[Mike_Cirba]

With the reintroduction of the Burbeck/Tillie controversy on the Raynor/Cypress thread, and the question of exactly who routed each course, I'm reminded of someone's contention earlier this year that the "router" should always be considered the "architect" of the course.

To that I would say, bollocks!

Good routing is an art, and provides a route for the holes to follow.  Beyond that, there are more decent routings out there with lackluster golf courses than I would want to mention.  There are also some fabulous courses like Galloway National that feature very confusing and awkward routings.

What's more, if the "router" is indeed the "architect", would anyone here call Stonewall a Tom Fazio design?

Most of the current routing is from his original.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
Here I was all set to really jump all over this one, in disbelief that you had crossed over to the other side! Thank heavens it is all just a drill!

Tom Fizzio....Ugh, I mean Fazio's Oak Creek in Irivne is one such one of these that features the BEST Fazio routing I have seen to date, yet, contains a mild to boring golf experience with some really good looking bunkering.

The course is situated on what was a flat former orange grove that is ingeniously partitioned off by a row or two of yucalyptus trees and a rail line--the main rail line that takes one to San Diego. It divides the front nine.

The back nine then makes its way on the western end of the property sort of makes a loop and returns to the clubhouse at #15 green/16tee. It then goes back out and then returns again at #18.

The problem with the course isnt' the multitude of earthmoving that occured to create landforms--it was totally flat and featureless. But more the fact that the golf holes aren't of a very strategic nature and the beautiful bunkering is never really a hazard more of an eye-candy nature. The greens are repetitive shapes and sizes, utilized over and over, and the containment--lets not go there.

Still, the course is pretty to look at, which appeazes the Orange County faithful so much that they stay away in the droves. They want their golf to be a clean, neat and proper Augusta-like beauty with a parking lot that provides excellent views of their Mercedes and BMW's. They don't have crushed white marble in the "sand traps" so this also poses a problem too.

Oak Creek is one of the most walkable courses behind the Orange Curtin, only second to the charming 1920 Billy Bell 6000 yard Willowick, and this of course means nothing to the cart riding faithful that need GPS to negotiate their way back to their cars.

UGH!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dave,
I think after one round at the Valley Club, you would be a changed man. Even Cypress Point for that matter.

A suggestion would be to get Forrest's new book on routings, it is a very good read on the subject.


But I also have to scream foul.

In every post I have made on routings, I have tried to explain what I think makes one. Valley Club it is a creek, two hills and a glorious view which MacKenzie worked from, and he took those features and basically used them to their fullest--a tee here, a green there, etc. I can't bring up the aerial of the Valley Club on this computer so I can piece one together for you, but, go to Mapquest and pluck in Montecito and navigate it yourself and see what I am talking about.

As I said to Rich in yesterday's postings, aerial photos are really great, but the vertical ones don't really show all of the features the orthographic aerials do, I guess the best way would to have both types, and you could really go big time from there, but ultimately it is walking the place that really opens it all up.

Another good study in Riviera. Once again natural features such as creek beds and a giant perch from which to work from. Sheer genius! And the funny thing is that Captain Thomas didn't think it was a very good site!

Hope this helps.

[Tom Doak]

Mike,

Simply put, if you've got a good piece of land for a golf course, the routing is the place where you're going to find the best natural golf holes.  If you miss them, you've got a lot more work to do to create good holes, and it's still likely that those you create will be less original than those you missed.

That's not to say the course is done.  Routing is about 50% of the battle; detail work is the other 50%.  But you can't get that first 50% back.

I wish your argument centered on the finished product instead of the attribution, though.  Neither Tom Fazio nor I am too worried about attribution for Stonewall ... and I can assure you that Messrs. Tillighast and Burbeck are not sitting up in their graves worrying about it.  All of us know what our contributions have been, and I don't know why anyone else would care.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dave, once again, you make a really good point as far as many modern architects go. Some of them just don't care that much about natural features to the point that they find the best spot for the clubhouse and rape and shape the land from there.

Without trying to be too biased here, I will say that Mr. Hills, Mr. Fazio and Mr R. Jones are the biggest culprits in this realm. I recently played a hilly Jones course where the fairway shapes didn't match up well at all to the existing hillsides. I think they feel a cartpath will break it all up, but ultimately it is what is most damaging to their designs--the overuse of machinery to cut a hole wherever they want, enabling them to create whatever they want from the confines of an office.

I remember asking a well informed and knowledgable source about a certain popular Fazio course in Florida which shall remain nameless. I asked them how the routing was, and they responded, "I think they looked for the best locations for restrooms on the course, and a clubhouse site and worked from there." So, no, even if the golf course has a good reputation and is highly ranked, it shows that they don't really care about routing to natural features, opting to create them and disguising a lot of the cut and fill with native grasses that aren't native to the site, or if you are in California, not even utilizing them at all. (Maybe I should visit Pat's Tall grass thread?)

But to get to the brunt of your question, If you have a perfectly flat cornfield or airstrip (here) or orange grove (there), and course is basically "made" by bulldozing land all over the place, how important is routing, really?  

I think if you want to build a GREAT golf course, routing is the key, and to have a routing you have to work off of features, both natural and artificial. (Please notice the bold type)

I think you can make GOOD golf courses out of the land which you speak, but ultimately it is the features that are in tune with the surroundings that make the course-GREAT.

-At Talking Stick North-it is a boundry line and a dry creek bed.
-At Oak Creek it is a simple row of yucalyptus that once guarded the orange trees from freezing.
-At Rustic Canyon, it is a whole slew of natural features both environmentally verbotten (the main dry creek/wash) and actual holes already built, just cleared of unusable grasses and small rocks (the 16th) Most people think Rustic is flat. That is until they start putting!:) (Reagan Library!)

These are just a few examples of utilizing seemingly flat sites and getting good routings out of them.

I can hardly wait for Forrest's reply!:)

[Matt_Ward]

Dave S:

I don't doubt that the subject of routing can be at times vague and quite vexing because you are so right -- many times the people describing a "great" or "poor " routing are generlistic in their descriptions or analysis.

Let me point out a few things:

First, many "development" based courses do not have a routing in the classic sense. What they have is an "excursion." What I mean by that is the primary focus is on the housing and therefore the golf becomes nothing more than a long winded time travel through all reaches of the property in order to accentuate the housing element.

A good recent example of this that I just finished playing in late November is the new development facility just outside of San Diego called Santaluz (calling Tommy N  ). Here the development features McMansion style housing and the course literally takes you on a massive trek up and down the landscape. There are a number of fine holes but they are DISJOINTED and simply require more and more focus on the journey than actually being tied together.

When I look at a great routing I would mention Skokie. This classic style layout just fits so neatly -- like the way words mesh together on the NY Times crossword puzzles. The sequence of holes is diversified and the positioning of holes keeps the golfer from zoning in on some sort of easily discerned predictability -- both course related and wind related.

I am well aware that modern design today often features sites that do not lend themselves to what was done at Skokie. In today's age the architect must "fit" the course to what the development gives him. Sometimes you get "joy rides" that are nothing more than promos for the housing development. A good example of this is in my "neck of the woods" called Westlake. Here the homes engulf the course no less than Santa Ana engulfed the Alamo!

A great routing does as Tom Doak mentions. It fits "naturally" and above all else it maximizes the full range of shotmaking and daily wind patterns. Too many designs today feature the boring one after another sequence of holes that go in a big loop one way and a big loop in the reverse way. If I had a dollar for all the times I've seen this "creativity" I'd have a '03 corvette waiting outside my door!

I don't doubt for many architects the subject of routing is going to be constrained by the priorities of the developer / builder. Many owners don't view golf as the priority -- it's the hook to buy houses -- pure and simple.

Again, to be clear -- I don't mind carts being a fundamental part of some courses -- I do object when the cart is an absolute necessity because the holes are placed in a manner that fails to tie anything together and as a result you drive and drive and drive.

In simple terms Dave I would say the following ...

A great routing is one that goes to the best natural sites on the land.

A great routing offers immense variability -- there cannot be one particular style or way to play the holes. BUT, SUCH A ROUTING DOES NOT MEAN LONG EXCURSION LIKE RIDES TO TIE THE HOLES TOGETHER.

A great routing takes into account the daily wind pattern so that you will be fully tested from all quarters. LIMITED PREDICTABILITY lies at the heart of a dynamic routing in my mind.

As far as flat land is concerned you can have a superior routing provided some of the above elements I just mentioned are included.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I prefer Brad Klein's quote -  "Routing is destiny."

I hate to bring up the Tillie/Burbeck thing again, but I can imagine that Tillie had input into the routing as a paid daily consultant, and maybe even did it himself.  He probably even did the bunker scheme, but simply didn't have full construction authority.  

As Geoff said, I am sure the Good Doctor modified any plan Raynor drew up for CP, if he saw it at all.  I also believe they would have found several similar holes, perhaps in the same corridor but running opposite ways, perhaps the same holes.  For that matter, they probably would have each discarded hundreds of holes on that property to get it to fit together.  Had Raynor lived, he would have modified his Paper routings, perhaps not as MacKenzie did, but in some way.  Its all part of the process.

How many courses have crampled cluhouses, no practice areas, unsafe zones, etc. because of poor routing?  Lots!

I find, even with earthmoving capacity at my disposal, that the best holes still are the most natural ones.  Most budgets, just don't allow you to create every hole, even if you must create a few.  

You can tell the unnatural holes - the ones with valleys cut 25 through a hillside to provide vision.

[Tim Weiman]

Dave Schmidt:

Your first post sums up my feelings fairly well. When it comes to routing, I don't think any of us have gone beyond generalities very often, if at all

I recently started the thread "Can we discuss routing?" hoping we would all get better, but it won't be easy. Without lots of detail, it will always be difficult to address this issue.

That kind of detail is probably only open to project team members or others closely associated with a particular course, e.g., owners, sponsors, members, etc. Guys who run around seeing many golf courses, as I used to do, usually don't see any single course more than once or twice, and then, most likely, never get all the inside scoop one really needs to make a meaningful assessment.

If Tom Doak is right that routing is 50% of what determines the quality of the final product, then our discussion group has a long way to go. For starters, we would need to begin discussing raw land, e.g., TD's St Andrews Beach or Nicklaus' Bayberry (assuming it is his project).

I also think C&C's Friar's Head might make a great case study. Bill Talmadge told me that the Fazio routing done many years before was quite different from what C&C have done. My tour of the property was quite brief, but it did seem that many different choices could have been made. I'd love to hear Bill Coore or Ken Bakst discuss this subject at length.

One other point I'd like to make. Very rarely have I ever heard anyone discuss the routing for Pine Valley. (I think Tom Paul did once.) Isn't that interesting? Here is a course always mentioned among the very best and we never hear people say it has a "great routing". Was Crump so brilliant in using the land that we marvel at the holes so much we forget he had to rout the course?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Doak;

Your description of Stonewall in the "Confidential Guide" certainly doesn't sound as though it was written by someone who wasn't the "proud papa", and rightfully so.

I understand your point that the finished product is more important than accurate architectural attribution for academic purposes, but my major point is that the architectural detail work within the holes themselves is generally more important than the routing.  

I believe it was you who argued that 80% of a course's value is often achieved in the last 20% of the detail work.  I couldn't agree more.  

Tim;

Incidentally, one needs only to play the first four holes at PV to learn a great deal about solid routing.  

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

I'm afraid reference to the first four holes at Pine Valley providing an opportunity to learn about routing doesn't help. Why? Because very few people have ever been there.

On the other hand, it is probably a good example to bring up because it is something one can get their arms around. I like how Crump used elevation change to create the uphill approach shot on #2 and the downhill par 3 on #3. How use do you feel Crump used the "natural features" well? Did he do so on #1?

[A_Clay_Man]

Dave shivas schmidt, I was concerned reading your comment about not being in tune with a good routing. I personally feel it is many things that make a great routing not just the use of the natural features. Paramount to me is the non answer answer. The ethereal aspect of knowing ahead of time, thru awarenenss, on which way to go because of what the archie has given you. Whether it be a shot or which side to exit the green, it is something that you either feel or you don't. What's blocking your sensors? free your mind, dude.

[Dan King]

What's the big deal about routing.

Get the biggest piece of land you can possibly get -- say something like the state of Wyoming -- find the 18 best holes and then build some really nice cart paths between the holes.

Dan King

"In no other game is the ration of playing field to goal so large. (Think of soccer, American footbal, lacrosse, basketball, billards, bowling.) we are spread wide as we play, then brought to a tiny space."
 --Michael Murphy (Golf in the Kingdom)

[Tim Weiman]

Dave Schmidt:

I think Pebble Beach might be the very best course for us to discuss routing. While most people haven't been to the likes of a Pine Valley, Pebble Beach is known by far more people.

I do think that has to be a consideration. A routing plan may be great, but if most people visiting GCA haven't seen it, the discussion is far less rewarding.

[Tim Weiman]

Dave Schmidt:

You are not expecting the impossible, but you are stretching the limits of what we can do on GolfClubAtlas.

Take my example of Friar's Head. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I doubt we will have a meaningful discussion of C&C vs Fazio. It would take a couple day site visit and Bill Coore/Ken Bakst being willing to openly share all that went through their minds on the routing plan.

Potentially a great exercise, just hard to do at GCA.

Someone please prove me wrong!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dave,

I agree with your post, 100%.  With bunkering or green contouring, you can probably easily visualize something different.  Only occaisionally can I recall looking down a corridor on a course and saying, "Wow, this could have also been a golf hole."  Actually, the easiest to imagine are routing the holes backwards, which you can see while standing by the green.  RTJ and others have said the last test of a good routing is that most of the holes work almost as well going backwards.  I always double test the routing, and fid this is often true.  

That happens more frequently at a place like Sand Hills, where you can imagine about 1000 holes.  In a housing course?  hard to imagine holes running through the living room.

I'm going to start a thread on the top ten requirements for a good routing, based on your comment, if you don't mind.

[Bill_McBride]

Sometimes great routing is knowing how to take advantage of a great view (or maybe a line up of objects in the distance?) --  Tommy, a wonderful example is the view from the bluff which is the 14th tee at Valley Club, across the 14th green and 1st green, up the 1st fairway to the lovely clubhouse above.  What a great vision to make all that line up that way.  Another good example would be Stanley Thompson's holes at Banff which have a mountain peak directly behind and above the green about three or four times!    That's what makes great routings like works of art!

[A_Clay_Man]

Dave, I'll guess what brad meant is that once you've picked the routing you have pretty much sealed your fate and therefore your destiny. Now, i'll show you what I mean using pebble. The first green is right next to the second tee. Anyone unaware of this is a sleep. The third tee has to be across the road cause there's nowhere else to go. The fourth isn't the seventeenth unless you want to spend three fifty for a 5 hole loop . Now, Ill bet we could fill-up some pages discussing the difference between the old and the new fifth hole and the subsequent routing to sixth. (i liked the old route) Now its a climb back up hill just for the tee shot.(for caddies the new is the bomb). The seventh is a natural progreession to the rear of the sixth. I love the placement of the 8th tee. When they move the public to the upper teeing ground, it's embarrasing. The ninth tee is again a natural progression behind the 8th. Now, the tenth is a bit of a back track but that tee shot is well worth it. 11 once again nowhere to go but up. Twelve directly behind 11 . 13, unless you wanna play from the viranda of the taco bell house you find the 13th. 14 you saw it on 9 and it's just a natural progression. 15 behind 14 green 16 is a cute one tucked into the trees but is handy leaving the 15th. Now seventeen is a bit of a trick but all you have to do is remember seeing the hole after the 3rd and you know where to go. 18 is as effortless as it gets. My whole scenario takes little consideration for cart users and is totally biased for the walker. This rudimentary quality of seamless routing is only part of what makes a great one but without one aspect you wouldn't have great.

Please list more of the courses where you've played so others can hopefully help point out what is missing. I guess it's possible to have never played a course like sfgc where the routing is effortless until the 13th.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I sure would never say routing is overrated just because an architect can screw up a good routing by designing the holes on a good routing poorly.

Tom Doak is certainly right on though that maximizing any site's assets hole by hole is much of what routing is all about.

But there's no way in the world anything could be exactly standardized as to what makes a course's routing bad, moderate, good or great. There are just way too many diverse things about sites and even the needs and demands of various clubs that make pinning down what makes a routing or not.

A course like Galloway does have a lot of good holes, good hole variety, holes that go both ways and offer a lot of varied interest to the golfer but anyone would have to admit that the modern cart era bails out Galloway. 40+ years ago that routing would be massive annoyance, and in my opinion will always suffer in the overall because walking is a pain in the ass.

In the old days creating tight green to tee routings were almost a necessity for success. Trying to route a site that way can put lots of pressure on an architect trying to create balance and variety, walkability and max the site's assets in the right places on the holes, not to mention the relative inablility to move earth to overcome obstacle areas. The ability to overcome problem areas today by moving earth is a snap compared to then (if it isn't protected which wasn't a problem back then).

I think even very good routings are basically subliminal to most golfers though. The only time most golfers are aware of a routing is when something (anything) is wrong with it and that could be almost any inconvenience one could think of under the sun!

But even the best archtiect in the world can't make a really great course if the land or site just won't give him a good routing. Courses like Galloway, Stonewall and certainly one like Easthampton have some routing problems of one kind or another for the particular kind of club they are and that will never be overcome.

[Tom Doak]

Tom P:  I still have not read Tom Fazio's book on design, so I didn't know that he'd said modern golfers would not accept the routing of Cypress Point.  I wonder how he would explain why they've accepted Pacific Dunes?

Tim and Adam:  I think the routing of Pebble Beach is a great place to discuss the subject a bit.

Adam suggests that the seventh hole is "a natural progression from the sixth" but I tend to side with Pete Dye who said once that most architects would have overlooked #7 completely!  Putting the seventh green where it was also necessitated the blind tee shot for #8 and then the dramatic second shot along the coast, so that choice for #7 was probably the most important decision in the overall plan.

In fact, holes 9 and 10 were once different in the original routing -- I can't remember which of them was a par five, I think the tenth -- but they abandoned this when someone shifted the green on the ninth to its wonderful current position.

And, of course, the most important decision they made was that the course did not have to be laid out in two loops of nine holes.  If they'd stuck to that, it would be radically different and not nearly as good.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I think Tom D hit it on the head. it is 50% of the game. I find courses like Dornoch have great routing. The great golf holes are there and taken advantage of. Turnberry and County Down do the same.

[Greg Ramsay]

There can be little doubt as to the importance of routing in the quality of a golf course, what amazes me is how the routing of a golf course evolves over time.

If anyone wants to take a peak at www.barnbougledunes.com/new_site
and go to the architects page, they will be able to download and print a copy of Tom's preliminary routing for Barnbougle Dunes.  Tom and Don Placek drew up this routing after Tom's first visit to the site last year.  Since then there has been feedback on it and proposals from Mike Keiser after his visit late last year, as well as Tom's co-designers Mike Clayton and Bruce Grant, and just last week Tom and Mike Keiser were down again to have another look.

Tom found a great new hole with such a spellbounding tee shot vista and natural flow to the greensite, that it will probably lead to a full revision of the eastern 9.  It really makes me appreciate that while the skill of being able to read contour maps is immensely important, until people get to a site and spend time roving around, they can't really see the full picture and routing opportunities.

One wonders how much better would many of Tillies' and Ross' courses have been if they hadn't spent just an afternoon on-site, but a week.  It also suggests to me that while Mackenzie has been credited with many courses in Australia which he only ever walked, routed and drew up maps for, his influence on the shapers and construction crew was significant enough to say that he was the genuine architect, with some very important assistance.

Regarding the website, we are not launching the Foundation Memberships until very early in the New Year, so don't worry if the link to the Product Disclosure Statement isn't working.

Greg Ramsay
www.barnbougledunes.com

[Matthew Mollica]

Tom D –

You make an excellent point in saying –  

“Adam suggests that the seventh hole is 'a natural progression from the sixth' but I tend to side with Pete Dye who said once that most architects would have overlooked #7 completely!”

And this, in my neophyte opinion, is where routing is very important, and furthermore, inextricably linked to design.

Great routing provides the architect with the ability to create a course boasting better strategic challenges, using god-given undulation and terrain. It allows variation in hole length and style. It does much more than allow utilization / appreciation of natural features and views. Routing also does more than set the rhythm for a round, or take people out and back.  It allows the architect to include within a course’s design, a full complement of attributes. It also gives the opportunity to showcase an architect’s imagination, and creativity in course design.

Good routing gives rise to better challenges and interest, and furnishes the architect to ask certain shots of a golfer.  It must be thought that routing is very important, and certainly not over-rated. Take Pebble as an example.  Imagine a course of a different route, looking out over the cove, and just taking in the view ONLY. Imagine #7 somewhere else - not hitting a wedge right onto the tip of Arrowhead point, or flying the second shot on #8 over the cliff?? The course, while being beautiful, would not be as great, nor would it have the opportunity to showcase great design features, nor would it boast the same caliber of shot making challenges.  

There is little more frustrating to a golfer, when walking around a course, than the site of a small pocket of space or a great feature, not being utilized.  This feeling of ‘what if…’ is evidence enough that routing is not overrated.

Tom D – Having just been here in Oz, you must be thinking of Royal Melbourne West during this discussion as well.  That one rise in the land on the front nine, facilitates a blind tee shot on 4, over intimidating looking traps. Five green is then set into the hill, and has resulted in one of the most loved par 3’s in Australia. The tee on #6 is then wonderfully elevated, providing a great challenge, for golfers of all grades, in any conditions. Surely, the routing is the genesis of such a great design outcome. At the very least, they are hand in hand. Subsequently, routing has to be considered as very important, and not overrated…

Having said all that, I do appreciate that good routing can still be seen on an ordinary course and vice versa.  I accept that poorly routed golf courses can still challenge a golfer, and boast sound design, even enjoyable and wonderful design, but poor course routing may compromise this.  

I also appreciate that routing on a plot of land akin to a rice paddy, where lots of land is to be moved, is not as crucial. Neither is culinary prowess when microwaving popcorn.  If we’re talking about the upper echelon of golf courses, we’re talking five-star dining, not popcorn.  I don’t know how anyone could argue that routing and design are not intimately linked on such courses, or that routing is not an integrally important part of the puzzle.

For all the architects out there, I dare say that if you didn’t enjoy a reputation as a good router, or if there were not an individual in your firm boasting this skill, then your design company would be at a disadvantage when being considered for a job on a fantastic piece of undulating, seaside golfing terrain….  


Matt Mollica

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak wrote;

"Tom P:  I still have not read Tom Fazio's book on design, so I didn't know that he'd said modern golfers would not accept the routing of Cypress Point.  I wonder how he would explain why they've accepted Pacific Dunes?"

TomD:

I did say that on a post in this thread but have just looked in Tom Fazio's book for that quote and I can't find it. Matter of fact, the part of the book that's probably where I remember reading this might just say the opposite--that, in fact, 'there are no real rules' (about this kind of thing--par 3s and par 5s together in a routing).

So obviously, I must've misread Tom Fazio's book on this and I've removed what I said about what he said on my post on this thread. And I apologize to Tom Fazio, if that's necessary, for saying that on here.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I'd still like to see Tom Fazio create back to back 3's or 5's if that's what the land forms suggest (and after designing a few scadzillion courses on some superb sites, one would think it might have been "suggested" by now), so even if he didn't say that in his book, I'm not sure he doesn't believe it's probably too "unorthodox" for the modern golfer.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Doak- I have never met Pete, but is it possible he may have meant that modern archies wouldn't have chosen the seventh because they just aren't that smart or daring? Or because it breaks some general rule of thumb for modern constuction?  I ask this because of his apparent propensity to be sneaky clever with his verbage.
One of the thoughts about PB's routing relates to Bethpage Black too. And that is the 15th at PB and the 18th at BB. Both holes seem to have a breather quality about them  mostly due to the difficulty of their closest numerical nieghbors. The fact that bb's is the last does nothing to lessen the appreciation for some breathing room.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()