[Bill_McBride]

[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467917#msg1467917

I listed 15 as one of the transitions. 
 
I think 7 is within the forest "zone," you go back into the dunes with the tee shot on 8.  Your tee shot on 7 actually is from the dune above 6 green up into the forest, then you head back into the dunes on 8.
 
Bill,
 
# 7 green is a good 33 feet above the 6th fairway and about 27 feet above the 8th fairway, hence, I'd have to classify it as being in the dunes and not in the forest.

I wholeheartedly agree. 

[Jim Nugent]

I don't think the routing for a place like Muirfield or Shinnecock or NGLA or Pine Valley could be considered "self evident".

NGLA's routing may have been more 'self-evident' than you suggest.  CBM says he found an ideal Alps hole on the site... and then looking back saw the setting for a perfect Redan.  The Road Hole was easy to duplicate, he says.  Overall he placed the templates first.  That may have molded much of the rest of the routing. 

In fact, IIRC Patrick Mucci says CBM routed nearly the entire course over those first few days of exploring.  I don't agree -- think that requires a pretty tortured reading of CBM's writing -- but I do agree the templates came first and probably set the structure for the entire course. 

I wonder if using lots of templates simplifies/shortens the routing process.  In under ten years (1917 on), according to CBM, Raynor routed and built 100 to 150 courses.  10 to 15 a year, possibly more.  And Raynor was not much of a golfer, if any.  It seems to me that walking onto the property knowing what a number of holes will look establishes kind of a fledgling blueprint for the entire course.  Can any architects comment on this? 

About whether Friar's should be a ten: technically, Friar's is a 10 on the Doak scale if and only if Tom says it is.  It's his scale and ratings.  Only he can say which courses are tens and which are not. 

If we assign our own Doak-style ratings to courses, the first issue is defining exactly what a ten is.  Tom gives his guidelines.  But they are pretty general.  He doesn't always follow them himself.   

Does a ten mean one of the world's top ten courses?  Top twenty?  Or could we have hundreds of 'tens', if the courses were simply good enough? 

Tom has something like 13 'tens.'  If you think Tom should give Friar's a 10, you're pretty well saying he must consider Friar's as one of the world's 14 best golf courses.  Never played or seen it, so I can only go on what I read.  The members of GCA who took part in those unofficial rankings in 2009, did not place it that high, at least as a group.  While it did get at least one 10 rating, the average score was 8.4.  That put it in a tie for 27th place, along with WFW, TCC Composite, Sandwich and Highland Links. 

 

[Sean_A]

One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.

Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?

Tim

I fear a very high percentage of folks who believe they understand a routing process (especially those that claim it was self-evident) couldn't create a good one in a year of Sundays.  Which means they really don't get it. Hence, my statement that I will leave the assessment of routings to professionals.

Like John K stated, I don't really care about the nuts and bolts of routing...what matters most for me is what is in the ground...but this partially because I know I don't know enough about the routing process of courses to worry much about it.  The quality of the site alone can explain why a great routing results in merely a good course or a merely good routing results in a great course. 

Pietro

I can't speak for Mucci, but you are pretty accurate as to my belief as to a true understanding of a routing. The vast majority of golfers at best have a very supeficial understanding of routings, but that is all that is required unless one is being paid to route a course 

Pat

If you read my posts about courses it will be self evident which courses impress me greatly even I couldn't call them great.

Ciao

Sean,


If I recall correctly, a while back we had a thread addressing the subject of how well we discuss the subject of routing. I'm pretty sure I opined that it was a major shortcoming in the quality of discussion here at GolfClubAtlas.com. Moreover, I think I actually mentioned something very similar to your comments that it is very hard for non practicing golf architecture junkies to intelligently discuss routing.


So, we are largely on the same page. But, I don't believe that means we should altogether avoid the subject. After all, it is central to the entire subject of golf architecture.

Tim


I am not suggesting that routings be ignored in discussions.  Having experienced the mass misunderstanding with the terms penal and strategic I think it is helpful if we were all on the same page as to what is being referred to when "routing" is used.  For many years I have made my position clear.  When I use routing it refers to the walk, green sites, use of natural feautures and the variety created by the use of these features. I think this is very superficial because the work is already in the ground for our inspection...after all the conceptual development with all thei inherent constraints is complete.  This superficial aspect is good enough for my purposes because I am really only interested in the final product.  I make this stark distinction about routings to give archies the benefit of the doubt rather than lay blame at their feet.  There may be very sounds reasons out of the hands of an archie as to why a course is not to my liking or I fail to understand why things are as they are.  So its fine to bash the final product, but not necessarily the archie unless one is intimate with the project and has experience routing courses.   


Ciao

[John Kirk]

But, as in your citing of Tommy's comment, isn't it common for a golfer to view a course in the context of his personal round/experience, rather than stepping back as a disinterested observer ?


I always thought that the 16th hole would be better served by having the tee on top of the dune, rather than cut into it, ala # 17 at NGLA.  Per you criteria, you must have been blown away by the walk from # 14 green to # 15 tee, upon being confronted by the stunning vista presented on # 15 tee.

I don't know if you've been back recently, but the walk from # 15 green to # 16 tee is now........... breath taking.
It's almost like being on a suspension bridge, versus the old inland path.

I've often wondered, what our opinions of a golf course would be if we played in  a dense fog where only the hole being played could be viewed.


Your comment about Friars Head being ranked 32 in the U.S. certainly speaks volumes as to the quality, relative or absolute, of the golf course.

Hi Patrick,

I broke what I feel is a cardinal rule of behavior, evaluating people rather than golf courses.  I apologize to Tommy Naccarato, Bart Bradley and Mac Plumart for lashing out.  It's a reflection on my mood.

No, I have not seen the new path between #15 green and #16 tee.  No club I'm aware of works harder at continual improvement of its golf course.

It was actually ranked #32 in the world, not the U.S.  It's way up there in the ratings.

If we had to play in a dense fog all the time, golf would be 54% less enjoyable.

[Tim_Weiman]

One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.

Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?

Tim

I fear a very high percentage of folks who believe they understand a routing process (especially those that claim it was self-evident) couldn't create a good one in a year of Sundays.  Which means they really don't get it. Hence, my statement that I will leave the assessment of routings to professionals.

Like John K stated, I don't really care about the nuts and bolts of routing...what matters most for me is what is in the ground...but this partially because I know I don't know enough about the routing process of courses to worry much about it.  The quality of the site alone can explain why a great routing results in merely a good course or a merely good routing results in a great course. 

Pietro

I can't speak for Mucci, but you are pretty accurate as to my belief as to a true understanding of a routing. The vast majority of golfers at best have a very supeficial understanding of routings, but that is all that is required unless one is being paid to route a course 

Pat

If you read my posts about courses it will be self evident which courses impress me greatly even I couldn't call them great.

Ciao

Sean,


If I recall correctly, a while back we had a thread addressing the subject of how well we discuss the subject of routing. I'm pretty sure I opined that it was a major shortcoming in the quality of discussion here at GolfClubAtlas.com. Moreover, I think I actually mentioned something very similar to your comments that it is very hard for non practicing golf architecture junkies to intelligently discuss routing.


So, we are largely on the same page. But, I don't believe that means we should altogether avoid the subject. After all, it is central to the entire subject of golf architecture.

Tim


I am not suggesting that routings be ignored in discussions.  Having experienced the mass misunderstanding with the terms penal and strategic I think it is helpful if we were all on the same page as to what is being referred to when "routing" is used.  For many years I have made my position clear.  When I use routing it refers to the walk, green sites, use of natural feautures and the variety created by the use of these features. I think this is very superficial because the work is already in the ground for our inspection...after all the conceptual development with all thei inherent constraints is complete.  This superficial aspect is good enough for my purposes because I am really only interested in the final product.  I make this stark distinction about routings to give archies the benefit of the doubt rather than lay blame at their feet.  There may be very sounds reasons out of the hands of an archie as to why a course is not to my liking or I fail to understand why things are as they are.  So its fine to bash the final product, but not necessarily the archie unless one is intimate with the project and has experience routing courses.   


Ciao

Sean,


We are in agreement. I will only add that I wish we could intelligently discuss routing from a project perspective rather than merely the final product, but as we both recognize that is very, very difficult, if not impossible for us to do.


Tim

[Phil McDade]

I will only add that I wish we could intelligently discuss routing from a project perspective rather than merely the final product, but as we both recognize that is very, very difficult, if not impossible for us to do.


Tim

Tim: I'm generally with you -- nothing to me is harder about figuring out how to asses a course's standing (or worth, or ranking, or numerical value on a well-known scale) than routing. And I'm extremely skeptical of those who say a course's routing is "self-evident." While I think there may be some corridors, or kinds of holes (like CBM finding a perfect spot on NGLA's terrain for a Redan), that are self-evident, I just think it's counter-intuitive to say stringing 18 holes together in a coherent and playable fashion is self-evident. Bill Coore might be the single best "router" of courses, based on reviews here and things I've read elsewhere, and he spends weeks on site assessing the terrain.


I do think --just to throw out a side tangent -- that you can have a course with very good-to-outstanding holes (even a majority of them) and still feel the course was poorly routed. Two prominent courses in Wisconsin fit that bill.

[Terry Lavin]

For a club that fairly begs that people not communicate about it in the blogosphere (even positively), FH has sure drawn a lot of chatter in this thread.  I just loved it.  I loved the variety of holes, the quirky couple holes, the dramatic holes and the great greensites.  I loved the vibe.  What I didn't understand at the time was the genius of the routing.  I had a chat with Bill Coore about the routing of Bandon Trails that included a discussion of the routing of FH and it was only then then I understood the transition from potato field land to duneland at FH and the transition of duneland to forest at Bandon Trials.  The emotional ebb and flow of these transitions, upon reflection, show me the true genius of the architectural work at both courses.  Not that the folks at FH want us to talk about it!   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hi Patrick,

I broke what I feel is a cardinal rule of behavior, evaluating people rather than golf courses.  I apologize to Tommy Naccarato, Bart Bradley and Mac Plumart for lashing out.  It's a reflection on my mood.

Nobody's perfect all of the time.

No, I have not seen the new path between #15 green and #16 tee. 

Then you're in for a real treat when you return.
It's rather stunning.

No club I'm aware of works harder at continual improvement of its golf course.

I believe that Ken is a perfectionist and a believer in paying attention to the details.

It was actually ranked #32 in the world, not the U.S.  It's way up there in the ratings.

If Tom Doak gives Shadow Creek a "9" how can Friars Head not be a "10" ?

If we had to play in a dense fog all the time, golf would be 54% less enjoyable.

John, I know plenty of people who play golf and go through life in a fog.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim: I'm generally with you -- nothing to me is harder about figuring out how to asses a course's standing (or worth, or ranking, or numerical value on a well-known scale) than routing. And I'm extremely skeptical of those who say a course's routing is "self-evident." While I think there may be some corridors, or kinds of holes (like CBM finding a perfect spot on NGLA's terrain for a Redan), that are self-evident, I just think it's counter-intuitive to say stringing 18 holes together in a coherent and playable fashion is self-evident.


Phil,

Given the property lines and the early discovery of the Redan, Alps, Road, Eden and Sahara holes, along with the two clubhouse locations, how was NGLA's routing not self evident ?

Do you, and others, think, that upon playing a course you can determine the quality of a routing ?




Bill Coore might be the single best "router" of courses, based on reviews here and things I've read elsewhere, and he spends weeks on site assessing the terrain.


I do think --just to throw out a side tangent -- that you can have a course with very good-to-outstanding holes (even a majority of them) and still feel the course was poorly routed. Two prominent courses in Wisconsin fit that bill.

[Kalen Braley]

When reading Rans review, it looks like finding #16 was the key to making those last 4-5 holes work thru the dunes.
 
And Ran gives the impression it took several months to do so...

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,


I just want to make sure I understand your comment about the routing of NGLA being "self evident". As Jim Nugent also suggested, once the "template" holes were discovered, the routing process was completed fairly quickly.


So, by "self evident" do you mean no other significantly different routing plan was possible?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I just want to make sure I understand your comment about the routing of NGLA being "self evident". As Jim Nugent also suggested, once the "template" holes were discovered, the routing process was completed fairly quickly.

The template holes were discovered during Macdonald's initial visits/rides on the property.
The property lines were staked out soon after.
Given the narrow sliver configuration and the natural and artificial boundaries, the routing was almost a routing by default.

So, by "self evident" do you mean no other significantly different routing plan was possible?

In the case of NGLA, in a Macro sense, yes

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,

I just want to make sure I understand your comment about the routing of NGLA being "self evident". As Jim Nugent also suggested, once the "template" holes were discovered, the routing process was completed fairly quickly.

The template holes were discovered during Macdonald's initial visits/rides on the property.
The property lines were staked out soon after.
Given the narrow sliver configuration and the natural and artificial boundaries, the routing was almost a routing by default.

So, by "self evident" do you mean no other significantly different routing plan was possible?

In the case of NGLA, in a Macro sense, yes

Pat,


Thanks. Nice to get a clear, concise answer.


To expand the "self evident" discussion a bit, would you also say that courses like Pebble Beach, the Ocean Course (Kiawah), Caso de Campo, Whistling Straits, etc., also rank high in terms of "self evident" routings?

[Jerry Kluger]

Tim: Are you serious or just jerking Pat's chain?

[Mac Plumart]

John, apology accepted but not necessary.

The main point I was trying to get across, which obviously I didn't do well, is it doesn't matter if someone types up a nice post on an Internet website in regards to Friars Head. Whether or not someone takes the time to do that or not, the course is still very good, at a minimum.

I'm glad people have done so, but it doesn't change what's there in the ground. It's a special place regardless of what someone says online.

People who've played it know that. People who haven't played it won't get it by simply reading about it.

That's what I was getting at.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim: Are you serious or just jerking Pat's chain?

Jerry,


I'm serious. My thesis is: while we should probably always be skeptical about a routing being "self evident", certain properties lean for more in this direction than others.


For example, let's consider two Pete Dye courses in Kohler, WI: Blackwolf Run and Whistling Straits. With the former I can't imagine someone arguing the routing is even remotely close to "self evident". Not so with Whistling Straits. WS is really just another version of the Ocean Course. It is far less unique than Blackwolf Run and, IMO, the property by the water offers fewer routing choices than BR.


Personally, I am more fascinated by courses where the options for routing are more varied, e.g., a property like Sand Hills.

[Kalen Braley]

Tim,
 
I think the are you serious part refers to Whistling Straights.  You do know that land was completely flat when he started and all those hills and terrain were created from nothing.  Not exactly what I would call a "self evident" routing.  Its far more similar to Shadow Creek, which was also created from nothing, than somewhere like Friars Head or CPC.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,
 
I think the are you serious part refers to Whistling Straights.  You do know that land was completely flat when he started and all those hills and terrain were created from nothing.  Not exactly what I would call a "self evident" routing.  Its far more similar to Shadow Creek, which was also created from nothing, than somewhere like Friars Head or CPC.

I am well aware of the process of creating Whistling Straits and certainly understand your reference to Shadow Creek. However, I would still maintain it is comparable to other waterfront properties where the routing task was basically just to maximize use of the waterfront. The earth moving was just details, IMO.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think Terry's comment is relevant here. He played FH and Bandon and was impressed by the golf and moved by the experience, but the "Aha" moment re the routing (and its critical role in creating both the golf and the experience) only came when Bill Coore talked about/explained it all. And that's from a well travelled, architecturally astute and smart golfer. Which is to say, maybe the sign that a routing really works and serves its purpose exceptionally well is that no one even notices it until after the round is done.
Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,


I'd disagree.


A golfer, and especially an architecture buff, should be able to make an intelligent  analysis of the routing upon completion of play.


One of the most skilled practitioners when it comes to analyzing a golf course after just one play is Ran Morrissett.


His powers of observation, and detailed macro and micro analysis is proof positive that you don't have to be an architect to perform an accurate analysis.


Others require repeat play in order to perform their analysis.


How many have played Sand Ridge, the Snead Course and Firestone West ?


What was your impression of those routings after your first play ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,


FYI, I am more familiar with the design and routing process for Sand Ridge than any other golf course in the world having spent quite a bit of time on site during construction (>25 days).


I think it is fair to say that Sand Ridge is a text book example of why evaluating a golf course routing from a "final product" point of view can yield a very different perspective from the "project view". This is basically due to the nature of the property which includes about 360 acres and about one third wetlands (which kind of sit in the middle of the property).


As the routing process unfolded, increasingly there was a lot of pressure to minimize disturbance of the wetlands and this dramatically changed the routing plans, arguably from better to worse, IMO. One thing many members and visitors note is the long trek from the 9th green to the 10th tee. Not bad for someone in a cart, but annoying for the player walking.


But, that is just something easy to spot. More important is the lost utilization of property features due to the environmental directive. Several cool holes were lost, IMO.


Once you accept the directive regarding intrusion into the wetlands, I'm actually fine with the routing of the back nine. Not so much for the front side.


That aside, I am a fan of what Fazio called "view slots" - the removal of trees around certain areas of the wetlands that permits what years ago I described as the "kaleidoscope". Seeing the same land from different perspectives and angles. That Fazio got right, IMO. It is especially nice late summer and early fall as the colors change.

[Alex Miller]

I agree, Patrick. Yet many of us who think ourselves architecture buffs aren't able to make an intelligent routing after play.
In thinking of an example where this community (or part of it) has missed the importance of routing, I realize that in order to make an assertion I must be implying that I think myself that much smarter than many. And yet that's the only way forward in this case...


The most relevant example and glaring one in my mind is Dismal River White. (This is merely an example. If you want to debate me on the merits of that routing please start a new thread.) Dismal White is a horrible, horrible routing. Made even worse by the opportunity missed on a pretty remarkable property. I swear I'm not taking shots in order to spur up that discussion, but Dismal Red provides a pretty good contrast. To me the courses aren't comparable as it appears Tom Doak considered the land the course was to be built on to such a greater extent than Jack did. Or at least did that much better of a job.


A small, small example in the White vs Red experiences- you are likely to take a cart out to both 1st tees, so it doesn't really matter that the White is farther out than the Red. But the land you drive on to get to them, what a drastic difference! For the Red you drive past the driving range down the entrance road, which is cut into a steep hill and not ideal for golf, though beautiful.


For the White, you drive through sets of dunes, also past the range. But while doing so I could not help but think "why am I driving past such fantastic land for golf?" There are easily 3 to 4 golf holes just sitting there that could be as good as anything on the White. And even though there's nothing currently on the land, it was readily apparent to me that there were more than enough holes in the White's routing ("holes in the routing", that that how you will) that could be dismissed for the potential in those dunes. Oh well...


After playing a golf course, I find myself assessing the routing by asking why a course went the direction it did. What features/shots were included by going a certain way and how a potentially challenging feature has been avoided. With the exception of a few holes on the White course, I'm still perplexed. And since the routing is inclusive of all 18 holes as 1 whole, a failure of the routing means a course is likely to fail overall in my eyes.




Some of the best routings I've played are ones that deal with a difficult geological/topographical feature while not making it too hard on a golfer. The most obvious examples are Stone Eagle and Bandon Trails, but their challenges were so extreme I don't think either could ever create as perfect a walk as a Cypress Point or Chechesee Creek (which I've not played) because the routing test wasn't ace-able in the first place. They're both 90/90 of what was possible, while Cypress is 100/100.


So is there a 100 routing out there on the Friar's Head site? Sounds like it from some of the comments, but I have not played and like Patrick, really think that (at least when discussing routings) allows for an irreplaceable expertise when discussing a course, let alone its routing.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tim: My recollection of the Ocean Course is that most of it was created because the land was so low that if it wasn't built up it would constantly flood - in fact, a good percentage of it was and still is wetlands.  When they filmed Bagger Vance there they built a hole for the movie on the condition that they put it back to its natural state after filming.  They also moved the 18th green so that you could see the water.  I think it is a great course but I cannot put it in the same league as FH in the area of routing which looks as if the holes were there and Bill Coore just found them. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,


I'll be back later, but you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to detect the environmental impediments at Sand Ridge.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,


I'll be back later, but you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to detect the environmental impediments at Sand Ridge.

Pat,


That may be. However, having the opportunity to spend lots of time on site with access to key project team members does leave a big impression. For example, it allowed me to ask "why didn't you do this" kind of questions and actually get answers.


Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I recall being told there were as many as 25 different routing plans done and many quite different than the final plan. Behind most of the iterations were compromises related to the wetlands.


Not totally sure, but I [size=78%]think some of the pressure came from Bill Conway, the founder, and not just permitting authorities. Based on his experience in mining, Bill was just sensitive to the environmental issues and wanted to get that right as much if not more than, say, finding two or three more quality holes.[/size]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()