[Jeff_Brauer]

As promised, I am starting a new thread based on Dave's comment in his last post.  I think the problem of evaluating routings in "negative space" ie, what could have been are too daunting.  There are usually dozens of options and trade offs, as mentioned.  But, we each probably have a mental checklist of things included on every hole, or the vast majority of holes that would make us say "this is a good routing."

These are probably all in Forrest's book, but off the top of my head:

1.  FirstLast Hole(s, if returning nines) near clubhouse and not into the sun

2.  No naturally bad holes, like blind holes and/or hazards on those holes, deep cuts through hills, obviously artificial, reverse slope doglegs, to name the biggest offenders.

3.  No obvious safety problems. (or worse, non-obvious safety problems)

4.  Short walks green to tee (early in my career, specially      on a budget, I ignored this in favor of the best holes)

5.  Tees and greens in natural locations (a topic in and of itself)

6.  At least one hole that features the particular drama of the site, if any, giving a "sense of place".

7.  Great length variety among holes, in total and in good sequence

8.  Great Wind Direction Variety

9.  Good Dogleg and shot pattern Variety

10.  No particular maintenance problems, like greens in deep valleys with no chance of getting enough air movement and sunlight to grow, fairways in valleys with no chance of ever draining properly, etc.

Of course, I purposely left out some good ones to spur discussion, and would like to hear other comments and perspectives!

[Jeff_McDowell]

One concept I like that closely parallels (and usually incorporates) your sense of place are holes that have mystery or a slow but deliberate unveiling. For example, playing a shot to the crest of a hill, and when you get to the crest a portion of the course is layed out in front of you.

[Michael Dugger]

I'll bite, especially on a Brauer thread.

1.  Sequencing of holes.  Hard followed by easy.  Stretch of easy holes followed by a hard one.  etc.  Yet, not determined by yardages, but by shot values (big difference)

2.  I always liked what Tom Doak wrote about Cruden Bay.  He felt the golf course was routed in the same way one would naturally walk the property if exploring around.

3.  Teasers...early taste of the better portion of the property.  Something to look forward to.

4.  Not just a finishing hole, but a STRONG finishing hole

5.  Easy get away.

6.  It might just be my local municipals but I HATE a one shot hole to come any sooner than #4.  I also hate back to back one shotters, or two in a three hole stretch.  It TOTALLY clogs things up, but of course, it just might be my local Oregon Hacks that are doing the clogging.

7.  I despise too severe of an upslope.  Something so steep you worry the ball will roll back to your feet.

        
  

[Dan King]

I don't know if this is top-10, but a routing feature I really like is if there is some peak at some upcoming blind or hard to read shot.

For instance, from the second tee at Riviera you can see the green of the long No. 11. The observant golfer will notice the green and where the pin is and such and try to remember it for the next few hours.

I know it gives an edge to the observant golfer, and golf nowadays is only suppose to be a physical test and not a mental one, but still it's something I like.

I also like some spots on the course where you can see huge portions of the course. You can see who is the group causing the five hour round -- so you can later buy them a round in the clubhouse, thanking them for helping you miss dinner with your in laws -- and watch your friends a few groups behind you butcher some earlier hole.

Also if there is some sort of long forced-hike on the course, I want a reward. Maybe I nice view, or a beautiful hole -- and a nice bench to rest a little -- and a shrubbery, a nice shrubbery.

Dan King

"Golf is the Great Mystery. Like some capricious goddess, it bestows its favours with what would appear an almost fat-headed lack of method and discrimination. On every side we see big two-fisted he-men floundering round in three figures, stopping every few minutes to let through little shrimps with knock-knees and hollow cheeks, who are tearing up snappy seventy-fours."
 --The Oldest Member (Heart of a Goof by P.G. Wodehouse)

[Mike Benham]

Jeff -

You are probably going to get a fair amount of "Bad Qualitites in Routing" ...

For me - Back to Back holes with adjoining fairways ...

Mike

[Lynn Shackelfor]

Any hole where you must plant trees so that the golfer doesn't have an easier time playing the hole to a fairway of another hole.  Unless the trees or forest are already in place.

[Matt_Ward]

I'll add the following ...

Great routings avoid PREDICTABILITY and maximize the characteristics of the existing terrain to their utter fullest degree possible.

The other element -- great routings calculate the daily wind pattern so that no matter what direction the wind blows the totality of the challenge is still present.

[redanman]

10-Fine walking flow of golf-like a good theatre show or novel just fllllllllllllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwwws!! Like good sex?
9-Fine use of land, wind, natural elements
8-Variety of golf requirements, challenge, options
7-Frequent return to bathrooms to minimize number needed
6-Routing that maximizes the beverage cart sales
5-Well done cart paths
4-Avoiding legal issues
3-Framing of distant views
2-Maximizing the "Experience"
1-Lot sales

 

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

I like your brevity, if not the increasing level of sarcasm.  Specifically regarding routing, I think the options, like alternate or very wide fairways is great, but requires more land than is occaisionally available.  I think you hit on something by comparing routings to sex.  I consciously don't route courses for "fast play" just because of this comparison.

As to your points 7 and 6, architects do consider ease of golf course vehicles through the course somewhere in the process, which includes the beer girl and the superintendent.  I wouldn't say its a primary goal, but it is a consideration.  Similarly, in feature design, I like one bunkerless green per course, and, having raked bunkers while working maintenance crews, I know those damn things go about 3 miles an hour, a real problem with an oncoming rainstorm to get back to the clubhouse.  Even in sunny days, short cuts are helpful, so as often as not, my bunkerless green or hole will be the one farthest from the maintenance building, or at the end of a loop.

Matt,

I like the unpredictability idea, but its not always possible on every site.  And perhaps, most architects actually route for predictability!  At least, we do tend to subconsciously set so many rules, based on things that haven't been well recieved in the past, that this happens nearly automatically.

Also, saying we should maximize the topo as well as possible doesn't help the debate, as that is what the debate is essentially about, no?  

Dan,

I consider the peekaboo effect great, but probably just missing the top 10.  Tied for 11th again!

M Dugger,

Your answer is probably closest to including the "left out items" I suggested.  What exactly wants to make you bite on a Brauer thread?

As has been noted, this is a hard subject to get a grasp on.

Again, this discussion would be served by comparing routings of the same property by different architects, like CP, or a slew of others where a routing was provided by several as part of the selection process.  (Architects hate those competitions,  but it WOULD further these types of discussions, and I guess thats what the Owners use them for!)  

Absent those, and even with those, (CP would have looked so much different with Raynor - Imagine Raynor greens on the current MacKenzie routing) routing is only part of the battle.  How you use the "natural features" is an equal issue.  

[Michael Dugger]

Jeff...

Because you are the designer of the first course I ever helped build.  

Because you are smart in this business

Because you know St. Thomas Aquinas

[JWL>]

Jeff

This is an interesting thread and since it's Christmas, I'll throw in my two cents worth.
First off, your listing is right on the money and the following just adds to your thoughts.
Every piece of  property is different and the routing's importance changes based on what the land has to offer.
On some courses, the routing is the absolute most important factor in the ultimate success of the course.  On others, the success is what can be done with little or no natural features.
I think Tom Doak is basically correct in his % relationship of routing to detail on most sites.
The routing can have a major impact on the cost of the construction of the course and I like to give that major consideration.  The reason being that the more naturally I can "fit a routing to the land, the less cost it will be to bring
that hole or course to the maturity I envision.
Every routing by every architect is based on a set of preconceived rules that the architect has developed for his design style.  However, the architect can choose to break his own rules, when a certain piece of land dictates a different "style".  
The best example of this would be creating a blind shot
condition when the rule might say, visibility is paramount.

A few of the rules that I might employ in a routing layout would be the following:
1)  Play into counterslopes wherever possible.  This means not playing a dogleg right when the land falls to the left.
2)  Routing the tee and green sites to take full advantage of any and all natural features, views etc..  This takes time on the site.
3)  If streams and/or ponds, or any water hazard are part of the course, make every effort possible to avoid duplication of hazards throughout the course.  Examples would be  to vary the location of water at green sites to both sides.  Same for tees shots.  A balance will not favor or penalize any one particular ball flight.  As a side, I think this is the biggest problem with PB's routing.  Water hazard on the right side of holes 4,5,6,7,8,9,10.  Only 18 really has water hazard on left side.  Some could argue 17 also, but that is a stretch, imho.  Anyway, there is a large discrepancy.
4)  Both nines should make use of the land's most dominant feature, if there is one.  i.e. PB and the ocean.
5)  Lastly, and probably the most subjective, is that the course routing should have an ebb and flow about it, that builds in intensity.  An adventure, if you will.

With this all said, the architect may often break his own rules to link the best golf holes together.  
In the end, when all the information is stored, it is the architect's vision of the finished product in his mind's eye and it becomes a puzzle that must be put together to meet the "style" as predetermined by the architect and owner to meet the business requirements of the project, whatever they may be.  These two often conflict and when reconciled often produce a successful project.   It is very rare, however, that a course is deemed great that hasn't been located on a site that is blessed with some dramatic features, views, etc on which the "router" has maximized the experience.

Merry Christmas Jeffrey

[Jason Hines]

Hello Jeff,

This is a great post, I was wondering if you could or would pontificate on your work with Bent Tree Golf Club in Council Bluffs, IA.  I play over there several times of the year mainly because of the routing and dramatic T-shots.  Compared to the first 15 holes, I often wondered where in the world the last three came from until a local told me that they were remnants of the previous layout.

With regards to that course and the topic at hand, how much of a challenge was/is sticking to your top ten while trying to work with a previous nine holes and a real estate development?  Also, in what % of your work do you get 100% of flexibility in the routing?

Happy Holidays,

Jason

[Forrest Richardson]

My "Top 10" Routing Qualities:

1. Routing that does not seem predictable
2. Routing that provides an adventure to the golfer
3. Routing that orients the course to an exciting central hazard, feature, theme or landscape -- a "goal" to be encountered during the journey of the round
4. Routing that has a feel of being influenced more by land, as opposed to people or policy
5. Routing that has directional changes, but not too overtly contrived
6. Routing that gives peeks to forthcoming areas of the course, special views, landscapes, etc.
7. Routing that works in harmony with other components of its locale, creating a feeling that the golf course is near to being seemless to things around it
8. Routing that has appreciable elevation changes, even if nominal
9. Routing that is interesting by way of its variation of hole lengths, types, bends, and strategies
10. Routing that does not break cardinal rules (e.g., opening holes into the rising sun, finishing holes into the setting sun, unsafe setbacks, etc.)

[ByUBengals]

A followup for JWL,
Could you discuss routing qualities for flat featureless sites such as, poor draining sugarcane fields of south Louisiana to name one type close to home. There are obviously discussions that could forever debate the routing qualities of a natural gem piece of property such as Pebble Beach. For the rest of us who live on geological settings devoid of topographical relief, routing seems to be more of an artificial creation. The routing is function of the volume of earth moved. Sun, drainage and prevailing wind direction seem to be more important in the absence of linking spectacular natural settings. What factors drive routing plans when it is up to you to create the topography/ground shaping? While it is always interesting to read debates regarding one of a kind properties, I would like to explore how you make it interesting for the inhabitants of the flat lands? I put this question to JWL, but certainly like to hear from anyone interested.
Merry Christmas to all who make this an enjoyable site.
DPS

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B:

I don't mind if an architect must engage in some form of predictability in the routing, but only if such an action is limited to a hole or two. Sometimes, as you well know, the routing of a course must yield to reality based on stringing together holes and getting from one piece of the property to the other. Sometimes one must sacrifice one or two holes in order to achieve an otherwise superb layout. Just look at how great Cypress is, however, you also have the anticlimatic 18th which Tom Doak so accurately linked to the end credits of a movie reel.

Jeff, if architects don't watch themselves they become like film directors -- they simply go back to the same "tried and true" mechanisms. I don't want predictability -- that's why we have so many terrible replicas of thew downhill par-3 from an elevated tee with a pond in front and two flanking bunkers that are no where near being in play. Everybody does it because others in the field do it and the average player has become enamored with this type of hole.

When "things' have not worked out so well in the past I'd have to know specific examples you are speaking about -- what I am saying is that many architects have a tendency to replicate past patterns -- I say they should review their portfolios and see how they can offer clear variations in their style, pacing and linkage of holes. I know that many times the end result is dictated by the owner and if an architect had land that lends itself to back-to-back par-3's and / or par-5's the owner may nix it for development  or other reasons.

I also believe the other point I raised deals with maintaining and sustaining the inherent challenge even when different wind patterms emerge. There are a number of courses I've played over the years where the prevailing wind is the only type of wind that provides the most demanding shotmaking requirements. If the wind turns the other way the course becomes infinitely less challenging. Again, I am not saying that the course must play "equally" as well in all wind patterns, however, the routing must still provide a sufficient challenge.

As far as my comments on maxing the topo let me clarify by saying that where possible the architect should use what's available at the site and not try to force his man upon

[grampa (Guest)]

Jeff B. and Forrest
 
How many of your course have you been able to meet your 10 qualities? It seems that there are limitations on every piece of ground. When and where do you except  that certain "criteria" cannot be achieved?  When do you face the fact that certain features will need to be created? I understand that all of your points are necessary. But isn't the idea to create an interesting and fun golf experience? As most of your points seem to be heading away from building the best golf holes possible on a given site.

[Forrest Richardson]

Grampa --

Allow me to answer on behalf of Jeff...no wait, he might want to answer for himself. Here are my responses to your very thought-provoking questions, the last of which I am still thinking about:

I've met my "top 10" only 4 or 5 times. The points I run up against are the seemlessness with the surrounding land (bad land planning) and courses where the site selection has been formed by policy and people -- not entirely, then, routing by land suggestion. 4 or 5 isn't too bad, though, I do very few projects compared to many architects.

Yes, are limitations on every piece of ground. Certain "criteria" cannot be achieved when policy and people get in the way. The architect has to be strong and involved early -- and be trusted and well regarded in the eyes of the course developer. And be smart. And creative. And full of knowledge.

When do I face the fact that certain features will need to be created? I'm not sure how to answer this -- every course is different, truly. Features get created, found, uncovered, enhanced, manufactured, replicated, etc. All at different times and for different reasons.

Yes, the idea is to create an interesting and fun golf experience. This is paramount! I disagree that my "top ten" seem to be heading away from building the best golf holes possible on a given site. What do you mean, Grampa?

[grampa (Guest)]

Forrest

I guess what I'm wondering is are you worried that by creating certain qualities within your routings that the process is creating a formula ? A formula that could cause all of your courses to have the same feel. In my opinion the better courses are the ones that have a unique quality in the routings. Merion which has long walks (but easy) or that the last par 5 is #4, and Cypress with back to back par 3's. The list goes on and on. I have never played either you or Mr. Brauer courses and I'm in no way critizing your work ( I know it is easy for comments to get misinterpreted on the site and turned into a shouting match by some regulars). I wonder if you feel that any of your routing criteria may cause you to "overlook" such unique features?

[Forrest Richardson]

Grandpa -- I don't think so. At least it was not my intention that the 'top ten" I listed for comment and thought would lead to "standardization". In my book about routing I take great lengths to dispel standarization.

1. Routing that does not seem predictable -- a key!
2. Routing that provides an adventure to the golfer -- or as you say, "fun"
3. Routing that orients the course to an exciting central hazard, feature, theme or landscape -- this is a hallmark of most great routings: They are set along somethig, over something or through something.
4. Routing that has a feel of being influenced more by land, as opposed to people or policy -- when this goal is reached it sets the golfer into the terrain, and all terrain is unique
5. Routing that has directional changes, but not too overtly contrived -- Again, I suggest that contrived is not good
6. Routing that gives peeks to forthcoming areas of the course, special views, landscapes, etc. -- views are among the most overlooked of all routings
7. Routing that works in harmony with other components of its locale, creating a feeling that the golf course is near to being seemless to things around it -- unfortunately not all courses are apart from the world -- and in the case of TOC, especially Nos. 1, 17 and 18, this is one of its charms.
8. Routing that has appreciable elevation changes, even if nominal -- essential, but to varying degrees.
9. Routing that is interesting by way of its variation of hole lengths, types, bends, and strategies -- but again, re-read "1" above!
10. Routing that does not break cardinal rules (e.g., opening holes into the rising sun, finishing holes into the setting sun, unsafe setbacks, etc.) -- I cannot think of much good reason to break these "rules"; it was even popular in the beginning of the game to adhere to certain orientations

Thanks for the comments. Hope this helps clear up some of my thoughts.

[RJ_Daley]

I don't have much to add to the enumerated rules of thumb by the above highly experienced architects.  In reading their comments and then considering the question of whether personal rules of thumb in routing could cross over into the formulaic, I began thinking of Pete Dye courses.  I haven't played nearly enough of them to speak authoritatively, yet those that I have played or watched on TV appear to be highly formulaic.  For instance his tendancy to end with 5-3-4, with the last hole often a bite-off tee ball and a cape or psuedo-cape like green.  He often has long waste or bunker areas down the sides of fairways that require RR tie steps to get down into and out of.  His green angles in relation to line of play are fairly recognizable.  And, it seems Pete is not afraid to move heaven and earth to get these formulaic features and routings if need be, regardless of the natural terrain.

Yet, there is pretty strong consensus that old Pete is one of our greatest archies.  Does he get a pass on breaking some of the rules of thumb about routing that are pointed out above?

[GRAMPA (Guest)]

R.J.

I was just thinking along the same lines. Pete Dye in my mind was actually being extremely creative in some of these cases.
He used a type of formula and moved serious amounts of dirt to create the feature that Forrest continues to talk about. I was going to ask Forrest if he has ever had to create a unique feature on a site that was "boring". There are 3-4 qualities that point to special features to play over and around, but what happens when there aren't any features. Or do you simply "pass" on the project. I feel that Dye took on some of these projects and was successful in creating interest. Sometimes I wonder if all of this talk of "finding" natural golf holes and matching certain qualities as it pertains to the existing topography is practical. What interests me the most are architects and their respective projects that force the architect to get creative with the ground. The creating of interesting landforms that allows the landscape and golf architecture to form a unique golf course. It seems to be easy to follow criteria on a good piece of ground but these parcels appear to be shrinking at a rapid rate. The fascinating part of the process is hear how architects create features to route the golf course over, through and around.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Being a layman and not having to worry about the practical considerations of a routing like safety, wind direction, clubhouse location, etc., my thoughts on routing are strictly from a playing/enjoyment point of view based on my golfing experience.

For me the most important criteria when evaluating a routing: does it get the most out of the natural features of the site. Do the strategies of the individual holes hinge on interesting natural features: hollows, ravines, banks, slopes, mounds, hills, undulations... Continual use of interesting contours of the ground that effect the roll/bounce of the ball (and stance). The use of natural hazards like ravines, broken ground, streams, etc. Does the course have a variety of interesting green sites up-slopes, bowls, saddles, ridges, level ground... The more natural features a site possesses and the more they are incorporated into the design, the more character the golf course has in most cases. The more natural features are relied upon, the more distinctive the course will be.

I also believe that those features should be utilized in a variety of ways, for example a ravine or barranca (or ridge) should not always be attacked perpendicularly, they should also be approached at a diagonal, or parallel and or even through if them if the valley is wide enough.  The result hopefully is that each hole has individuality. In fact after maximizing natural features, variety would be my other most important criteria in my book. Variety of lengths, variety of types of holes, variety in shot requirements, variety in hazards, variety in green sites.

It also seems to me that the most interesting courses all have very strong par-3s, there should be a concerted effort to find as many strong short holes as possible. A strong set of memorable one shot holes, goes a long way.

Another under-appreciated factor is finding visually stimulating backdrops and vistas.

After utilizing natural features and variety, obviously you'd want a golf-course that is balanced, has sufficient length, changes direction (this basic consideration would take care of itself naturally unless you find yourself with the most simplistic routing). I also think that the more spectacular the site, the more likely the good architect will sacrifice some of the principals of balance and length in the name of more important goal: uncover the most interesting golf holes. In fact in analyzing the ideal golf course and identifying the ideal routing characteristics, one should not strive for perfection or be afraid to break rules, all great routings are imperfect in some way...that imperfection makes them more interesting and adds to their charm.

Perhaps the best test of a good routing: would the course be interesting if you removed all man-made hazards.

[Forrest Richardson]

Of course, Tom, there are some excellent examples of routing where everything has been created by machine. This gets to the heart of "Site Selection", an oft overlooked aspect of routing. I feel that the most wonderful courses are certainly those where someone -- even if not the golf architect -- had a hand in determining, from a golf perepsctive -- exactly which parcel of land might make for a good course. A true artist chooses his canvas, he is not given it always, already devised, in a ratio not suited to his mood, nor in a frame or shape or scale not suited to the mood.

[grampa (Guest)]

Tom

You make excellent references but what happens when you get a good piece of ground that doesn't contain all these wonderful features. How many sites in the world have ravens, streams, elevation changes, broken ground and green sites that allow for all possible variations. These features need to be created. I think you would be surprised how boring some of the golden age courses would be if you removed all the man made features.
How do you feel about creating these features? Forrest has some wonderful ideas on routing a course through interesting ground but how would you go about routing a course on a rather boring site?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

In my opinion there is a difference between a good routing and a good plan. If a course is completely (or largely) machine made and it has some of the chacteristics you identify as important in a routing, I would call that a good plan. IMO a routing necessitates collaborating with nature.

As an example if a golf architect is given a good site and decides to ignore the site and create everything by machine. And the result is a plan that meets your ideals of a good routing, is it well routed? Not in my book because he ignored the natural site, a good routing should mazimize nature and minimize the art. Natural features are invariably more interesting than anything man can produce.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()