Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Lou_Duran on December 14, 2009, 11:42:14 AM
-
We often hear what we like about a golf course: variety, a great set of par 3s, challenging green complexes, artsy bunkers, etc. Perhaps we've done this before, but it might be a good exercise in helping us better understand golf course architecture by identifying aspects or features we don't like.
I'll start with one that I see more and more these days, the long walk back to a tee, sometimes 50 to 100 yards. One type of hole that bothers me in particular is a long par 3 (200+ yards) where you go within 50 yards of the green enroute from the previous hole, walk/ride some 150+ yards to the tee, then return on the same path toward the green. Any other Don'ts?
-
Don't have massively long forced carries off the tee with no bail-out options!
Don't put horizontally crossing creeks and hazards 200-220 yards off the tee from the members tees!!
Don't block the front of the greens with bunkers or otherwise on long par 3s, and 4s!
Don't build goofy par 4s where one is forced to hit 6 iron or less off the tee followed with a 3 iron approach to the green.
-
Lou,
One of my biggest criticisms has to do with having par 3's that play nearly the same.
Too many courses seem to have lengthened their par 3's to the degree that they essentially present the same shot.
They lack diversity.
One of the best sets of par 3's I've ever seen is at Preakness Hills, where the par 3's range from
6 190-240
8 140-160
16 160-185
18 120-140
Worse yet is where all the par 3's are 210-230.
As connectors, designing diverse par 3 length should be an easy task.
-
One of the dont's that applies (possibly uniquely) in the UK concerns foursomes play and mixed foursomes in particular. Don't have all your short holes odd numbers (or even numbers), same with par 5s, same with testing tee shots.
-
Not surprisingly my don’ts come from a super’s point of view.
My #1 don’t I see all to often is failure on the architects part to properly design ingress and egress into green complexes.
I know cart golf concentrates traffic patterns since most are entering and exiting from the path, but still how about accounting for where golfers are going to be walking off the green?
Can’t believe how often this is overlooked or just not considered all that much.
Don't forget to factor in turf damage caused by traffic pinch points, be it foot, cart, or maintenance vehicles. Compaction is the super's, and the golfers, enemy.
-
Patrick - I completely agree, there is nothing worse that having to hit the same hybrid on 4 par3's
Don't build the same twice.
Don't angle tees OB.
Don't boarder fairways with white stakes.
Don't expect women to carry the ball even close to 150 yards off the tee.
-
One of the dont's that applies (possibly uniquely) in the UK concerns foursomes play and mixed foursomes in particular. Don't have all your short holes odd numbers (or even numbers), same with par 5s, same with testing tee shots.
Major offenders:
Deal - 4, 8, 14.
Addington - 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17.
Walton Heath (Old) - 1, 7, 11, 17.
St Enodoc - 5, 8, 11, 15, 17.
There are a host more with four one-shotters that give a 3/1 split, which is probably unavoidable without compromising the golf course.
-
Lou
I too really dislike walking back to play a tee. On both of my courses there is one of these irritating walks and on both I think there should be a miles forward tee if one can't be bothered to walk back.
I dislike greens surrounded by bunkers when the hole plays downwind and the bunkers are tight to the green that is often firm.
I dislike cart paths effecting play. How many times have I watched a ball bounce off a cart path?
I dislike the apparent need to tailor courses to the 6600-6800 yard range. I would prefer the target be far shorter.
I hate cluster bunkering and grass island in bunkers.
I don't care for raised rear of the green bunkers.
I think that is enough for now.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I don't know, how many times have you watched the ball bounce off a cart path? In my 42 years of golf, I could probably count a dozen or so, and a third of those gave me more distance! Even if its 20 times, I figure that is about once a year at most.
As to the green surrounding bunkers in a downwind situation, aren't we really saying that the gca (or super) shouldn't create a hole that virtually anyone CAN'T play?
And, in general, with this group, I would think the answer could be summed up as anything that has been repeated often enough to have become "formula" (bad take on common sense) would fall into the category of things gca's think they must avoid, no?
-
For me the big DONT is too not to block the exit routes from the green to the next tee with a bunker or a hazard so the traffic concentrates and the turf thins out..... very common mistake from the golfpro designer who thinks purely about how a hole will pay rather than understanding the fuller picture.
I dont mind the all the short holes or the fives being odd or even. I think tees of the day are better if they are close to the previous green, but its not always possible. TOC has a lot of the back nine with big walks back to the champ tees since they have been 'adding'.
-
My biggest pet peeve is fairways that are built up above the tree line, so that anything missing slightly wide goes bounding off, never to be seen again. Many new courses in New England have this feature, and I assume it is caused by building in areas with bad drainage. Whatever the reason, I hate it.
-
Is there ever an excuse for symmetrical bunkering? (except perhaps on very short holes, or very big greens).
Almost every archie does it several times a round, but I hate it.
-
Jeff,
re-cart path bounces: you're either are a very good golfer or don't get out nearly enough... ::)
-
Don't force a half assed 310 yard par 4 instead of a quality par 3 or a goofball 475 yard par 5 instead of a solid par 4 so that your scorecard shows "par: 70" instead of "par: 69"
-
(1) Par 5s that force you to lay-up off the tee (i.e., where you cannot reasonably hit driver).
(2) Multiple drop-shot par 3s.
(3) Completely superfluous bunkering (e.g., Whistling Straits).
-
Some more of what I see which I wish was on more "don't" lists...
1. When you have a hole that falls in elevation, it's OK to keep the green on elevation and let it fall away as well. One of the ugliest sites in GCA is the green sloping back to front when everything else is sloping the other way. Not only does it screw up the drainage, it's ugly. If your going to route 'em down hill, build the whole thing downhill.
2. Everything around the edges is choppy, ragged and natural looking, and then the fwys and greens are completely smoothed out. Modern mowers can handle abrupt micro changes, you don't have to drag and spin it until you can play pool on it. Don't call it "natural" or "minimal" when the only thing natural is where you can't play the game.
3. Why can't the tees most often played be the ones closest to the previous green? I don't want to walk past the 7500 yard tees to get to the ones my friends and I play. If they're good enough to play the tips, make them walk back to some little nook where you stick the tees no one plays.
-
Lou,
1. I would say cart paths in general unless carts are needed for climatic reasons.
2. excessive bunkering
3. trying to tilt all the greens from back to front instead of going with the lay of the land.
4. Cute little stone arched bridges on any course other than TOC
Don't put horizontally crossing creeks and hazards 200-220 yards off the tee from the members tees!!
Kalen,
do you mean horizontal creeks as apposed to vertical ones ;)
-
KBM,
You are probably joking, but I've heard architects and superintendents state with a straight face that they don't put much weight on what the average golfer thinks. BTW, I've spoken to more than a couple of superintendents who don't think highly of the architect's instructions on how to care for the course.
Pat Mucci,
The connector holes as some people refer to par 3s are very important in my book, and I like them to be all different. This is helped when the direction and terrain are varied, but I've played some that though the yardages are staggered, they tend to play similarly (short ones into the prevailing wind, long ones down wind). I think that the superintendent can help with variety in the way he sets the tees and pins relative to the conditions, but I typically find that little consideration is given in this regard.
Don,
I suppose that banking the green toward the incoming shot is commonly done for playability. Down slope and down wind, it is hard for most golfers to keep the ball on the green. Do you have an issue with a tee shot to a valley and the approach back up to a perched green set to fit the upslope?
Jon,
Cart paths are a necessary evil in most places, but very special care must be given in tight areas near boundaries. I am reminded of the cartpath adjacent to a par 5 green at Maderas GC with a drop-ff to a canyon. Not real good design in my opinion.
Another Don't which is a variation of ones already mentioned: a par 5 that requires a long drive to a small landing area in order to then clear a water hazard with a solid, long subsequent shot, otherwise requiring a short club lay-up then a long iron approach to the green.
-
Don,
I suppose that banking the green toward the incoming shot is commonly done for playability. Down slope and down wind, it is hard for most golfers to keep the ball on the green. Do you have an issue with a tee shot to a valley and the approach back up to a perched green set to fit the upslope?
What if they landed it short of the green and let it run up?
-
Don't give surveys to golfers asking what they don't like about a course.
That's true, especially since golfers tend to express their views in the context of their game.
They're rarely able to take a step back and approach evaluation from an arms length perspective.
But, that doesn't mean that valid criticisms don't exist.
-
Don't make a habit of providing me with downhill lies to uphill, elevated greens, especially if a long club is required.
One is a challenge, two are toil, and three are drudgery.
-
3. Why can't the tees most often played be the ones closest to the previous green? I don't want to walk past the 7500 yard tees to get to the ones my friends and I play. If they're good enough to play the tips, make them walk back to some little nook where you stick the tees no one plays.
+1
-
Par 4’s & Par 5’s that have fairway bunkers on the same side the green is bunkered because it looks better. I can accept this once in 18 holes, but not 5 or 6 times like I have seen on various new courses over the last few years.
-
I don't like bunkers that are a long way from the green
(http://img.skitch.com/20091215-nsbb51a6tebkqg6n9j2fcb6gu6.png)
-
OB lining both sides of a hole more than once or twice on a course.
Just left a club that had OB on EVERY hole, and OB on both sides of more than half the holes. And the owners advertise this on the club website as if it is a plus!
-
My #1 is definitely Internal OB.
My #2 is cart paths that run alongside a hazard, propelling even rolling balls into the hazard.
-
I dislike greens surrounded by bunkers when the hole plays downwind and the bunkers are tight to the green that is often firm.
This comment seems to describe the 10th at Royal Dornoch (at least when the wind blows a certain direction). Do you dislike that hole?
I agree that the hole should present an upslope beyond the fronting bunkers to help slow the ball by challenging the carry as closely as possible and the green should be adequatel deep.
-
Don't believe the don'ts...
every 'rule' of what not to do has produce a pretty good hole somewhere in the world.
the only don't I would put are:
Don't design a golf course sitting in an office.
Don't use the same design over and over.
Don't fix course that aren't broken
-
Don't
Take away driver as an option on a par four or five;
Inflate the yardage of a course by making 210 yard par threes and eliminating short par fours;
Take away any hope of success;
. . . unless there is a good reason for doing so.
-
Don't believe the don'ts...
every 'rule' of what not to do has produce a pretty good hole somewhere in the world.
Seconded...
-
Kelly,
I guess you would agree with the late Ed Seay, who always said to take any critique of a course and add the words, "It doesn't fit my game". Its like the old kids game of adding "in between the sheets" to any song title - the new song title still makes sense!
Phillipe,
Interesting comment and true. That said, there may be a 100 holes that don't work to find the one that does! The most striking example of this I know is the Tour 18 courses. They replicate Amen Corner but they upsize the greens for public play, which makes sense, but at the same time, kind of reduces the drama, particularly in their replica of the 12th, IMHO. They also tweaked it to allow circulation on to the green, etc. that echo Don's concerns. What would "work" better when considering not only great play, but maintenance concerns, etc.?
Of course, since your second point was to never replicate a design, you would never run into that problem, eh?
-
I dislike greens surrounded by bunkers when the hole plays downwind and the bunkers are tight to the green that is often firm.
This comment seems to describe the 10th at Royal Dornoch (at least when the wind blows a certain direction). Do you dislike that hole?
I agree that the hole should present an upslope beyond the fronting bunkers to help slow the ball by challenging the carry as closely as possible and the green should be adequatel deep.
Kyle
I am not overly keen on Dornoch's 10th, though it is only a removal (not necessarily the centre bunker) of one bunker away from being a lovely hole. I wasn't thinking of this hole when I made the comment, I had #8 at St Enodoc in mind.
Whoever mentioned internal oob call me a +1.
Jeff
I must be a magnet for cart paths then. In fact, the last time a played a course with these paths I hit one. I think if a path is anywhere near (call it 40 yards for argument sake) the line of play - especially around greens - it is poor design. That isn't to say the archie is at fault, but it remains poor design just the same.
Ciao
-
Sean,
There is a definite balance there for locating cart paths. I think Fazio often locates them too far from the fw to be used in the name of hiding them. I have seen courses locate them INSIDE fw bunkers for golfer convenience. I strive for somewhere in between those two.
It gets pretty scientific around greens. I find if I place paths more than 60 feet (20 yards) from the green edge that golfers pull inside them anyway. If to the side of the green, I place them 55-60 feet, and to the back, as close as 40' because they come into play less. I use at least 40' away from the fw edge. That means my paths are about 33 yards from the fw center, and about 30 from the green center, a bit less than you propose.
Yeah, they can come into play, but it is a compromise between "handy" and "hidden" and since I design mostly public courses in hot climates, I have found trending to handy - at the expense of the occaisional interference in visual delight, or in play - to be the most effective. Why spend $600K on cart paths no one will use?
-
Sean,
There is a definite balance there for locating cart paths. I think Fazio often locates them too far from the fw to be used in the name of hiding them. I have seen courses locate them INSIDE fw bunkers for golfer convenience. I strive for somewhere in between those two.
If you have inside the bunker on one hand, and outside the bunker on the other, wouldn't your "in between" be in the bunker? :)
-
A wise young man taught me few days ago that there are no rights and wrongs in Golf Course Architecture, but I'm still thinking about that....
-
Sean,
There is a definite balance there for locating cart paths. I think Fazio often locates them too far from the fw to be used in the name of hiding them. I have seen courses locate them INSIDE fw bunkers for golfer convenience. I strive for somewhere in between those two.
It gets pretty scientific around greens. I find if I place paths more than 60 feet (20 yards) from the green edge that golfers pull inside them anyway. If to the side of the green, I place them 55-60 feet, and to the back, as close as 40' because they come into play less. I use at least 40' away from the fw edge. That means my paths are about 33 yards from the fw center, and about 30 from the green center, a bit less than you propose.
Yeah, they can come into play, but it is a compromise between "handy" and "hidden" and since I design mostly public courses in hot climates, I have found trending to handy - at the expense of the occaisional interference in visual delight, or in play - to be the most effective. Why spend $600K on cart paths no one will use?
Jeff
All that is very fine. Though I would suggest that perhaps too much time, money and effort is being spent on an issue not related to golf. It may be harsh, but this isn't good design unless cart paths are now a major part of golf course architecture. In which case, I would still say it is bad design because the wrong thing is being focused on. Aesthetics matter and this should be of more importance than cart issues. In this case, I would most certainly side with Fazio - in principle. But then, I don't hold out much hope for the management of a course that doesn't want to enforce its own cart policies so instead compromises with the encroachment of paths in the line of play. There should be a very clear set of priorities and I fear that this clarity has long been very fuzzy.
Ciao
-
JC,
Well, I try to avoid that!
Emil,
It is a very real question when making a final decision in gca on any given hole. For the stuff you guys are interested in - strategy, etc. there are probably very few absolute rights and wrongs, do's and don't do's, although some would argue that. In reality, as some have noted, if you do too many commonly accepted "don't do's" pretty soon you have crossed the line over to a goofy golf course. On the other hand, if you NEVER break the rules, you often run a greater risk of a dull course.
When it comes to golfer circulation (straightest, most level line will always be taken) or nature (turf needs at least 6 hours of sunlight a day, preferably in the morning) I have found that if I break the rules, the superintendent and course pay for it as the turf dies, literally, a thousand deaths. You guys would bitch about poor turf, perhaps not realizing its a function of poor design.
There is some overlap, too. If a bunker can't be placed in a specific location because it blocks traffic, that might eliminate one possible strategic type of hole. Gca is about dealing with all the factors that affect the sucess of a hole, which is what makes gca so fascinating!
Sean,
See above. Its not that I don't sympathize with the situation, but I deal in realities, not what I think golf ought to be. And yes, cart paths have turned into a major aspect of design. When 55-100% of the golfers experience the golf course this way (as per the recent thread on Jim Engh which covered this subject) it is a consideration. Perhaps not the first conideration, but an equal consideration, with the design of the hole "first among equals" since its almost always possible to design a good hole first and fit the path second.
Concealment and aesthetics are a part of that as well. It is possible to be both hidden and handy and on public courses, Fazio offers a great tutorial, making his courses worthy of study in modern design. He hides the paths, but brings them back closer in key areas for ease of access at the same time. On private courses, I think he goes too far out, as I have seen no differences in the ways private or public golfers use carts.
-
JC,
Well, I try to avoid that!
Emil,
It is a very real question when making a final decision in gca on any given hole. For the stuff you guys are interested in - strategy, etc. there are probably very few absolute rights and wrongs, do's and don't do's, although some would argue that. In reality, as some have noted, if you do too many commonly accepted "don't do's" pretty soon you have crossed the line over to a goofy golf course. On the other hand, if you NEVER break the rules, you often run a greater risk of a dull course.
When it comes to golfer circulation (straightest, most level line will always be taken) or nature (turf needs at least 6 hours of sunlight a day, preferably in the morning) I have found that if I break the rules, the superintendent and course pay for it as the turf dies, literally, a thousand deaths. You guys would bitch about poor turf, perhaps not realizing its a function of poor design.
There is some overlap, too. If a bunker can't be placed in a specific location because it blocks traffic, that might eliminate one possible strategic type of hole. Gca is about dealing with all the factors that affect the sucess of a hole, which is what makes gca so fascinating!
Sean,
See above. Its not that I don't sympathize with the situation, but I deal in realities, not what I think golf ought to be. And yes, cart paths have turned into a major aspect of design. When 55-100% of the golfers experience the golf course this way (as per the recent thread on Jim Engh which covered this subject) it is a consideration. Perhaps not the first conideration, but an equal consideration, with the design of the hole "first among equals" since its almost always possible to design a good hole first and fit the path second.
Concealment and aesthetics are a part of that as well. It is possible to be both hidden and handy and on public courses, Fazio offers a great tutorial, making his courses worthy of study in modern design. He hides the paths, but brings them back closer in key areas for ease of access at the same time. On private courses, I think he goes too far out, as I have seen no differences in the ways private or public golfers use carts.
Jeff
Thats fair enough. I realize that most archies are constantly being asked to compromise for issues which are based in reality and yet have little to do with golf architecture, but everything to do with site design. However, I am glad for some of the recent designs which have managed to buck (even create alternate realities) the reality trend and offer some sort of modern design alternative(s). I am always hopeful that the compromises in favour of cart usage aren't taken too far. Unfortunately, I know they have and only the golfers lose out or gain - depending on your PoV. Luckily, guys like me don't have to play these efforts which I believe go too far in accommodating carts.
Ciao
-
Sean,
What, a reasonable response with no name calling? What site are we on anyway? :)
As I said, gca is all about dealing with ALL the aspects of a hole, but I don't think anyone designs paths first and holes second, although as noted, there are some influences both ways. I don't think the holes per se suffer, but sometimes the minimalism does - its hard to hide paths without some type of earthmoving, which goes against the general dogma of finding natural holes. Carts are just one more unnatural thing, and accommodating them takes us away from simplistic golf and design.
I found a new factor that adds to grading the other day. Enviros have been recommending that grades ought to be less than 4% to allow sediments including fertiizers and pesticides to drop out of the runoff before finding the catch basin or waterway. Yes, I am getting OT, but it shows that modern gca's had to deal with more and more design factors. And, with more and more rules to follow that have little to do with actual golf, perhaps more standardization of design.
-
I found a new factor that adds to grading the other day. Enviros have been recommending that grades ought to be less than 4% to allow sediments including fertiizers and pesticides to drop out of the runoff before finding the catch basin or waterway. Yes, I am getting OT, but it shows that modern gca's had to deal with more and more design factors. And, with more and more rules to follow that have little to do with actual golf, perhaps more standardization of design.
Jeff,
That's an interesting comment and an interesting dilema.
Wouldn't a grade mandate of no more than 4 % result in substantive dirt moving and additional expenses ?
Wouldn't it also lead to bland design ?
No grades over 4 % would squeeze the distinctive character out of Shinnecock, NLGA, Pine Valley, WF, Seminole, Bandon, Sand Hills and many, many other great courses.
Have those courses substantively impaired or harmed the environment ?
Folowing the enviro's mandate for no more than a 4 % grade would seem to sound the death knell for creative architecture and golf courses on wonderful natural land forms, wouldn't it ?
-
I found a new factor that adds to grading the other day. Enviros have been recommending that grades ought to be less than 4% to allow sediments including fertiizers and pesticides to drop out of the runoff before finding the catch basin or waterway. Yes, I am getting OT, but it shows that modern gca's had to deal with more and more design factors. And, with more and more rules to follow that have little to do with actual golf, perhaps more standardization of design.
Jeff,
That's an interesting comment and an interesting dilema.
Wouldn't a grade mandate of no more than 4 % result in substantive dirt moving and additional expenses ?
Wouldn't it also lead to bland design ?
No grades over 4 % would squeeze the distinctive character out of Shinnecock, NLGA, Pine Valley, WF, Seminole, Bandon, Sand Hills and many, many other great courses.
Have those courses substantively impaired or harmed the environment ?
Folowing the enviro's mandate for no more than a 4 % grade would seem to sound the death knell for creative architecture and golf courses on wonderful natural land forms, wouldn't it ?
The more laws and regulations the greater the standardization, the less opportunity for creativity and self-expression. We've had this discussion numerous times, particularly when people lament that modern architects lack the skill and artistry of the ODG. Had CPC been designed under the same legal and environmental regimes, it may more closely resemble Spanish Bay.
-
BTW, I've spoken to more than a couple of superintendents who don't think highly of the architect's instructions on how to care for the course.
Probably because the GCS know more about maintaining a golf course than the average architect.
The connector holes as some people refer to par 3s are very important in my book, and I like them to be all different. This is helped when the direction and terrain are varied, but I've played some that though the yardages are staggered, they tend to play similarly (short ones into the prevailing wind, long ones down wind). I think that the superintendent can help with variety in the way he sets the tees and pins relative to the conditions, but I typically find that little consideration is given in this regard.
I don't know many courses that set all tee markers and pins on a daily basis, it gets expensive. Typically, we set up the course early in the morning, and conditions change radically throughout the day. It's a lot to ask the guy setting pins to consider what the wind might be like in eight hours.
Two big no-no's from a GCS;
NEVER drain water into a bunker. I see it all the time, surface water running into a bunker and causing havoc.
Think about how you'll get maintenance machinery around, even in bad weather, and even if you hate cart paths, we'll still need to go around the course and we won't have time to walk everywhere carrying all our tools and supplies on our backs.
-
The only don't is an undersized diameter hole.
-
Don't build tons of mounding and slopes around the greens while leaving the fairways dead flat. It makes every green look totally manufactured.
Don't force clubs to put drop zones on the green side of a hazard just because most of the members can't carry it. If it is that long a carry, give them another way to play the hole (see #16 at Cypress Point).
As for cart paths, putting them right next to water hazards is awful. It is a rules and playability pain. I'll always remember the Magnolia course at Disney for that, which, unfortunately, is the most memorable thing about the course for me.
-
Don't build anymore island greens.
-
The most important one of all:
Don't forget to use your head when designing a course... but not too much
-
Don't just set the women's tees 30 yards in front of the forward men's tees.