[Dale_McCallon]

I'm sure asking a question such as this on here will show my complete architecture ineptness, but please bear with me.

I hear and read how all of the great golden agers were great routers.  So what makes a great routing?  Is it easily walkable?  Variety of length holes?  Directional?  I figure a great routed course takes some from all of these characteristics and then some, but what else is involved.  

How does one know if the course they just played is a great routing?  My experience with "classic" courses is limited, but when I walked off of 18 at Pinehurst, my mind didn't go back to the layout of the course as much as the greens and the history there.  So am I just an idiot, or do I just not get it?

[James Edwards]

FLOWWWW...!

Dale, for my money if you can walk from the 1st tee to the 18th green with ease and flow, you are more than 50% on the way to a great routing.  If you take Muirfield which is regarded by many as having one of the finest routings - it is clear that its a walker friendly course amongst all of its fine stragetic holes.  Combine this with some of the components you mentioned such as variety of holes, direction of holes, topography etc and you are well on your way to making up the other 50%.  Muirfield has all these qualities in abundance as well as its famous clockwise and anticlockwise loops of 9.

Ultimately though, the best routings I have experienced are the ones where a continuous journey from the 1st tee to the 18th green seemed seemless and where the experience gathered momentum, resulting in a climax of fantastic golf holes utilising the sites best features.

Some would argue that routing is site specific meaning that you can only route the golf course as the land allows i.e if its on the side of a hill, you may have to have large climbs/falls potentially in buggies - does this detract from the routing? - maybe... if avoidable, would you? .. depends on how good the resulting hole is after the climb...

I will add that it is hard to design a good routing nowadays without having to bow to the demands of the developer and their housing needs, especially as many of the areas used by them are the best areas of the site.

[Matt_Cohn]

I read once, maybe on here, that a great routing follows exactly the path that you would take if you were exploring the property, with no golf course on it, for the first time.

My favorite routing is at New South Wales, in Sydney, because it follows that description perfectly. It wanders inland for a bit, and as soon as the golfer catches sight of the ocean on #3, the course makes a beeline for it. If I were walking the property, I'd do exactly the same thing.

New South Wales Routing Map

The other thing I love about NSW is that it really is an exploration, and an adventure. I'm quoting myself here from my "Golf in Australia" IMO piece:

"I think great courses are ones that fascinate players, and have them thinking about the holes for weeks and months to come, itching to come back....New South Wales tugged at me...I think it’s because NSW really gave me a sense of going on an adventure hike along the cliffs, with all of the anticipation and excitement that comes with it. The holes themselves embody that sense of adventure: the blind shots on 3 and especially 5; the sweep of the fairways on holes like 13, 15, and 16 that make one eagerly wonder just where they go; the dramatically perched greens on 3, 7, 11, 13, and 14; and the denouement of the 18th hole down a broad plain, finishing at the bottom of the hill beneath the clubhouse."

It's authentically an exploration and an adventure hike, with golf thrown in too. What a combination!

[Yancey_Beamer]

Matt,
That's Tom Doak's description of Cruden Bay.(Confidential Guide,Second Edition,1989) Tom also points out that this is not always the way that's best for every course.(personal conversation).
Yancey

[Kyle Harris]

Routings should take you to little segments and areas of the golf course, lingering just long enough in one part of the course to satiate your appetite before putting you in a different area and a different feel.

Golf is also a journey, and the golf course the blazed trail. The proper routing takes you from point of interest to point of interest... blending the mundane and the spectacular sometimes all within one hole or one shot...

[TEPaul]

Dale:

What makes a great routing is one question with a lot of diverse answers but how various architects actually go about doing it is another fascination---the answers to which will obviously never be completely known. There's no question, though, that doing a golf course routing is like a big jigsaw puzzles on the ground. Do they look for whole hole landforms first, or green and tee sites or what?

We feel William Flynn was just a natural-born router but frankly we've never been sure how he went about it on any course---until recently on one course---the Cascades, and the description of him doing it was from the owner of the property in 1923.

The owner was given only one week to buy the property for the course---and his board decreed they would not buy it until a very good architect could look at the property and approve of its potential. Only problem was all the well-known architects (Raynor and Ross were mentioned) were busy and couldn't make it to Hot Springs within a week and so the owner said just by happenstance he got the lesser known (at that time) William Flynn.

Flynn got there and had only a single day to approve of the property for a golf course and the Cascades site is incredibly complicated topographically.

The owner, who'd never met Flynn before described this short man who was about as wide as he was high who appeared to have boundless energy. The owner didn't have any idea what to expect but he decided to "dog after Flynn's footsteps" the entire day. And so he did and he said at the end of the day he was almost dead.

Flynn was crashing around through corn crops, through cress meadows and then into some severe topography through brambles and bushes and every other kind of impenetrable crap (he did have a surveyor along for the ride).

Flynn wouldn't say anything all day but at the end of the day they went into the beautiful house on the property (that's now the clubhouse) and Flynn sat down, they poured some great scotch and he started doing a bunch of numerical calculations for a while, silently.

The owner was amazed at all this and said he had to make a decision to buy the place the next day or he couldn't get it. So Flynn said: "OK, I was looking for 20 green sites and I found them provided you get me that 1/4 acre "slave cottage" that's not on the property. I don't know how the holes will connect with those green sites yet but I know I can build you a really good course here but it's going to cost you a lot to do it (the topography).

The owner said that kind of instant positive attitude sold him on the site and on Flynn, he bought it the next day, construction started immediately with a massive amount of labor and machinery and in one year the Cascades was open for play. And it was a great one as Flynn promised!

How did he find that routing like that in all that impenetrable crap and topography? We have no idea---but that's why we think he was one of the best and most instinctive routers there was!  

[James Edwards]

Tom,

An extremely informative read - thank you for posting.

[T_MacWood]

"So what makes a great routing?  Is it easily walkable?  Variety of length holes?  Directional?  I figure a great routed course takes some from all of these characteristics and then some, but what else is involved."  

Dale
I think all those things go into a great routing. In particular the variety and the strength of the individual holes, and how well they meld with one another. But at the top of the list I would put maximizing a sites natural attributes.


TE
Interesting story...did Flynn have a topo map.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mr. MacWood beat me to the question by seconds.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom's story is interesting.  One thing I've learned working on our Hazards book is that the more you study all the great architects, the more you realize just how good they were is certain aspects of their design.  The other thing I learned is that the more I studied one architect over the other, the more tendency there was toward bias.  Like Tom, I used to think Flynn was the best router, but the more I studied in depth many of the other guys, I really can't say that any more.  Most everyone had some amazing ways of going about doing what they did.  

Forrest knows a little about routing since he wrote the book on it but don't expect him to chime in much here as our book is due the end of the month to the publisher.

I wish I had time to elaborate myself.  This topic is very interesting.

Have fun with it,
Mark

[wsmorrison]

"Like Tom, I used to think Flynn was the best router, but the more I studied in depth many of the other guys, I really can't say that any more.  Most everyone had some amazing ways of going about doing what they did.  "

I'm not sure what conclusions you've drawn and their basis in your in depth study of the other guys, but it is clear that Flynn had a routing sense different than many others.  I'd go with your first instincts  

Wait to you read our chapter of the Ross and Flynn routings at CC York.  It wasn't an accident that much of the Flynn routing is perpendicular to Ross.  It speaks volumes about the different approaches they took to routings.  This isn't meant to say that one course was better than the other, but they certainly were differrent.

As to the Cascades, Raynor came in early in the process and didn't have the selection of land to consider when he declared the land was poor for golf.  Later on Tillinghast came in and declared the property Flynn eventually considered to also be unsuitable.

Flynn's routing sense and ability to massively engineer a project that would eventually look completely natural is a real statement to his, and his team's vision and talent.  I'm not so sure many would've seen what he saw through the brambles, bogs, mountains and cornfields.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Interesting story...did Flynn have a topo map."

Tom MacW:

Yeah, in his head!


(Although apparently there was a surveyor along to estimate or check useful elevation points. That was probably some of what Flynn was using at the end of the day when he was sitting there silently drinking good scotch with the owner and doing a bunch of numbers before answering the owner as to the site's potential!   ).

[A_Clay_Man]

Glad someone said intimacy. The only other missing ingredient which Tom macWood touched on was ...Ebb.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
We can talk more about this later on, but don't get me wrong, I think Flynn was a genius when it came to routing golf holes.  I'm just saying I used to think he was the best, but that conclusion was biased from studying Flynn so much.  Just like today, there are lots of reasons architects walk away from properties.  It usually had more to do with other things than whether or not they could build a great golf course on the property.  Owners, travel, quality of the local pub, work schedule, timing, costs, style, ...the list is endless.  

I give Ross the edge today over Flynn especially in that he could do a great routing without seeing the property first hand.  But who is really to say.  There is no one answer.  Last thing I'd want to see is a Top 10 list of the best routers.  How subjective would that be

[George Pazin]

I give Ross the edge today over Flynn especially in that he could do a great routing without seeing the property first hand.

Why does this matter? Maybe - and it's a maybe at best, to me - if one determined they were equally proficient at routing, an edge could be granted for someone's ability to do it blind. But, really, does it matter how the routing is created? Shouldn't it simply be the results?

[wsmorrison]

George, I completely agree with you, I don't know where Mark thinks he's going with this.  But I ain't gonna follow him three.  I disagree with his premise.

I'm not following a Flynn agenda here, I just don't know why there is extra credit to a man that routs from afar.  Big deal.  One of the reasons he was able to do that is because he was often systematic in his use of features; high tee to low landing to high green.  

Although the quantity of Ross's courses is so high and we don't know the constraints he and most of these guys faced, you can still cite a number of mistakes by all of them, Ross included and maybe with a higher incidence.  In any case, he didn't take the chances Flynn would take.  Flynn would route all over the place and tried to make challenging courses when he could.  This probably cost him the York job.

Flynn seemed to have a glaring mistake on the new green he did on the 6th at Cascades when he moved it on the other side of the Swift Run.

But look at the real mistakes Ross made at Gulph Mills--and he was there!  They were pretty far more egregious.

[Kyle Harris]

Ross v. Flynn is a pointless argument.

They both were asked to do different things with the land given. Which, was fundamentally different.

Ross was a master at making 100-150 acre sites seem like 300 acre sites. All things being equal, Ross seemed more able to work in confined areas than in more open areas with conceivably more options.

Flynn was a master at taking any site and wringing as much golf out of it as possible. Now, maybe Wayne, Tom or Mayday can go more into depth here, but it seems as though Flynn was giving more to work with more frequently than Ross.

By sheer volume, you can argue that Ross would have a few flops in the routing department. But it seems that the preponderance of Flynn's courses are sheer routing brilliance. Whereas Donald Ross had more than an equal ratio of poor routing plans.  

[Mike Hendren]

From The Anatomy Of A Golf Course:

"The first step is to look on the topographic map for areas suitable for green sites and fairway-landing areas.  Natural tee sites can also be found, expecially where they provide a particularly stunning view.  Through tee placement, the architect can bring all golfers to the exact spot he wishes them to see. But tees are least essential, since they are small and can be easily constructed in broke terrain, and since the immediate surrounds of the tee are not 'in play.'"

Reading this yesterday for the first time, the highlighted concept was a revelation to me.  The idea of the architect utilizing the routing to deliver me to a spot or vista is fascinating.  Examples of this concept suggest a thread of its own.

It also suggests that I have been off-base in my criticism of the 18th hole at Cypress Point Club.

[Kyle Harris]

Not sure who this quote is attributed to, but it's quite good regarding tee sites:

"Here, golfer, stand and look what I put before you."

[Mark_Fine]

George and others,
I don't think it matters and that was kind of my point.  I was just saying they all have their positive points.  Ross just impressed me for some of the reasons Kyle mentioned.  His vision with minimal effort was just amazing to me.  That's all.  I remember someone once telling me that Tom Doak can do a routing from a topo map in a matter of minutes.  More importantly, that initial routing is likely to be one of the best for the property (given a nudge here or there).  If that is true, that is really impressive (at least to me it is).  When I think about that, Ross first comes to mind.  

Let's not get into who was the best (who knows) and leave it at that.
Mark

[wsmorrison]

Kyle,

We don't know what Ross and Flynn were asked to do at CC York.  We know the farmhouse was to be used as the clubhouse and the existing roads dictated access.  Other than that, why do you say they were asked to do different things?  If you mean in general, I won't argue with you there.  If you mean at York, I'm not so sure.  They came up with vastly different golf courses.  Ross seemingly gave them the one they wanted and the one the members completely enjoy to this day.

Again, Kyle, I am not trying to prove one design better than the other.  I'm just pointing out the differences with a huge input by a Georgia peach of a guy named Crosby and the former head pro.

The sheer volume of Ross's work would indicate a higher number of problematic holes and routing issues.  How many were changed by Hatch and McGovern because the indicated routing just wouldn't work on the ground?  

Ross had a system that clearly worked, but not perfectly.  His team seemed to be an integral factor in his output quantity.  But to give him points for routing from afar?  That in and of itself is pretty meaningless unless you studied each site carefully and judged that he was unable to do better if he were there, in other words he got it right from a distance.  That and factoring out the fudging needed by his guys on site.

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

I was benig categorical. And my data only goes to what has survived to 2005. I look at Ross courses like Jeffersonville, Plainfield and Pinehurst and see different terrains and demands than HV, RG, Shinny or Cherry Hills.

I didn't realize there was a competing Flynn routing at CC of York.

My post was more an attempt to show agreement with you for some of the reasons I showed. Did Flynn do any routings on particularly restrained terrain? RG in my experience and knowledge, appears to be his smallest block of land worked with and that's mid range for our area.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for clarifying that, Mark - I think I understand your point now.

[Kyle Harris]

In thinking on this, and getting back to the basic question:

"What makes a great routing?"

We all seemed to have focused on the topography as the primary factor, however, isn't that just the skeleton of the beast?

What about golf features? It's one thing to say "tee here, green there, go play..." it's another thing to have to think out a procession from the tee to green using not only topography, but golf features as well.

How do courses on flatter lands derive "great" routings. I am sure we would all agree that there are quite a few flat courses out there with first rate routings.

[George Pazin]

What intrigues me most about routing - and when you get right down to it, design in general - is how areas that have superficially the same type of terrain can yield dramatically different courses. Indeed, sometimes similar terrain can yield two very good courses that are very different.

I ask this all the time (and get ignored all the time ), but why did Oakmont turn out so great and many other courses in western PA pale in comparison? True, the details at Oakmont are outstanding, but the routing is terrific, too, and, speaking generally, I can't see much difference between the land Oakmont occupies and most of the rest of western PA. Fox Chapel is much gentler, by comparison, and it seems more obviously well suited for golf.

I could ask the same question about Lehigh (and have, in fact). Its topography is very similar to what we have here in western PA, yet we don't have many courses that match it in quality.

I said it on another thread, but too often people look at a great course and say, yeah, who couldn't have designed a course on that land. But how different is one piece of parkland from another, at least in general terms?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()