Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ivan Lipko on September 14, 2010, 11:48:05 AM
-
It took me some time to start this thread. The reason is that I keep reading all those threads discussing various golf courses (incl. some of the well-known and highly appreciated ones) and keep finding out that I am totally clueless when it comes to the reason why people say something is great.
Let me explain you that I am from Russia, a country where there are some 2000 golfer and like 4-5 golf courses. The whole history of golf in our country is like 10-15 years.
So I beg you to explain me what is good and bad in GCA or if this is WAY too complicated give me a basic idea of it or at least some pointers like links to the books which I can read and get the knowledge from.
Before I found this site I believed that a good golf course is something perfectly kept/prepared, with holes that have a clear strategy (like left side of the fairway gives better approach to the green but has more bunkers), are varied and also something very beautiful (like being in the beautiful forest or by a gorgeous sea).
If this is true I can't get why people don't like Torrey Pines and Royal Birkdale. In one of the latest threads some people mention that even a place like Pine Valley isn't really good because it is a number of isolated and tough holes.
What IS good then? ???
At the very same time I hear that a wind-affected course is good. But I can't get this. First of all, wind is obnoxious. Than, you can't control and/or foresee it. How can something uncontrollable be good or beneficial for a player?????
So, please, help a total golf noob get around. ;)
Thanks
-
Ivan
Wind is not just good is part of the game, its important, its a friend, its theer to be used by the designer and golfer alike.
Wing is golf - from a man of the links
Melvyn
-
this might go down as the best thread on GCA....this is going to be good!
-
What IS good then? ???
Any kind of golf course that you will find fun to play. No more, no less. (IMHO).
-
Ivan,
I have to agree with Melvyn here.
Wind is golf's most improtant natural asset. I would argue that it is just as, if not more, important than the ground the game is played on. Without wind the game becomes static and redundant. Wind creates challenges in both the player's mind and execution and adds an element of uncertainty and randomness that make the game special. Learning how to hit the golf ball in a vacuum is very one-dimensional, but learning how to play shots in the wind is truly an art form.
Jeff F.
-
Ivan,
You are fortunate to be able to bring a perspective that not many can....look at all of it as good and you decide the bad as you go along....have fun
-
I played a course yesterday that was set up "beautifully". It had holes that exposed the greatest scenic views in the area. However, when I finished the round I found I had one golf ball left in my bag. I had set it apart in a different pocket than the others. I actually thought I was on my last ball on 18 where I successfully made the forced carry for the first time in the four times I have played the course. Therefore, I am here to witness to you that pretty doesn't do it on a golf course. One criteria that is certainly very important to me is the course allowing the weaker golfer to get around without ruining his day and make him mutter this is the worst golf course he has ever played. The scoring challenges should be placed where the scratch golfer will interact with them, not just everywhere. As the saying goes, anyone can make a difficult golf course. It takes real talent to make a good one.
-
Ivan,
First of all, this thread is phenomenal. Your question is very simple, but it is a very difficult one to answer. I hope some of the great GCA posters weigh in here. I would like to see how varied people's opinions are on the subject.
To address your statements about wind: I think you will get some strong disagreement from many people on here, myself included. Wind is an asset to golf course architecture for many different reasons. I think many players would agree that "wind is obnoxious." It throws you out of your comfort zone and forces you to fundamentally change how you play the game. However, wind's "obnoxiousness" is what makes it so important. A course with wind as a factor encourages the golfer to player by feel rather than by the mechanical use of laser yardages and swing tips from the latest Golf Digest. The wind is also, as you say, uncontrollable, meaning that creates infinite variety for the golfer on a day-to-day basis. A course with wind will never be boring, even after a player has played the course hundreds of times. As the wind direction changes, the player will have to adopt new strategies of playing the golf course every time he goes out. Wind ensures that golf is a mental rather than a physical endeavor.
As for your bigger questions, I think a few things make for great architecture. I think a course should present the golfer with multiple options and ways to play every hole. The golfer will need to think, make decisions, and commit on every shot and hole he plays on such a course. Any combination of features can produce this result. However, I think wind, firm and fast conditions, and proper placement of hazards are all critical in creating options and variety.
Great architecture will defend par around the greens rather than off the tee and on the approach. Many modern courses focus on tee to green difficulty, meaning that the courses will eat average golfers alive and will be eaten alive by top players. Classic courses tend to defend par at the greens because EVERY golfer who plays the golf course will have to deal with the green and its defenses. It is the most honest way to challenge players.
A great golf course makes maximum use of the natural terrain and surrounds. A good architect will seek out the best natural features on a property, highlight them in his design, and make use of them in the strategy of the golf course. This "natural terrain and surrounds" could be anything including water, sand, topography, trees (although these should be used sparingly), or pre-existing manmade features (such as stone walls or buildings). Golf, after all, is an OUTDOOR sport coexisting with nature.
Most importantly, a course needs to be FUN for all golfers. It should be challenging for the better player and playable for the average golfer. The player should be able to play reasonably without losing a golf ball. The player should be encouraged to hit good shots more than he should be penalized for hitting bad ones. The golfer should be able to hit all kinds of shots, including ones that he has never hit before in his life.
Finally, all great GCA should be walkable. Any course that is not walkable and does not have a certain flow to the routing is inferior, no matter how high the quality of the individual holes.
-
Good and very interesting points here.
What can you say about "difficult doesn't mean good"?
Does this mean that on a good golf course you confront lots of tough challenges that you can easily overcome?
-
Ivan,
If you can play the course 100 times and still find it fun, interesting and challenging, that's a pretty good barometer in my book. If golfers of varying abilities and strengths can say the same thing after 100 plays, then you're getting into some elite territory...Would you want to have the course be your home club and play it every day for the rest of your life?
-
Based upon the following excerpt from wikipedia, I sense that many of us take a much too narrow view of golf course architecture.
Architecture is both the process and product of planning, designing and constructing form, space and ambience that reflect functional, technical, social, and aesthetic considerations.
On this web-site we often emphasize form at the expense of function whether the latter be to provide a playing field for recreation or competition. For those rank amateur enthusiasts among us, we can easily critique the asethetics, not so much the technical.
Mike
-
See what I mean "WIND" but this time man made tainted with some hot air so of little help to the golfer and of courses its from our friend Michael - so no surpirise its par for his course ;)
Melvyn
-
Good and very interesting points here.
What can you say about "difficult doesn't mean good"?
Does this mean that on a good golf course you confront lots of tough challenges that you can easily overcome?
"Tough challenges that you can easily overcome." That is usually what difficult means for a good player. The test turns out to be purely physical rather than mental. These "difficult" courses are often less so for the better player. Additionally, difficult are often antonymous with good because they are no fun for the average golfer. Difficult courses take too long to play, do not encourage the player to hit good shots, present little variety or choice, and are very expensive.
-
Ivan,
If you can play the course 100 times and still find it fun, interesting and challenging, that's a pretty good barometer in my book. If golfers of varying abilities and strengths can say the same thing after 100 plays, then you're getting into some elite territory...Would you want to have the course be your home club and play it every day for the rest of your life?
That woudl exclude some of my all time favorite courses - Bethpage Black, Kiawah Island Ocean, Whistling Straits - although they are super fun and beautiful they at the very same time are way too long and demanding to be played on a daily basis.
From the courses I have personally played I'd choose the Sunningdale Old to be my home golf course.
JNC_Lyon could you please give me a clear example of a "challenge that constitutes a mental test rather than physical"?
-
Ivan,
If you can play the course 100 times and still find it fun, interesting and challenging, that's a pretty good barometer in my book. If golfers of varying abilities and strengths can say the same thing after 100 plays, then you're getting into some elite territory...Would you want to have the course be your home club and play it every day for the rest of your life?
That woudl exclude some of my all time favorite courses - Bethpage Black, Kiawah Island Ocean, Whistling Straits - although they are super fun and beautiful they at the very same time are way too long and demanding to be played on a daily basis.
From the courses I have personally played I'd choose the Sunningdale Old to be my home golf course.
JNC_Lyon could you please give me a clear example of a "challenge that constitutes a mental test rather than physical"?
Choosing what side of the fairway will give you the best approach into the green. Deciding whether to fly or bounce an approach into a green. Trying to figure out how a pitch and run will react when it hits the ground. These are just three of many.
All of these shots require a certain amount of physical skill. However, they all require a great deal of mental calculation and commitment, no matter how good your mechanics are.
-
What can you say about "difficult doesn't mean good"?
Some examples from the course I played yesterday. Dog leg left. Where are the fairway bunkers that create difficulty? On the right! Who will miss their tee shot and go right instead of left. Me. The two single digit handicappers I played with both hit beautiful draws to perfect position left of the center of the narrow fairway. Again, narrow fairway. Who does that hurt? Me. After escaping the hazard on my second, I am still away, still in the rough hitting my third. I hit about as good a shot as I am capable with my 9 (very high, very straight on target) which landed on the front half of the green and bounded on through to trouble behind the green. Who does trouble behind the green create difficulty for? Me. The single digits hitting short irons from the fairway can control their distance well, so it is no problem for them. The golf hole was absolute crap. Easy for the scratch golfer. Difficult for the bogey golfer. It used to be even worse. It used to be that shots through the green rolled down a hill and OB. The have installed a small berm with waste area that kept me from going OB this time. Did I mention the hole frames the most scenic view in the area? Crap, crap, crap, crap!
;D
Thanks for the thread Ivan. I needed to get that off my chest.
-
Glad I've done at least something good for the community by creating the thread! :D
BTW, Garland's post gave me another thought that evolved into a question.
Who do you think can appreciate GCA better - bogey golfers or scratch golfers? In my experience the better the player the more ignorant he is about the GCA.
And yet one more - does a perfect golf course mean the same for a tour player and a weekend duffer - from the design stand point? That is if we say the Sand Hills are a great golf course does this mean it is equally enjoyable yet mentally tough for a 20 and a 0 handicapper?
-
I think someone has stolen Melvyn's identity; his last rwo posts certainly don't read like anything he has posted before.
Bob
-
Off the top of my head, the Golf Club Atlas (not necessarily mine) conventional wisdom:
(We can add to this as we think of other stuff, but this should get you started)
Good:
firm and fast
old dead guys
Doak
Hanse (mostly)
wind
walking
good quirk
blind shots
wide fairways
links courses
whatever Ran writes in his course profiles
bringing your dog on the course with you
bad:
water
carts
raked bunkers
bad quirk
Jones and sons
Hills, Palmer, Fazio
We haven't decided yet:
Nicklaus
Pete Dye
high fescue
-
...
Who do you think can appreciate GCA better - bogey golfers or scratch golfers? In my experience the better the player the more ignorant he is about the GCA.
...
Well low handicappers have this reputation of yelling unfair. ;)
Yesterday, three tier green. 3 handicap on bottom tier. His putt does not top the rise to the third tier and rolls back to his feet. He yells unfair. I respond that's not unfair even I (it was clear by that time I was going to shoot over 100) can make that shot. After that hole they began to refer to me as ornery.
Come on you guys. I'm sure no one on this site thinks I'm ornery.
;)
-
I love your question about who can appreciate GCA better, the bogey or scratch golfer.
Well we know from this site players of all levels appreciate GCA. Personally I think the best designs are ones were players of all abilities can agree the place is special because it offers fair and interesting challenges for everyone. I think of courses like TOC, Shinnecock, NGLA, PB, Merion, Friars Head, Yale and the great Ross courses. (I think PV offers this as well but that will stir a debate we don't want to have here...)
I have to say the worse I play the more I take notice of the architectural features around the course, especially around the greens. This is a direct result of having to deal with those features during the round and gaining an apreciation for what it takes to overcome those challenges. When I go out shoot par and hit a bunch of fairways and greens, I will always notice, but may not initially appreciate all of the features the architect has designed as I am not having to overcome many of the challenges the architect has presented. For example, can you imagine playing The Old Course and not being in a bunker? My guess is you will still love and aprreciate the course (and may post a good score) but are missing some of the genius of the design on that playing.
-
I like Jud's reference. I judge every course I play on whether or not I would like to play the course every day or have it as my home course.
I'm in the wind doesn’t matter camp. I played Ballyneal in the wind, rain, and in sunny perfect (IMHO - no wind) conditions and enjoyed it every way I played it. I personally don't believe wind can make or break a course. That’s cool with me if others do.
-
Ivan:
One of the best experiences of my life was getting to spend a full year in Scotland, England and Ireland right after college and studying the golf courses there. The best part was to sit down and watch people play some of the famous holes, and decide for myself whether they were good holes or not.
I found that many of the generalizations that people make about what's good or not good, become meaningless when golfers are out there actually playing golf. Further, that a great hole for a 2-handicap is sometimes a lousy hole for a 14-handicap ... and a great hole for a 14-handicap can be a lousy hole for a 2-handicap! So, do not believe what everyone tells you. As they say on Wall Street, everyone is talking their book.
Dr. MacKenzie wrote [sorry, I have to paraphrase here] that the best golf architecture is that which provides the greatest enjoyment for the greatest number of players. I think that's a very good way of looking at it, but that is not the standard which most people use.
-
To me, good golf presents interesting choices. Bad golf presents boring choices.
Bad golf is still pretty damn fun, but good golf is just better.
-
Ivan
Welcome
Please read the following article I wrote about what good means to different types of players
http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf
I agree with what Tom Doak wrote for myself, but not for others with different tastes.
Golf has other flavors.
Cheers
(You remind me of a friend no longer on GCA)
-
Terrific piece, Mike, thanks for the link.
I don't know if I fit either of the categories, I'd say it depends too much on "how" for either category. How's that for a non-answer? :)
-
Dr. MacKenzie wrote [sorry, I have to paraphrase here] that the best golf architecture is that which provides the greatest enjoyment for the greatest number of players. I think that's a very good way of looking at it, but that is not the standard which most people use.
That sounds like utilitarianism. Research topic--what influence did Bentham and Mill have on MacKenzie? I'd wager Paul and MacWood could argue about that ad nauseum.
-
Ivan,
The analogy I would make for this web site is similar to the experience in eating at a cafeteria. Read and look at it all, but ultimately make up your own mind. Some here are less iconoclastic and more flexibly minded than others.
You may have to do some destination golf, before any of this becomes possible for you. Read books. Multiple past threads reference a long reading list.
Look at Geoff Shackelford's web site.
-
Kind of cool to think of the opportunity that exists in Russia - so much land, so few courses. With the right people, you could populate the country with an amazingly high level of basic golf (and I mean in quality, not glitz or cost).
-
Ivan,
As a novice as well I understand where you are coming from. What I have been doing over the last 6 months is bookmarking threads from GCA that I think are informative in regards to many different aspects of course architecture. At my leisure i go back at copy and paste the pertinent comments and pros and cons that are tossed to and fro in the thread. I then go through these and make a synopsis. This is all for my own fun and is not rigid, academically correct researching as I rarely go back to primary sources. What it does do is reinforce the ideas as by the time I do this I will have read, re-read and transposed them a number of times. Finally I have an "essay" (in progress), for want of a better word, on golf course architecture which does not quite stand in the same canon as Tom Doak or Hurdzan's tomes but gives me a precis of ideas surrounding golf course architecture.
Cheers Colin
-
Thank you very much for the answers, gentlemen!
It's a true privilege and joy to be a member of this forum. :)
BTW, speaking of the article I'd say it has a handful of interesting points but at the very same time simplifies the situation a bit.
For me for some reason the courses like Pine Valley (haven't played there just seen lots of pictures) and Bethpage Black are real eye-candy (although they shouldn't be). The pretty view for a golfer (according to what I feel) has nothing to do with waterfalls - "prettyness" in golf acquires a new golf-specific meaning.
I believe the hole and the course we can see on this photo is pretty, challenging and fun all in one:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3390/3655474315_c0c1dbe408_b.jpg)
-
Tim P,
On the golf course I'm into transcendentalism myself over utilitarianism!
Cheers Colin
-
Tim P,
On the golf course I'm into transcendentalism myself over utilitarianism!
Cheers Colin
Wise choice, Colin.
-
Ivan,
You are fortunate to be able to bring a perspective that not many can....look at all of it as good and you decide the bad as you go along....have fun
Ivan - I think Mike Y says something quite important and insightful there.
Actually, the more I think about it the more important and insightful it is.
You may have the most difficult - but potentially most rewarding -- journey of all ahead of you, i.e. carving out a path through uncharted territory towards your own personal vision of this world (of gca, I mean).
Peter
-
Thank you very much for the answers, gentlemen!
It's a true privilege and joy to be a member of this forum. :)
BTW, speaking of the article I'd say it has a handful of interesting points but at the very same time simplifies the situation a bit.
For me for some reason the courses like Pine Valley (haven't played there just seen lots of pictures) and Bethpage Black are real eye-candy (although they shouldn't be). The pretty view for a golfer (according to what I feel) has nothing to do with waterfalls - "prettyness" in golf acquires a new golf-specific meaning.
I believe the hole and the course we can see on this photo is pretty, challenging and fun all in one:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3390/3655474315_c0c1dbe408_b.jpg)
Don't forget the wind! This hole has wind. And yes it is pretty. However, I would not want to play there every day. Too much sand for my tastes.
The problem with rich private clubs is that they get carried away engaging in their bunker fetish. Then since it practically requires dispensation from the pope to play their courses, no one calls them on their bunker fetish.
Tom Doak has admitted to letting this bunker fetish get carried away on the courses he builds.
Look to Sean Arble to give insightful commentary on course bunkering.
-
Thanks, PPallotta! Seems like a wise piece of advice, indeed....
Garland have you seen the TPC at Sawgrass - it has rivers of sand. That is terrific, in a bad sense of word.
-
Thanks, PPallotta! Seems like a wise piece of advice, indeed....
Garland have you seen the TPC at Sawgrass - it has rivers of sand. That is terrific, in a bad sense of word.
TPC Sawgrass and "rivers of sand". What nonsense. Who will be punished by said rivers of sand? The skilled and accurate player? I think not! TPC Sawgrass has little use than for a bunch of highly skilled players shooting darts.
I will show you river of sand genius. This is Wine Valley #5. The pictures are not the best. Matt Ward promised us professional pictures in his review of the course and didn't deliver. Which is so typical of him. He is the ultimate nondeliverer.
Notice the width of the hole. Notice that high handicapper can choose to stay away from the sand, lay up to the sand, cross the sand at the time of this choosing. Notice that the low handicapper can choose to play as close as possible to the sand so that he can be rewarded with the best possible result from his risk.
Hole number 5. By far the strongest hole on the course. Long 435 par 4. A sand river runs down the left side the bisects the fairway 100+ yards out. An approach can be banked in from the left side. The choice is to try to challenge the hazard with the secound shot or play short and conceed bogey. Again great design. As for our players ....... lets just say high handicappers have more fun...and more shots.
Sorry about the blurry photo...I don't have steady hands.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3811836514_17cc626028.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3486/3811023911_ccda6c58d4.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2569/3811840814_bc6d94b0b3.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3574/3811028131_4be279bb1c.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2667/3811844822_56fdee6367.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/3811031855_92482c1f5d.jpg)
...
-
Ivan, If hindsight is 20/20 one of the great writers on the subject is Max Behr. His predictions on what survives the test of time, are core based answers to your questions. That's not to say we shouldn't appreciate the many different styles, that populate the GC landscape. It gives a base from where to start distinguishing the cream.
On your journey, it's best to not only reflect on how some courses make you feel, it's important to listen to others feelings, too. What I think you'll find is when someone does give their justification for their opinion, when it's solely based on how they played or performed, it will be much less helpful to you, in understanding the big picture and questions about gca, than someone who never considers their score or their play. This form of objectivity is difficult to find/achieve, and won't likely be read about in any text, on the subject. It requires you, to be honest to yourself and your feelings, and whether you can separate the game form the sport.
-
Ivan,
Be playable by all.
Be enjoyable even if you're scoring badly.
Shouldn't be a hard slog or 4 hours of torture.
Natural looking and pleasing to the eye.
Have variety; small greens, large greens, plateau greens, narrow greens, undulating greens, etc.
Undulating fairways and green surrounds, humps, hollows, ridges, that look natural.
There should always be a way to for the weaker golfer to avoid danger (so no island greens).
Bravery and good shots rewarded, but if you miss-hit, you pay the consequences.
It should make you think!!! So, you just don't pull out the driver at every par 4 and 5.
Test your course management skills; tempt you to make a fool of yourself, but also allow you to be cautious.
A little bit of wind is always nice.
Shouldn't have rough over 5-6 inches. No hay please!
Should allow you to finish with the same ball you started with (so no ponds if possible)
Not everything should be obvious, you need to discover things yourself.
Reward shot making (this is where wind comes in again) such as punched shot, pitch-and-runs, etc.
Shouldn't be soft.
Shouldn't be all green with white bunkers. Lets have some colours please.
Shouldn't be too narrow.
Strategic, but not every hole has to be like a chess game.
Shouldn't reward brute strength (there are other sports for that sort of thing)
I'm sure I've missed a few more things.
-
Ivan, Ian Andrew's old blog thecaddyshack.blogspot.com has som very good writings on golf course design.
-
Ivan
Shinnecock and Pine Valley are rare birds indeed.
Only a handful of golf courses have all flavors easily tasted
Shinnecock and Pine Valley are test first - that is the way they were intended and designed and built and maintained
Bethpage's greens are too flat to be any fun
cheers
-
Once again thank you very much everybody for you attention and answers!
one more question as I don't want to start a new thread.
Is there some kind of unified thread with the photo tours of the TOP golf courses (like those about the Sand Hills and Old Mac).
Can't figure out the search function on this forum. ;)
-
I think there are different levels of golf courses/architecture.When I think of '"great" courses I think they are "champoinship" courses.These courses challenge the better players and at times can severely punish the average golfer. Theses courses seem to keep the higher rankings(no Absolutes).Then you have well designed courses that are historic,architectural significant and more playable.Theses will be found a little lower down the Top 100 lists.They have memorable features but may not test the greatest players to the limit.The gems often found off the beaten path are the next ones you'll find.Maybe an expensive resort course here and there or a Cruden Bay were you
want your life to end after sinking the final putt on 18.So that does not answer your question completely but I hope it adds to the conversation.
Anthony
-
1. Pine Valley Golf Club 9.53
(No. 2 in 2009, p) Pine Valley, N.J.
1919, George Crump, H.S. Colt
2. Cypress Point Club 9.49
(1, p) Pebble Beach, Calif.
1928, Alister MacKenzie
3. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club 9.22
(3, p) Southampton, N.Y.
1931, William S. Flynn, Howard C. Toomey
4. National Golf Links of America 9.11
(7, p) Southampton, N.Y.
1911, Charles Blair Macdonald
5. Merion Golf Club (East) 9.09
(4, p) Ardmore, Pa.
1912, Hugh Wilson
6. Oakmont Country Club 9.01
(6, p) Oakmont, Pa.
1903, Henry Fownes
7. Crystal Downs 8.88
(8, p) Frankfort, Mich.
1931, Alister MacKenzie, Perry Maxwell
8. Pebble Beach Golf Links 8.86
(5, r) Pebble Beach, Calif.
1919, Douglas Grant, Jack Neville
9. Augusta National Golf Club 8.75
(9, p) Augusta, Ga.
1932, Bobby Jones, Alister MacKenzie
10. Fishers Island Golf Club 8.71
(11, p) Fishers Island, N.Y.
1926, Seth Raynor
Anthony,
I don't think the likes of Cypress Point, NGLA, Crystal Downs, Fishers Island are found further down the lists. In fact it would seem that only two courses that emphasize challenge over fun, Pine Valley and Oakmont, make the top 10 classic.
1. Sand Hills Golf Club 9.34
(No. 1 in 2009, p) Mullen, Neb.
1995, Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw
2. Pacific Dunes 9.23
(2, r) Bandon, Ore.
2001, Tom Doak
3. Whistling Straits (Straits) 8.68
(3, r) Kohler, Wis.
1997, Pete Dye
4. Bandon Dunes 8.29
(5, r) Bandon, Ore.
1999, David McLay Kidd
5. Ballyneal 8.27
(8, p) Holyoke, Colo.
2006, Tom Doak
6. Sebonack Golf Club 8.24
(7, p) Southampton, N.Y.
2006, Tom Doak, Jack Nicklaus
7. The Golf Club 8.23
(9, p) New Albany, Ohio
1967, Pete Dye
8. Pete Dye Golf Club 8.19
(4, p) Bridgeport, W.Va.
1994, Pete Dye
9. Friar’s Head 8.15
(6, p) Baiting Hollow, N.Y.
2003, Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw
10. Shadow Creek Golf Club 8.12
(10, r) North Las Vegas, Nev.
1990, Tom Fazio
Taking the top 10 modern, it would seem that the Pete Dye courses that are in the minority might be the ones that emphasize challenge over fun.
-
What a great thread!
The segmentation in the article is fascinating.
The question I ask myself is what does it take to come back and analyze a course? Having played Tetherow once, is that enough for met to say it's a great course? Or do I need to play it on several days with the wind coming from different directions?
With Whistling Straits, is walking the course during the PGA enough for me to criticize it?
-
Tom
If you have an opinion then please voice it, whatever it’s your opinion and your enjoyment and sense of fun you are submitting. Be bold your opinions are as good as Tom Doak's Garland and even Anthony , well perhaps we should reserve judgement on Anthony as he has been under medication for some time and it may be a long time yet before he knows where he is..
You joined to voice your opinions and thoughts - so what are you waiting for
Melvyn
-
Ivan, I mentioned something to a friend today that I thought was worthy of including on your thread. That's "Frame of reference"
It's a fascinating subject when analyzing GCA.
Holes with no frame of reference, like trees, water, rough, or symmetrical mounding, can give the better player fits. And, they don't even know why.
Think ANGC, TOC, or most links courses.
I also assume you meant TOC when you asked above about TOP?
I've never seen it but Rich Goodale has a series of books that I understand have amazing pictorials of some of the great courses. I believe they are title "experience_____". Someone more familiar will hopefully see my errors and correct them.
-
Ivan,
Welcome to the forum. Overall its pretty good on most days. I have enjoyed it for over ten years, wow!
As to your question, I am not so sure that the Mike Hurdzan list on the other thread isn't a decent place to start. The caveats are that every site is different, the list can't really rate the inspiration a course gives most golfers, which is really what makes a course GREAT, and its the application of the principles listed - sometimes down to little details - that also make a course great.
As an example, progression may mean less to some than others, or not be important after looking at the whole course, i.e., back to back 3's and 5's on Cypress Point would not be great progression, but the way the course weaves in and out of different landscapes (and the landscape itself) makes it overall a course with very good progression.
For convenience, here is the list, even as I don't know that the order is perfect:
1 Safety
2 Aesthetics
3 Tournament qualities
4 Flexibility
5 Fairness
6 Shot value
7 Progression
8 Balance
9 Flow (traffic)
10 Maintenance cost
11 Construction planning
-
The best courses in the world require a player of any skill level to choose the right line and distance on each shot and over the course of 18 holes to use every club in the bag and to play a multitude of different shot types.
With these in mind fun should ensue along with both high and low scoring.
Wind, width, rough, angles and eye-candy all can help or hurt the above guidelines.
-
Once again thank you very much everybody for you attention and answers!
one more question as I don't want to start a new thread.
Is there some kind of unified thread with the photo tours of the TOP golf courses (like those about the Sand Hills and Old Mac).
Can't figure out the search function on this forum. ;)
Ivan:
Try these links -- fairly comprehensive of photo threads done on GCA:
delicious.com/golfclubatlas
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35897.0/
I relaly enjoyed your question about golf architecture viewed from the perspective of the bogey golfer compared to the scratch golfer.