What is the basic unit of Golf Course Architecture? The Course or the Hole?

[Charlie Goerges]

I go back and forth on this philosophical question. I suspect that golf architects as a group would lean toward the course because that is how they plan things. But maybe non-architects might lean toward the hole.


There are weird edge cases (what is it when a course is only a few holes, or a home has one or two holes on the property etc.)


There are implications for either point of view such as how much of a course should be sacrificed for an all-world hole etc.

I don't know, just wondering.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I go with the course. I am an album man and a coherent and elegant whole is very important to me.


I think you’d be surprised though Charlie. Most architects veer more to the hole it seems, arguing that the greatest courses have to have a number of great holes.


I just happen to think that on balance, multiple great holes don’t often get sacrificed in chasing a great whole. It’s usually one at the most.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally makes a great point. I lean toward the hole as a building block, but I have often said that a great hole cannot be considered if it negatively affects the rest of the course. Imagine 16 at Cypress Point if it was 5 miles removed from the rest of the course or was only reached after playing a terrible hole before and after. Ally is correct; the course without 16 might be better.


I had a business consultant argue strongly to build a hole like that on the shores of one of the great lakes, but it would have been a half mile of cart path, a million plus $$ tunnel, and then with no real craggy features to make it worthwhile other than the lake view (which can be seen from many holes on the course, just not up close.) I doubt it would have affected the rounds played positively just to attain a "signature hole."  Surprisingly (to me) where we have lake front holes and then another one just above it, the views are really better from an elevated standpoint.

[Michael Felton]

That's an interesting question. When I play I'm generally thinking of the course as a whole rather than any particular hole. If you ask me what's the best course I've played, I can give a reasonable answer. If you ask me which is the best hole I've played, I would really struggle. Partly because there are so many to choose from, but partly because the course gives a vibe and also because you kind of know if a course is going to be top end before you get there, so the list is even more limited. Then in many ways, the best courses have a certain flow to them that stands out in my mind. That's a big chunk of the differentiation. I found it quite difficult to list my eclectic 18 from this year. Not least because how do you decide the best 6th hole when your options are between Shinnecock's long par 4 and NGLA's short par 3? If pushed I'd go with Shinny there, because I think it is one of the best 2 or 3 holes on the course, but NGLA's is a great hole. They're very different holes and great.

[Ronald Montesano]

Since a hole may be completed in one stroke, I nominate "the shot" as the basic unit of golf course architecture.

[Ian Andrew]

Course


Last time I checked nobody says lets go play "one" ...
The best of the best are always greater than the sum of their parts.


The worst are almost always a routing choice built around one photographic hole.

[Kalen Braley]

The worst are almost always a routing choice built around one photographic hole.

I would think Half Moon Bay is the poster child for this.  Any other nominations?

[Jeff Schley]

Monarch Beach Golf Links in Orange County.  A course that has just a couple holes routed to the ocean, actually 1 on the ocean.  Great views and the green is pretty good.  Rest of the course is forgettable.

[Charlie Goerges]

Monarch Beach Golf Links in Orange County.  A course that has just a couple holes routed to the ocean, actually 1 on the ocean.  Great views and the green is pretty good.  Rest of the course is forgettable.

What are the hole numbers for those two holes near the beach?

[Tim Martin]

The course

[Charlie Goerges]

The vast majority are coalescing around the course being the basic unit (Ronald coming in with the shot, I appreciate the effort).


I'm surprised more aren't saying the hole though, at least among the non-architects. One thing that makes me go back and forth (rather than settling on "course" like most everyone else) was some stuff I've read on here. Including that generally the best courses are made up of the best holes. And also, the lack of control the architects have over things like flipping the nines or changing the clubhouse location. Often my motto when people ask questions about building into the setting sun or the number of blind shots or starting on a par 5 or anything like that is "just build the best holes you can" and don't worry about that other clobber.


If someone was going to make the case for the hole rather than the course, how would you do it?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Charlie,


TD is often heard saying that the best courses are the ones with the best collection of great holes. Hence you hear a lot of others echoing that.


It’s hard to disagree with that. But those greatest courses don’t have routing problems or a series of weak holes because those great holes were made. The course as a whole is how architecture should be defined, particularly in comparison to the raw site, constraints and all.

[Chris Hughes]

Since a hole may be completed in one stroke, I nominate "the shot" as the basic unit of golf course architecture.

Had the same thought!

[Jeff Schley]

Monarch Beach Golf Links in Orange County.  A course that has just a couple holes routed to the ocean, actually 1 on the ocean.  Great views and the green is pretty good.  Rest of the course is forgettable.

What are the hole numbers for those two holes near the beach?

Early in the round I think 3 / 4.

[Mark_Fine]

Charlie,
I would be surprised if Tom Doak said that the best golf courses have “the best collection” of golf holes.   All great golf courses have great golf holes, but it is how they all flow together that makes the course truly great.


Back to the topic at hand, you can’t complete a puzzle without all the pieces. It is frustrating as hell to have a puzzle with some empty spots (pieces missing). This is analogous to having some weak golf holes or holes in your puzzle.  As such it’s the holes that make the golf course and how they are all put together that makes the greatest designs.

[Sean_A]

I guess folks are assuming the course is walkable in this discussion. Which sort of highlights the point, how many cart courses are considered great? In theory they can be packed with great holes, but obviously lack cohesion due to poor spatial relationship. So for me it’s the course which is most important. I am probably more forceful with the idea as I dislike any somewhat long/awkward transition walks and think if one or two exist there must be a big payoff.


This question can spin in different ways depending on one’s disposition.

Ciao