[Ben Sims]

The bunkering threads remind me about something I've been meaning to ask about.  I think that routing is possibly the most important aspect of golf course design.  I really don't know much about it.  I recently saw a map of Mike Nuzzo's Aztec Club on a topo map and started to understand more about quality routing.  

So how do you formulate quality routing?  And what makes a routing special?

[JC Jones]

Thanks for starting this thread, Ben.  Routing confuses the hell out of me.  I have no idea how one can look at a topo map and walk a piece of land and "see" a golf course, let alone the best golf course that land can provide.  This, to me, is the most fascinating aspect of GCA.

[Mark Pritchett]

Would routing be classified more as art or science?

I vote for art.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

Several years ago I did an online diary of the design and construction of the Quarry Course.  Here was the first article on it, but it focuses mostly on clubhouse location. I think I can find the next one, which talks more about routing.


After my first round of golf, I was hooked on golf course architecture. The routing changed direction often, and got me wonderfully lost in the middle of the wooded property.  Somehow, it didn’t occur to me that the holes could be arranged to start and return at the clubhouse, so I made sure I had change for bus fare to get me back to clubhouse!  And, when I came up a slope from eight green to nine tee, saw the clubhouse behind the green and smelled burgers cooking (just when I was getting hungry!), I thought to myself, “the guy who designed this is a genius!”

A masterful routing does provides for important things like returning nines for the hungry, the tired, and the golfers yearning to be free to go home.  So, that night, I sketched the routing on napkins – as sophisticated as some architects ever get!

There are no set rules for routing a golf course, save one - If a routing works out well after just one try, I make a careful hole count! For some reason, 17 or 19 holes are always easier than that pesky requirement for 18!
  
Routing cannot be by “formula” – it must be born of careful study of site properties.  The first step is thorough analysis of the property’s natural features, including soils, drainage patterns, geology (including subsurface rock – which we obviously try to avoid with the routing for cost reasons), trees, views, surrounding land uses, planned and future utilities, and the like.  More and more, environmental impact assessments are prepared by outside consultants.  These do not replace the architect’s work, but they often add to it!  Mostly, they identify “off limits” environmental zones, such as wetlands, high quality forests, historic sites, sensitive habitats, and other legally protected areas.  

Routing doesn’t usually come easy, especially with increasing land use restrictions that ‘’golden age” architects never considered.  I often prepare twenty or more preliminary schematics.  I used to label these starting with “A”, but often run out of letters midway through public hearings.  I now use a numbering scheme, but haven’t hit infinity.

It’s easier to correct things in planning, rather than moving millions of yards of earth during construction.  So, I route a few schemes, then walk the property and route some more, making sure I cover every possibility. A good architect talks to the land, asking it what kind of feature it wants to be – a green, tee or fairway – and listens. Routings in the south always take longer, because the land speaks more slowly, usually in a soft drawl. But, this process always works – except internationally, when the land speaks back in a foreign language.

Golf design critic Bradley Klein says “Routing is Destiny”, setting the course’s eternal footprint – until the end of time or at least until death by bulldozer.  While misconceived tees, greens, and hazards are fairly easy to rebuild, critical routing mistakes like inadequate room for a practice range, are impossible, or impossibly expensive, to correct.

The primary goal of any routing plan is to find the 18 most natural golf holes.  Given this, it may seem strange that it’s the last thing done in routing.  First, we simply try to fit any 18 holes on the property.  Many landowners have property that’s too small, and ask us, charitably phrased, to squeeze a size nine course into a size seven dress!  We do this using pre-made clear plastic golf holes, which never fails to disappoint visitors.  The second order of business is locating a few potential places for the clubhouse.

The clubhouse area must have room  (as little as 4-6 acres, with elaborate clubhouses needing more) for parking (150-200 cars), cart storage and staging, a tournament pavilion, scoreboard, and “general milling about” on Holes 1 and 10.  There should be enough area for future expansion of the clubhouse or the addition of other facilities.  The popularity of croquet, for example, may skyrocket, and it’s best to be ready! A clubhouse on a roomy site appears gracious and stately, while a cramped one doesn’t.  Tight spacing is detrimental to efficient operation.  And, some of the most terrifying opening tee shots in golf (Like Merion) result from teeing off from just in front of a clubhouse, where every one close enough to watch!

We must also find a convenient adjacent area for a practice range, putting and chipping areas, which usually take 15 acres. If possible, this should be an open area, as it always seems a shame to remove such a large amount of trees. Practice sand bunkers pose safety problems from “sculled” shots.  Practice bunkers should allow those shots to stray harmlessly into unused areas.  Ideally, the sand bunker is located near the practice range, where these shots can be retrieved with the ball picker.

What else makes a good clubhouse location?  Several things, including:

Access, Proximity and Identity

The golf course needs identity, usually accomplished with Traditionally, clubhouses are located on prominent hills, with good views of the most scenic portions of the property, which helps establish identity.

The clubhouse should be easy to get to, with a direct and safe accessibility from a main road.  Clubhouses accessed from secondary roads are hard to find. A course west of town usually has its clubhouse near the eastern boundary, for example.  While most golfers will find the course, why make it inconvenient?

For cost reasons, the clubhouse should be located close to existing utilities like power, water and sewer.  The economics of golf don’t allow for money to be spent on buried, unseen necessities that don’t impact or improve the quality of the course.



Jurisdiction

If a course is within multiple governmental jurisdictions, the clubhouse should be located in the most advantageous area for taxes, utility rates, and municipal services. For municipally owned courses, the clubhouse ideally retains alcohol and sales taxes within the city’s jurisdiction to maximize revenue to the city.


Administration

Most golf courses prefer visual control of Holes 1, 9, 10, 18 and cart staging areas.  If there is an “off season” when staffing is minimized to a single person, visual control of the first tee is necessary.  A starter at the first tee is required during peak times, with another person in the pro shop, servicing customers.  A clubhouse near the finishing holes facilitates club drop off and returning carts, etc.

Food and Beverage Service

Good views, including those to the 9th or 18th greens to watch other golfers finish, encourages golfers to stay for food and beverages after the round. Arranging circulation from the 9th and 18th greens with easy access to the clubhouse and restrooms is convenient and studies show that food and beverage sales increase with each “opportunity to buy.” With emergence of the food and beverage carts, and where course restrooms are provided, this is not as critical.

Privacy

The clubhouse location should avoid proximity to existing or proposed homes, as its operation is not compatible with single family housing. High-density housing (such as club condos) is favorably placed near the clubhouse. In general, the clubhouse and parking area should be a “stand alone” facility, located within the boundaries of the golf course envelope.

Placing the clubhouse too near a church or school is often frowned upon, not only because of the alcohol sales, but also because of potential “defections” to the much more attractive facility next door!

Course Orientation

A clubhouse located near “12 noon” is generally preferred.  It sets up holes in a north/south direction. As the clubhouse moves clockwise around the site, it becomes progressively less desirable. An eastern or southern site is acceptable. A western site is undesirable, starting opening holes to the east – and directly into the sun.  Closing holes will run west, also finishing into the sun.  Playing into the sun is sometimes unavoidable, but it is particularly bad to open or close a round with bad sun orientation as it creates and leaves a bad impression, and may slow down play.

Usually, one or two sites fit those criteria, and quick test routings see which one has the most overall potential to fit (in most cases!) returning nines, the practice areas, approach drives and parking lots in a nice package.  Then, the process of finding the best natural golf holes begins.

At the Quarry Course, our decision was quick, but not painless.  The selected site was on the outside curve of the main highway, with utilities in place, and a killer view of the Embarrass Mine Lake. It was a bit on the small side, but the main operation was to remain at the hotel and clubhouse for the first course.  Its location on the highway minimized costs, and was convenient to both sides of the road – and we knew the road would split the course into two nines. It allowed good sun orientation as well.

Our first hint of a problem came when the soils engineer recommended the clubhouse be built at the bottom of the lake, reasoning, he said, that it would get there in a few years anyway!  We had picked an old spoil pile for a location, which did not provide stable support for a foundation.  No problem, we said, and quickly relocated it slightly west, but still on the lake bank for that killer view.  Then the consultants recommended it be set back because of the possibility of the steep lake bank slumping.  The view is still there, but not as good as it could be if located right on the edge. A similar fate befell our first hole, which might have been the most terrifying opener in golf, playing over the lake as shown in the picture below, if it could be built.

So, we began our search for the next best 18 holes on the property, and that will be the subject of our next installment.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Here is part 2 of that.  In a quick scan of both, I will say that I know that some here will disagree with certain concepts I present, that there are always exceptions, and that even though its quite lengthy, I would still say it really doesn't tell you how to route a golf course.  Perhaps there is no way to really tell anyone other than to say have at it, and don't get stuck on one idea.

Once, I was playing with two other golf architects, and a stranger joined us as a fourth.  After finding out what are professions was, he tried to toss out some architectural lingo.  Among them was the old chestnut “an architect finds natural green sites, and connects the holes from there.”  The three of us fell down, we were laughing so hard, and had to let three groups go through before we could compose ourselves and resume play!  In fact, I lay out golf holes in the same order you play them – from tee to green. 

Perhaps I am delaying answering the question of how I find natural holes because I wonder about the fate of that magician who gave away all the magic secrets on television!  Is he still alive?  Golf architects won’t like me giving away “secrets of natural golf design,” especially when we talk as if our designs are handed down from a golf deity.  Our quirky lingo conceals a simple truth about routing golf holes: Play downhill!

A downhill hole brings features into view from the tee. The best way to do this is to locate the tee on a small rise – although a large one works even better.  From there, the hole “lays out in front of you like a road map,” according to one pro. 

Actually, golf holes can play downhill, level, or even slightly uphill satisfactorily.  Vision to the green is of paramount importance, so a hole should not play uphill more than three per cent, which is the maximum front to back slope of a green according to the USGA.  There will be a blind putting surface for any approach shot exceeding that.  On hilly ground, this is sometimes impossible and undesirable to avoid. The architect may decide to gently slide the fairway up the hill with a blind shot, or have a higher climb between the green and the next tee.  Every architect is different, but I usually opt for the highest tee and most visible (usually lowest) green possible, accepting the walk up the hill to the next tee.  Of course, I’m aware that cart usage is at 55% nationwide and on the rise!

With the tee located nicely on a promontory, we lay out the centerline to the dogleg – generally using 800 feet (266 yards) as the distance from the championship tee to the dogleg point.  100 years ago, 600 feet was typical. As golf shots increased in length, that moved to 700, 750, and now 800 feet, and with so many young players with Tiger like length 850,900, or even 950 feet (about 318 yards) cannot be far behind! In fact, many mountain courses, where the ball goes so much further, have already used 900 feet.

How do we locate the turning point that will set the general location of the fairway?

•   If it’s a perimeter hole, we place it at least the minimum distance we require from the property line – generally 150 to 175 feet.  “Safety first!” Similarly, we find a location the requisite 250-300 feet from a parallel fairway.
If more land is available, we space the fairways further apart.  A typical scenario is a quarter section 1320 feet in width. After subtracting 350 feet for border safety, we still have 970 feet for four fairways, so we can space them 323 feet apart if we desire for more separation, or space some closer to take advantage of natural features.

•   We find a point no more than 24 feet above the tee (800 X .03) for vision, with a point level or below the tee if at all possible.

•   We lay out the centerline to parallel contour lines, not cross them.  If you study highways and railroads on topographical maps, you’ll see they generally parallel contour lines, indicating a relatively level grade.  Golf fairways have similar needs, and fit most naturally following valleys, and not cresting hills, which cause vision problems.  When railroads must go through hills, they use tunnels.  In golf, this option is open only to miniature golf course designers! The hill must be removed, requiring excavation, which may be tolerable for small hills.  However, if many hills are crossed, the costs add up, and the course becomes more expensive – and unnatural than it really needs to be.

Some architects locate the prime landing area on prominent hilltops, rather than in valleys.  These holes play fine for experts, but make for many blind shots for anyone whose less than perfect tee shot lands in valleys just short of the ideal zone.  Valley holes eliminate this, providing relatively level holes, natural containment and separation from the next fairway.

Fairways can also traverse any gentle topography (less than 10% variable slopes) quite nicely.  If a constant cross slope is present, it should be less than 7%, and perhaps less if the general topography is also downhill.  Otherwise, the shot may roll right through the fairway rather than hold within its boundaries.

•   We look for natural features adjacent to the fairway, like streams, trees or tree lines, or even natural landforms that might become (naturally or with a little help) hazards.  The second hole at Tangleridge Golf Club, has a rise with enough up slope to stop a tee shot just inside the dogleg. It takes several rounds to realize that playing away from the natural short cut usually yields more distance – and with the design of the green, a better angle, too! 

A gentle rise on the perimeter of the fairway and facing the tee provides an opportunity to build a natural looking fairway bunker easily.

Streams should parallel the fairway, not cross it.  Cross hazards can be difficult for average players, and are likely to force a lay up shot for some players, regardless of location, which is never popular.  If they must cross the fairway, its best just in front of the green, where it is a similar hazard for all players, just in front of the tee, where it doesn’t usually come into play, or at 300-350 yards, where it may force a lay up for the longest players, but falls between the shots of most.


•   If a hole will dogleg right, contours should fall to the right, and be higher on the left, or outside of the dogleg, to provide visibility and containment.

After setting the landing area, we begin a 90 degree search for green locations, allowing doglegs of about 45 degrees either side.  I don’t like sharp doglegs in only two situations – where there are trees bordering the fairway, and where there aren’t! In any other case, they are perfectly acceptable!

Green sites are subject to similar spacing criteria, but tees and green center points can be spaced as little as 175 to 200 feet apart, a bit closer than fairways.

•   Because the back of greens are usually higher than the front, we try to locate them     on a gentle uphill slopes.  This minimizes cuts and fills, and looks most natural.   

•   We like greens with natural backdrops to frame the hole and provide a visual end point just behind the green.  Locating the green in front of a beautiful vista, a nice backdrop of trees, or with ridges just behind provides this setting.  We try to locate them just below, but rarely at the top of a ridge or rise.

If we follow these rules, we usually create good natural holes, with a minimum of earthmoving.  But even the best routing requires at least a few fairway cuts.  We do need to get some cut and fill from somewhere, so this is not a bad thing.  And, creating a valley fairway artificially can be as pleasing as one that follows a natural valley.

The routing process resembles putting together a jigsaw puzzle, constantly testing options.  We do at least a dozen routings and sometimes as many as thirty.  We change them again in the field to save specimen trees, provide a better vistas, or for other field conditions to improve from the paper version.  And sometimes, we feel we have become better architects between the drawing of the plan and actual construction, so we change!

The routing at Giants Ridge followed this pattern.  In the next installment, we will present the routing and hole by hole description, along with some notes as to what we were thinking – some might say “what the hell were we thinking” -  when we found that particular “natural golf hole.”

[Ben Sims]

Jeff Brauer swoops in to save the day!!!

Thanks a bunch Jeff. You probably don't owe me a thing in regards to replying to my threads, but once again, you provide copious amounts of information.

[Charlie Goerges]

Ben, you might want to take a look at the armchair architecture contest thread from earlier this year. In that one, several guys went through the work of routing a course on the site of an existing golf course. Comparing what got built with what the contestants designed gave me some insight into the difficulty of doing it.

Here is the link: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38982.0/

[Jerry Lemons]

Jeff, you forgot to mention in those two articles one comment Dr. Hurdzan and Jack Kidwell taught me, the rules can be broken at any time to make a great golf hole.

[Ally Mcintosh]

All I can say is that in my many years of being obsessed with golf course architecture, the romantic notion in my head was that routing a golf course was the fun and exciting part...

...In the last couple of years of actually trying to route some golf courses, whilst it is undoubtedly fun and also exciting, it most certainly makes me tear my hair out as I strive for (and never reach) the perfect solution...

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

After reading your two posts several times, a couple points stand out.

1) You prefer routing from tee to green.  Does this mean that you prefer the tee and fairway surrounds to flow naturally rather than the green to sit naturally?  Or do you just find that it's easier to "discover holes" this way.

2) Parallel to contour lines makes sense.  Have you ever run into a site where it would make better golf holes to route uphill and back down rather than cut into the sides?

Thanks again for the info.

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
I agree with those that say routing is the most critical element of golf architecture.....and I think the thing that gave us so many average or below average courses in the last 20 years were the situations that arose in routing because of RE development projects.  So often the GCA is given the land that cannot be used for housing and roads....and often the routing corridors for the golf course  were predetermined thus taking this step away for the GCA....and in some hilly topography the golf holes were often routed in the swales perpendicular to topo lines so that houses and roads could be looking down on the golf hole....this required more drainage and often more shade etc.....and the collection of water..both runoff and capture from streets and lots....  man there is so much of that around....  and now as we see more "core" routings with  housing on the perimeter I would expect routings to become much better and more efficient....
Any of that make sense?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

1. I just find it easier to discover holes the way you play them.  A natural green site is often only a natural green site when approached from a certain direction anyway.  If you set the green in a gentle rise (although there are other settings) I believe the fw and green can flow naturally. I think that "finding the greens first" is more sound bite than sound practice.

2. I have a hole now in KS being built.  From the tee, it is beautiful, even though its in a cornfield. I am using my "battlefield" bunker style - a lot of random bombshell craters litter the fw, creating many different landing zones and strategy.  However, the main landing area is on the crest of the hill and not until the other day did it dawn on me that the weak slicer to one of the shorter landing areas will have a blind second, which I hadn't intended.

In short, routing hilltop to hilltop isn't very good.  And, routing up and down hills usually isn't as good as "sliding" up and down the side hills, providing you can level those fw enough to keep balls rolling off the fw with a good shot.

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

Yeah I get it.  Was playing a course yesterday called, "The Bandit" in New Braunfels, TX.  I think the reason they called it that was that a thief made off with all the good land for golf and gave it to the general contractors.  There are two holes in particular that are wedged in between and parallel to a sharp ridge line with houses on it and a creek bed.  Poor Keith Foster, ASGCA should be commended for his shelving of the 5th fairway and green to accomodate the routing.  But it's clear that he wasn't given the best land.

Jeff,

I am following.

Last time I was at home, I routed nine holes at my family's property back home.  I made no requirements except that I had a par of 34-37 and made it back up the hill to my mom's house.  I just started walking, using a handheld gps to draw coordinates for tees, turnpoints and greens.  It didn't work out so well.  I had three par 3's, five par 4's and one par 5's.  I wound up clear across the farm four separate times.  

I found out that day that you can't always just "flow with the land". Because I just kept walking down out of the hardwoods, into the pines, and down to the river.  All downhill of course.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

There are actually some routing aspects that are worked out on paper first to get a general pattern that might fit before you get all those Texas ticks and chiggers in your shorts. I often work sort of from the boundaries in on paper.

And yeah, you need to come up the hill.  That is when the slider comes into play.  And I don't mean Mike Young's favorite cheeseburgers from Krystal's either!  If you eat those, you often don't saunter back up the hill to Mom's house.....you need to break into a full sprint.

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

In from the boundaries?  Not following.

Slider?  I can't even speculate.

[paul cowley]

The routing is the soul and skeleton of a golf course....and if one can't do that well then he/she is nothing more than an exterior decorator.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

I came to read this thread even though I felt certain there was no way I could add much to it.  Discussing routing is like discussing how to write or how to paint ... it won't help much unless the other person has some talent for it.

Routing is a 3-D puzzle with a lot of potential solutions.  If I tried to describe it as Jeff did in his long version, I think I would say many of the same things.  But the keys are to make the connections well and solve the problems of the individual site well ... using the best parts of the property to their greatest effect while minimizing any bad parts.

I've heard some people (John Kavanaugh for one) say that I overemphasized the seaside holes at Pacific Dunes ... this despite having a client who was constantly counting how many "ocean holes" we had in the routing.  I didn't care how many, I just wanted to get THE BEST holes along the ocean that I could, and that has to be one of the first orders of business on an oceanfront site.  At one point I had the fourth hole broken up into a par-3 and short par-4 so we could get an extra "ocean hole", but quickly realized that downwind, neither of those two holes would be all that good and it was much better to make one long hole out of the same space.  The two other keys to routing Pacific Dunes were to figure out the best use of the "sandy bowl" which is now holes 1-2-7-8-16, and then to figure out how to work in and out from the coastline so that the oceanfront holes weren't encountered all in a row or all playing the same direction.  (The last was the most difficult part.)

I think the key to doing good routings is to be as open-minded as possible, and that is why it's hard to write a how-to primer.  If you eliminate a possible type of hole -- say you rule out back-to-back par-3's, or blind tee shots -- that eliminates many more possible solutions than you can imagine.  And sometimes conceding something like that is the key to making three or four other holes work out superbly.  (For example, I always try to avoid building back-to-back par-3's, but twice I've backed into including them, and those are two of my best courses.)  Not only that, occasionally I have found that what I thought originally to be an awkward "connector" hole wound up being one of the best holes on the course, once I committed to making it work, because the thing that made it awkward also had the potential to make it interesting if we could just figure out how.

The other key is obviously to have an interesting piece of property to work with.  On a flat site, the routing is of lesser importance.

One thing Jeff did not mention (or I missed it) is that the routing process is influenced by the type of information you have to start with.  If somebody sends me a 100-scale or 200-scale topo map first, I will look at that map and there will be certain features that jump out to me right away as landing areas or green sites or tees or hazards, and several of those will usually wind up in the final plan.  For example, at Rock Creek, the tenth fairway and green site and the thirteenth hole were two of the first things that jumped out at me, but then I had to work out where was the best place to cross the creek to get to #10 tee, and how to work out the best holes to connect #10 and #13.  (And originally I used three holes between 10 and 13, but later on when the routing was almost complete, we had to figure out a way to eliminate a hole somewhere, and short-cutting from 11 green to 12 green was the best way to do it, even if it meant building back-to-back par-3 holes at 12 and 13.)

However, if someone sends me an 800-scale map first, I'm probably going to think more about how the overall sequencing works first; and if I go to the site first, I'm probably going to be more affected by views and individual trees on the site.  In other words, first impressions are very influential.

The only way I've ever been able to communicate how I work is to take a class (or one of my interns) and walk through the process of how we arrived at the final routing for a couple of different projects.  It varies quite a bit from one job to the next.  But I guess that's good, otherwise anybody could do it.

PS to Paul:  I love the phrase "exterior decorator."

[George Pazin]

In short, routing hilltop to hilltop isn't very good.  And, routing up and down hills usually isn't as good as "sliding" up and down the side hills, providing you can level those fw enough to keep balls rolling off the fw with a good shot.

Isn't this kind of the Ross stereotype of sorts - exactly what you're saying doesn't work? I ask because my experience with Ross is woeful and my memory of his book is not good.

A looooooooooong time ago Jeremy Glenn posted a contest on here where he provided a seaside topo and asked posters to come up with proposed routings under certain limitations. Only a few of us entered, but I remember having a lot of fun playing around with many many permutations - only to have Jeremy disqualify my entry for a completely falacious reason! It's a task worth doing yourself sometime, it gives you a whole new appreciation for the jigsaw puzzle that is course routing (which is not to say that I can do it, just that I appreciate more how difficult it is).

I'm always amazed when I see before and after photos of a site. Kind of like seeing the huge slab of marble Michelangelo would have started with...

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont know if anyone else does this or even subconsiously does it but when I do a potential routing as part of my good/bad assessment I write the contour height on tee 1, then the contour height at a point 50 yards down the centre line 100, 150, 200 etc up to the 1st green then to the next tee and so on. What am I looking at is the walkabilty factor and looking at different routings when there are no large changes or at least not two large changes over two consecetive sections. Anyone else do this?

[Forrest Richardson]

Jeff — Good start to a book!

I once heard Desmond Muirhead say, "The average person cannot get more than one hole in their mind at any given moment." He went on to explain that routing is an art form for many reasons, an important one being that it requires the golf architect to appreciate all of the holes at once...and to consider the nearly endless connections that occur between each hole, each turn and each change of pace — or continuation of pace.

And, speaking of books — A routing may best be thought of as the theme of a book, and indeed the way the chapters and plot is presented in the writing. The great writers all have one quality in common: The ability to string together, with interest, a story so that the reader is not bored, kept captivated and wants to keep reading to the end.

Many know of my "rating system" for courses. While not as widely quoted as Tom D's, it also has a simple rule: From 1-18, the rating is simply at which hole would I feel OK to leave and never come back...

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - always a good topic, even though I have no ability to judge a routing post-facto, i.e. I have no idea how to determine if an architect has gotten the most out of a site. (I think I lack some basic 3-D visual acuity.)  But it's interesting to me that we still look at routing as one of the main (maybe even the primary) indicators of an architect's skill and talent.  I think the high value we put on routing in-and-of-itself comes from a time in golf course architecture before the use or wide-spread use of earth-moving machines, when an architect had little choice but to best route the course on the land as it was given him; and I'd guess that the reputations of many of the great Golden Age architects are thus based mainly on their routing abilities.  We carry that value-system over to today; but I tend to play mostly fairly new courses (say, built in the last 20 years), and many of those courses I'd describe as being"designed" rather than being "routed", i.e. earth-moving equipment made the land a blank canvas upon which to design a course as opposed to a rich fabric through which to find a routing. Maybe a distinction without much meaning, except for longer green to tee walks...

Peter

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

I appreciate your involvement though you mentioned you couldn't add anything.  You sell yourself short, ANY archies thoughts are valid here.  I hope that more will join in.

I have a couple ideas that I believe to be routing musts.  Though it sounds like putting a hard and fast rule on routing is likely to end in frustration.

1) I have always felt that one of the best 3 or 4 holes on the course should come in the first five holes.  Like on the other thread about good front or back nines, I'm a "set the hook" kind of guy.  I really think you got to be able to communicate your prowess to the golfer early.

2) I think that the first third of the course should see a par 3. Oddly enough, you mention Rock Creek (which I was suppossed to go see in August, but I had to cancel) you don't see a one shooter till #8.

3) First hole should play downhill--or at least be elevated in some way to show the golfer the first tee shot--and shouldn't have any blind shots.

I also think that any of the above rules can take a hike if it means that you "found" and exemplary golf hole.  I have heard some guys say that they had to scrap 3 okay holes in order to include one spectacular one.

On that note.  Did you consider any other types of holes to fill the plain between the coast and the "sand bowl" at PD.  You mentioned before that three par 5's did that job beautifully.  We there any other routings that filled that space differently?

Peter,

Nice point.  I have heard and read so many times, "oh the routing is just superb at Cruden" or "I think the strongest part of that course is it's routing".  No one ever stops to explain this subjective quality.  I do think that the new awareness of golf architecture and in particular the "new minimalism" has brought routing back to the forefront.  Because there is a renewed interest in moving little earth--or hiding it where you did--more people are paying attention to how the routing flows with the land. 

But I still know less about it than any other aspect of GCA.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

On my mapping for Pacific Dunes, the third green, thirteenth and fourteenth holes, and fifteenth tee were over the property line (on another piece of property which Mr. Keiser had bought).  So my first routing had to have some holes playing more east-and-west in order to get up to 18 holes.  When we were allowed to go over the line to build #13, I was happy to give up those others, which didn't have much in the way of natural features to anchor them.

Every hole at Pacific Dunes starts and ends at a prominent natural feature.  I think that's one of the main reasons people like it so much.  Although I was pleased to find we were able to build a couple of holes at Old Macdonald (#6 and #9) which are well received without a big feature near the greens.

Regarding your "rules" above, just be prepared to break them, or else you wouldn't be able to build a course like Elie (blind tee shot on #1).  As to your preference for where par-3 holes fall, I've heard others say the second hole should never be a par-3 (for pace of play reasons), but that would rule out Prairie Dunes and Fishers Island, among others.

[Garland Bayley]

Bin,

I think your #3 is nonsense! I believe there are very good #1s that start uphill. However, you won't see many due to the propensity to site the clubhouse on a hill.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tom,

I appreciate your involvement though you mentioned you couldn't add anything.  You sell yourself short, ANY archies thoughts are valid here.  I hope that more will join in.

I have a couple ideas that I believe to be routing musts.  Though it sounds like putting a hard and fast rule on routing is likely to end in frustration.

1) I have always felt that one of the best 3 or 4 holes on the course should come in the first five holes.  Like on the other thread about good front or back nines, I'm a "set the hook" kind of guy.  I really think you got to be able to communicate your prowess to the golfer early.

2) I think that the first third of the course should see a par 3. Oddly enough, you mention Rock Creek (which I was suppossed to go see in August, but I had to cancel) you don't see a one shooter till #8.

3) First hole should play downhill--or at least be elevated in some way to show the golfer the first tee shot--and shouldn't have any blind shots.



 

Ben I don't think your three rules are good ones, though I agree if you find something spectacular it kinda eclipses any rule. I think its better to push the short holes further into the round but its not always possible and sterotyped perfect routings are not going to happen if you want to the land to dictate the routing and let the golf course be the land. So if two great holes should follow and they are par 3 holes so what, four short holes running in the same direction, it may not matter. Maybe routing a golf course is a bit like playing poker, how you play at a start of a game is completely different to heads up, the great golf courses have something that stand out, something unique, something quirky and often its when a 'rule' is broken that a course gets noticed, however if you are designing for a course that is going to churn out 60,000 rounds there are different important things than a resort with 20 minute tee time intervals, or a course where buggies are essential. It is important what the golf course wants to be before you start the routing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()