shorter course at par 70.
The tees sat empty until we came up with the idea of forward and back women's tees, resulting in so many tee markers that it made your head dizzy.
Which taught me - if you are thinking of installing forward tees to meet a theoretical ideal about how women should play the game - let them decide whether or not it is a good idea.
-
When I realized yesterday was the 40th anniversary of my first day at Killian and Nugent as a newly minted golf course architect.....I learned I was old! Up until then, was having enough fun that it hadn't crossed my mind! :D
Congratulations Jeff! Doing what you love in a very tough industry for 40 years is an incredible accomplishment.
-
[size=78%]Jason,[/size]
Ballyneal #8 is a brilliant par 5 (4 1/2). It plays different with the wind, but is reachable for many in 2. The beauty is there is a large blow-out bunker that makes the bombers think about something less than driver. However, there is a slot with a small "bowl of achievement" on the left that will egg them on. If you do find the slot or left angle you are tempted with a view of the green. However, you still need to challenge the next blowout bunker 50 yd short and left of the green to get the run onto the green, otherwise most shots hit at the middle of the green will funnel down into a deep swale off right of the green. The green itself is full of fun and exciting bowls and contours. Not only a beautiful hole, but full of strategy, challenge. Sometimes triumph and sometimes tears.
If there, try teeing off just left of the 8th green for 9 fairway. It's a nice blind shot...
I just realized I was confusing Ballyhack with Ballyneal. I need to get to Ballyneal someday.
-
At my prior club we built a bunch of forward tees to allow the women to play from a distance closer to the 2/3 guideline above. It was a disaster. The vocal women did not like them at all. They preferred playing from their normal tees at a par of 74 rather than playing a shorter course at par 70.
The tees sat empty until we came up with the idea of forward and back women's tees, resulting in so many tee markers that it made your head dizzy.
Which taught me - if you are thinking of installing forward tees to meet a theoretical ideal about how women should play the game - let them decide whether or not it is a good idea.
Putting forward tees in at 2/3 the distance probably will get a negative reaction from ladies accustomed to playing the course from the existing tees. Golfers, especially club members, are very resistant to change. They like things to be as they have always been, which of course we have seen many examples of on many topics on this website. My club mows out really short tees (about 2/3 distance) during the warm months only when some 85 year + women will come out and play. At that point, they are riding a cart, and don't have the energy to make enough swings to play the regular women's tees.
I wonder what ladies new to a course would choose given the option. I have played at Bandon with women twice. One time the lady played the most forward tees and creamed her husband and I score wise. Obviously that woman was not adverse to playing a significantly shorter course.
-
At my prior club we built a bunch of forward tees to allow the women to play from a distance closer to the 2/3 guideline above. It was a disaster. The vocal women did not like them at all. They preferred playing from their normal tees at a par of 74 rather than playing a shorter course at par 70.
The tees sat empty until we came up with the idea of forward and back women's tees, resulting in so many tee markers that it made your head dizzy.
Which taught me - if you are thinking of installing forward tees to meet a theoretical ideal about how women should play the game - let them decide whether or not it is a good idea.
Putting forward tees in at 2/3 the distance probably will get a negative reaction from ladies accustomed to playing the course from the existing tees. Golfers, especially club members, are very resistant to change. They like things to be as they have always been, which of course we have seen many examples of on many topics on this website. My club mows out really short tees (about 2/3 distance) during the warm months only when some 85 year + women will come out and play. At that point, they are riding a cart, and don't have the energy to make enough swings to play the regular women's tees.
I wonder what ladies new to a course would choose given the option. I have played at Bandon with women twice. One time the lady played the most forward tees and creamed her husband and I score wise. Obviously that woman was not adverse to playing a significantly shorter course.
It would also be interesting to see if things have changed 10 years later. I will inquire next time I return.
-
I've become more and more aware that maintenance level determines good architecture to the average guy.
-
I'm intrigued by the comments in this thread. Many of the responses are geared toward themes. Some of it is maintenance related, sometimes it's theory. Many of the topics discussed in this thread are themes which have been mentioned in countless other threads on this site, which I think is ultimately a great testament to how much this site allows us to explore architecture.
In April I reached the 1 year anniversary of working for my current golf course contractor, so the comments of Don Mahaffney stuck out to me:
I've learned that the old saying, form follows function, is no longer the way it is. In modern golf design and const it is, only once the function is 100% guaranteed do we start to think about form.
What makes the great courses great is that form works seamlessly with function. They don't have wet spots. They're designed to exemplify the abilities of the maintenance crew while stimulating the mind. This presents itself in different ways. Sometimes its on the great tracks where they're able to shave fairway edges directly to the start of the bunker. On others it's through the emphasis of ground contours as opposed to artificial hazards (be it a bunker/lake etc.) Before I only saw form, now I see more so than I ever have how form and function work together.
But if I had to pin down a few things, and these views may change as I continue working in this industry:
1. More attention is paid to details (like how a bunker is shaped and edged) than you could possibly imagine
2. Our ability to measure grades is both a blessing and a curse, as the architect who is able to appreciate that more significantly contoured greens can do so while being assured that playable areas are still indeed playable, so that greens don't have to be rebuilt in the future. Others are more sucept to building flat greens. Particularly true with greens committees concerned with creating enough pin positions.
3. Proper tree management is becoming far more mainstream than many on this site would lead you to believe, at least in the view of architects.
4. You cannot underestimate the number of things that can come up which are not expected prior to the project.
5. It is more important that an architect understands what can be done in the dirt with a piece of equipment than what he is able to do with it himself, and that he is able to describe what he is looking for to the people doing the work.
To reiterate the 5th and final point here, many of the guys I work with are remarkably good at their jobs and have years of experience on the pieces of equipment they are running. I could spend the next 10 years working on Bulldozers and shaping, and I don't know if I could create finish work as good as what the guys I work with are able to do. It's because they've spent their lives working on them. For example, one of our bunker finishing guys is incredible on an excavator. He has a remarkably well trained eye and his work is some of the best I have ever seen. I would trust another one of our guys on a sandpro far more than I would trust myself. On a dozer, both of them have decades of experience and would be able to execute my vision far better than I would myself. I firmly believed entering this industry that being able to shape everything on a dozer is critical, when in reality, it's more important to conceptually understand what it takes to get what you're looking for and having someone (whether it is yourself or another shaper) who can execute that vision.
-
I've become more and more aware that maintenance level determines good architecture to the average guy.
Definitely true. Spring Hill is a local club listed in the top 100 in many lists and I cannot imagine why that is so. The course is in great condition, the caddies wear white jumpsuits and the view from the 18th green is nice. Other than that, I cannot imagine why anyone would think it is a good golf course.
-
I've become more and more aware that maintenance level determines good architecture to the average guy.
I have learned exactly this and throw in history, too. Nostalgia glasses are strong in the general golfing community. There is a reason the restoration business is in full drive. Courses definitely lose their edge over time...
-
I've become more and more aware that maintenance level determines good architecture to the average guy.
I will third this resolution. Maintenance level is almost everything to the average joe golfer. Even if its a flat, boring, featureless course...if its well maintained they will rave.
-
I've learned how picky I am about drainage, and how adamantly I equate good drainage with good design. Unless there's been a major downpour in the last day, I don't want - and don't think I should need to - step gingerly along any fairway so as to not soak my feet on my way to an otherwise perfect tee ball that is half sunk where it landed and is now covered in mud. I've learned that I believe this: that no golf hole is a great golf hole if it does not drain well.
Peter
+1
My local course may only be a Doak 3.5, but it sure drains well.
We had over 10" of rain Sunday -> Thursday morning.
Last night I walked 18 holes and didn't get my feet wet.
-
I've become more and more aware that maintenance level determines good architecture to the average guy.
I will third this resolution. Maintenance level is almost everything to the average joe golfer. Even if its a flat, boring, featureless course...if its well maintained they will rave.
And not only that, but how nice the guys in the pro shop or the cart barn were. Or how often the beer cart gets around.
I'm flabbergasted by how often I'll be talking about golf courses with someone and when pressed as to why they don't like a course it will come down to something like this. I wonder if the same type of person would prefer Tropicana Field to Fenway because of the beer vendors.
-
I've become more and more aware that maintenance level determines good architecture to the average guy.
I too agree with Mike. It is also true that if a course requires high levels of maintenance to be considered good, it's probably not.
Bob
-
Is there such a course that needs high maintenance levels to be good? I think of maintenance/presentation as a way to make the architecture shine as bright as possible.
I played quite an interesting course yesterday which challenged some of my ideas about trees and reinforced my ideas about speed /firmness consistency between aprons and greens.
Ciao