[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The thread analyzing the aesthetic appeal of Raynor got me thinking about the great courses occupying flat sites. Yeamans Hall and Chicago were two on relatively flat land that came to mind, they seem to be a combination of bold architectural features and untouched level ground that seems to work extremely well. The open grasslands of Chicago and the backdrop of the marsh at YH - what is it about Raynor's style and those particular flat sites that seems to work?

MacKenzie experimented on flat sites at Bayside and the Jockey Club with very bold mounding, bold greens, minimal bunkering, and an open architectural style which was a precursor to the hardly flat ANGC.

Garden City and Royal Worlington are two more that come to mind, and Gib's latest assessment of Chesessee Creek as bullet proof 9 (top twenty-five in the world) on very flat ground. (The antithesis to these courses is Shadow Creek which was built on a very flat site, taking its own unique approach and is universally praised)

What are some other great courses on flat or flattish sites, and what makes these courses great? Are there any common characteristics?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Perhaps the larger question is can a course on a flat site be truly great?  Or can it only aspire for very good?

[Chris Kane]

I'd venture to say that a course on a flat site can only be very good: blah architecture on an undulating site works better than blah architecture on a flat site.

An architect would have to do something pretty special to get some interest into a completely level site.

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

In terms of your last question, of course "flatness" should not disqualify any course from "greatness", if we were all (or any) completely objective.  Regrettably, we are not, and we let things such as "ambience" cloud our vision.

In terms of the former question, of the courses I have played, my favorite flat ones are:  TPC-Sawgrass, Hoylake, Carnoustie, Harbour Town, Royal Cinq-Ports-Deal, and , of course, the Old Course and the New Course.  Only one of those (Carnoustie) could even aspire to be truly "great."  Why?  I don't know!  Good question!

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom,

My assessment of Chechessee as a "bulletproof 9" was meant in reference to the Golfweek Modern Top 100 list. Top 25 in the world is a tough stretch - but Top 100 in the world would not make me blink.

As to flat courses, let us not forget Westhampton.

I'mn going to throw in one in the California Central Valley that was built on a fairly flat site and that is Stevinson Ranch.

Sometimes a flat site contains interest not in rolls on the property but in a more two-dimensional sense using  waterways, creeks and  bunkering to give the course some interesting geometry.

Succession is so close to being truly outstanding - and that site is absolutely flat. It is tough for a California wussy like me to get used to enormous repiles sunning themselves along the fairways though . . . .

That said, to echo the obseravations of Brains Goodale, I guess St. Andrews wins the prize, though Carnoustie is right up there.

[Brad Klein]

The real skill of a designer is to build something out of nothing. Nobody in the postwar era has done this better than Pete Dye.

Harbour Towne. Hilton Head, S.C., is by far his greatest achievement in this sense, but similar brilliance in shaping by lowering one edge and creating contour can be seen at: PGA West-Stadium Course; TPC-Sawgrass Stadium Course, Ponte vedra Beach, Fla.; The Golf Club, New Albany, Ohio; Crooked Stick, Carmel, Ind.; and at one of his unheralded achievements, Firethorn in Lincoln, Neb.

Anybody can take a rolling or pitched site and build a good golf course. But to create interesting shapes out of dead ground is really tough.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Talking Stick has bold bunkers and arroyos that make you forget sometimes how flat the Earth is on that site.  The eye looks for edges and features, sometimes they just happen to be 200 yards away.  It gives a wonderful open feeling with the sky, especially when it's blue.  Much appreciated by this Norwestern mud dweller.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Twisted Dune is the best example of making something out of nothing that I've seen in recent years, although it's about as "minimalist" as Whistling Straits.  Still, I found it to be better shaped and the created features tie in much better.  The attention to detail is truly superb.

[RJ_Daley]

Cassique was as flat as any site.  It was previously a series of tomato gardens.  I have only seen it, not played it, so I don't know how good it is.  But, it ain't flat anymore.

I can't wait for Doak's Lubbock, TX work.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

From what I have seen the more open the flattish course is the more interesting it becomes, although TPC and Harbour Town are exceptions. There something about the openess at Chicago that makes it seem less flat. Another common practice seems to be bold hazzards and greens.

[Paul Turner]

It depends what you mean by flat.  Rich's examples of Deal and St Andrews (parts of Hoylake and Carnoustie too) are only flat on the large scale, they're anything but on the playing scale.

Casa de Campo is generally flat.  Dye kept the interest on the inland holes by building a varied and great set of greens and a wide variety of bunkers, in position, angle and size.

[Jeff Mingay]

Brad Klein already made the point above, but Dr. MacKenzie may have put it best when he wrote, "The test of a good golf architect is the power of converting bad inland material into a good course, and not the power of fashioning excellent seaside material into a mediocre one."

I used this quote in reference to Donald Ross' subtely brilliant work at Essex and Roseland in Windsor, Ont. in my forthcoming Essex club history. The same quote could also be applied to Ross' eariler work at Detroit Golf Club.

He passed the test!

About 1928, Ross wrote, "In these days of steamshovels and modern improvements, it is possible to do wonderful things on flat, level country. I have come to the conclusion that I prefer to lay out a course on level land."

I've always considered this to be a very interesting quote from Ross.

Robert Hunter had similar feelings about flat land. In The Links (1926), he wrote, "Wholly flat land is rarely thought to be desirable for golf, and it is likely to be chosen only as a last resource. I am quite sure this is a mistaken view. Not only some of the most popular but some of the most interesting courses have been made on flat land."

I think Ross proved how easy it can be to lay out a solid courses. A good routing of 18 diverse holes, complimented by 18 unique, interesting green complexes is all you need.

Roseland is a great example of this fact. Between the tees and greens is basically nothing -- flat farmland with a few subtle humps and bumps; but nothing great. But the greens are so interesting and so unqiue from one another, and each and every hole is so different from the others, that the course is infinitely fun to play.

You're not going to compete in the "Wow Factor" category with the Fazio's of the world laying out courses on flat land in a Ross-style these days. But you will succeed in producing timless layouts; which, in the end, is best for the game...

[Jeff_Lewis]

Here is a radical idea...I would prefer dead flat to extremely hilly any day. Garden City, Seminole, Talking Stick, Royal Liverpool, Kingston Heath, most of the Surrey courses...all are on fairly flat terrain. A good designer can definitely put enough strategic interest into a level site...Overly severe terrain is almost impossible to design around and leads to the creation of courses designed for views instead of for golf.

[George Pazin]

Paul Turner beat me to it, so I'll just second his statement that TOC is only flat on a large scale. In fact, it seems to me that the wrinkled ground that it occupies is more conducive to interesting golf than some of the long rolling hills that are more conventional terrain, at least in the US.

[Tyler Kearns]

I believe C.B. Macdonald liked the prospect of a flat site, because without large hills regulating the routing plan, Macdonald could manipulate the lengths of the holes at will. This would ensure a variety of distances that would test all the faculties of the golfer, ie. use all the clubs in the bag.

[Richard_Goodale]

Paul and George

You are both right, of course, in that TOC, Carnoustie, Deal, etc. are not "flat" at the micro level, but then again, no golf course is, including all the others I and others have listed on this thread.  That was not the point, I think.  Rather, the point is can you build a great course on a site without the significant elevations changes which lead to great vistas and to golf holes or shots that take advantage of these changes?  I think that the answer is yes.

Rich

PS--George, glad to see you have moved back away from the dark side.  I was getting nervous too when you started agreeing with me!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

This topic doesn't seem to be all that much different than the "Raynor Pardox" topic except on this thread the subject is about "flat" or "level" sites. A lot of the discussion on the other topic involved NGLA which really can't be considered a flat or level site due to some of the extreme and unique topography of some of it. So I'm assuming that's the difference between these topics to you.

I noticed on this topic you ask what is so appealing about the bold architectural features on a flat site like Yeamans, Chicago and some of the others that are mentioned. You did say you thought the flat but open backdrops might have something to do with it I assume when you ask what's so appealing about them that you think they are. But then you say the antithesis is Shadow Creek.

Could you explain in as much detail as possible why you think a course like Shadow Creek on an almost dead flat site is not appealing while courses like Yeamans and Chicago etc on other dead flat sites are?

I hate to second guess you but would the primary reason be, in your opinion, because  on the other earlier examples (Yeamans, Chicago), only tees, bunkers et al and greens, for instance, were manufactured and the remainder of the land and the holes were left as they found them? Is that the primary reason you find one appealing and the other not appealing?

I would also totally, totally second the statements of those that made big distinctions between relatively level sites, dead flat sites devoid of any kind of interest on the ground, sites with lots of elevation change and particularly a site like TOC!

To me TOC is possibly the best example of a basically level site (very little elevation change) that might just have more NATURAL interest on the ground in the way of more low profile NATURAL features that are about the best that can be found for golf than any other site in the world. The land looks like someone crumpled up a piece of paper tightly and then straighten it out again. To see the old course in a low level aerial with the sun low shows it as one of the most NATURALLY FEATURE FILLED sites that can be found anywhere!

In this sense when you are speaking of Yeamans, Chicago et al and Shadow Creek too as "flat" or "level" sites, I'm assuming they are all about as much the antithesis of TOC as could be found in your opinion. Am I right?

So what do you find so appealing about a Chicago G.C. and so unappealing about Shadow Creek? Is it just the reason(s) I mentioned?

[Paul Richards]

Tom:
This thread reminds me of a previous one, because I know
I mentioned Evanston Golf Club near Chicago before.

Evanston is proof-positive of just what a great course
designer Donald Ross was.  

The course is so dead-flat, that you probably wouldn't need
to move any dirt to make it a parking lot for Wal-Mart.

But, because of Ross' genius, he made this flat site into
a very fun and interesting golf course.

[George Pazin]

Rich -

I think we're almost discussing 2 different things on this thread. There is flat, as in little elevation change, & there is dead flat, as in little elevation change & dead flat land. I think that land with little elevation change can still be fascinating if it has interesting small contours, while some sites with good elevation changes are more dull if the changes are too long & gradual. Here in western PA we have lots of elevation changes, but sometimes its good & sometimes it just means a tougher walk.

[Richard_Goodale]

Not necessarily so, George.  TPC-Sawgrass was built on dead flat land (actually a lot of it was under water) at both the macro and micro level, yet Dye manufactured some nice little elevation changes at both the micro and macro level.  C&C are in the process of creating some great golf holes at Friar's Head on an old potato field.  The "poofs" that we will find there are largely Bill Coore's creations, not god's (unless Bill is god!).

[ian andrew (Guest)]

Tom, to offer a possible answer to the question you posted about Raynor. I wonder if its the contrast he manufactured. The site is dominated by the wide sweeping horizontal lines of the land including many long unbroken views. His contrast is the sharp verticle edges of his architectural forms (bunkers, green sites). I feel that his forms do not compete with the natural flow of the land, therefore they blend best.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Just so you get your deities straight, "poofs" are not God's or Bill Coore's, they're Perry Maxwells and they're almost exclusively on greens by Perry. They just happen to be called "poofs" by Bill Coore. That word may have even popped into his head while explaining a very low profile little moundish affair on #10 green at GMGC. We were walking around looking at the green and he spotted one of the little things and said: "See that, that's classic Perry Maxwell, it's almost not noticeable but it sort of goes, ah, ah, you know, POOF!

Really good "Perry poofs" are wonderful and sometimes not particular apparent when putting and occasionally with the unaware can swing a ball as hard as the praire wind!

We do tend to take these little nuances as well as other architectural matters very seriously, though, and we should recognize that although some of the great architects like MacKenzie and Maxwell may have too, they also may have happened upon things in a far less serious, more mundane or even accidental way!

We know, for instance, that one nine on one of America's great courses which Alister proclaimed to Perry was an excellent nine, Perry had to inform him that it was, in fact, an excellent 8 hole nine! But no matter, we know that they both were able to manage a very cool uphill par 3 into the nine to complete it! What is not known, however, is whether they had to move the clubhouse to accomodate it or perhaps even Lake Michigan itself!

We know both MacKenzie and Maxwell may have been very quick studies architecturally, creating and conceiving of things extremely rapidly and also in and out of town like wraiths. We know Perry was an early morning designer and most of the rest of the day could probably be found at the local symphony orchestra!

Which brings up some interesting speculation! The real "poofmeister" may not have been Perry at all but his elusive "Forgotten Man" who carried out Perry's early morning instructions during the rest of the day when Perry was at the orchestra!

But anyway, "poofs" are some of the best green surface features there are and Coore is very good at them too. There's a fantastic one towards the center of PVGC's left #9 green, by the way!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Garden City


Yeamans Hall


Royal worlington


Seminole


Riviera

I'm not focused on what Raynor's secret for success was on flat sites, but what characteristics are common among many very good flat courses. Here are five examples of courses (or holes) built on what be considered generally flat sites. I agree with those who say they aren't really flat. The profile is level but the reason they are fun are their numerous smallish (and not so smallish) bumps and hollows. There is also a feeling of openness with these examples which I think lessens the feeling of flatness. If you are crammed in treed corridors like at Harbour Town, I think the flatness is magnified. They also seem to blend into their environments, you get a feeling they belong and have not been forced in. That may be a result of the architect accepting the flatness and working to create interesting hazards to set up excellent strategies. All these courses exhibit bold architectural features both bunkers and green complexes (that doesn't neccessarily mean elevated or built up). They are not all engineered in appearance or even above ground (in the case of Garden City's pits) but they are none the less bold adding to the interesting strategies they set up.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Although Seminole's topography is MUCH more rolling than
Evanston's, you get the idea of Ross's intelligence when
you look at the above picture, because this is the type of
look he gave to dead-flat Evanston, and pulled it off!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Nice photos and a particularly good spectrum for this topic. I think all of them look good but they certainly look very different from each other in many ways.

The Raynor and Ross holes have aspects of them that are noticeable manufactured--hard not to notice, in fact. Some of the overall lines of that manufacturing blend into the basic lines of the site well, others don't. Look for instance at the lines of the bunkering on #17 Seminole. Not only the horizontal top edges of the bunkering but also where the grass meets the sand both in front and in back on the bunkers and how those lines flow really well horizontally with the land! But the vertical faces don't at all and give both greens and bunkering a manufactured look!

Very much the same (and more so) with Raynor's hole. The top line of the green and both grass lines of the bunkers blend with the extreme horizontalness of the overall site but the green and the bunker faces are sharply manufactured up and extremely noticeable in an engineered context.

This certainly does a number of things to both the playability and the visual aspects of the green--it surely effects both playability and depth perception. What would you think of the look of the green if he'd dropped the whole green down to near the height of the sand? That might look extremely low profile and maybe even boring, don't you think?

But then what if he's kept everything at the same level and just made up for it in both the shape (the outside edges and angles of the green) in some varied and interesting ways? And maybe made the bunkering follow it or surround it in other interesting ways or maybe even the same way as it is?

That would effect both the playability and the visual aspects as well don't you think? And if he could get away with that in playability (strategy) it could also make the whole green and the bunkering too really blend in with the horizontalness of the site. He would have just designed out the ubrupt manufactured verticalness!

If he could have gotten away with that in both playability and visual proportion on such an extremely flat site, he may have then done something very interesting. I recognize that there are many other architectural considerations like drainage and such, even again playability and that the green is a pushup and to do what I'm saying might require sinking a pushup green, but we're talking degrees here to blend things and obviously it could be done somehow!

That Garden City shot is about the definition of everything blending into the lines of the site, in my opinion. That's about as minimal and natural as you can find and I actually remember thinking that when looking at that green and hole. It almost looks like the entire hole was just layed on the ground and in fact it might have been!

Worlington's hole looks to me real natural and it too might just be a "lay of the land" natural landform green and hole--the lines look like that to me.

But Thomas's hole may be the best of all to me because you can see what he did architcturally but he blended everything about his architecture into that natural hole site so well. All the lines of his manufactured architecture both horizontally, vertically and length-wise (distance-wise) blend naturally into that hole site. And the proportion of his features to the entire hole site are so wonderful too!

There is one interesting thing to me though about Thomas's hole. Although I've never played Riviera I did walk it very slowly and study it very carefully.

That broad bunker scheme across the front is very interesting to me. Architecturally I think it's doing some of the things that Gil Hanse has done on at least one and maybe a number of his par 3s.

I would just think that in a basic strategic context that broad bunker scheme should bow away from the golfer instead of towards him!! But if it did think how different it would make the entire hole look! It would sort of reverse some really beautiful proportion that seems to make the architectural features fit with and blend in naturally with the entire setting. Architecturally it might even be considered a strategic giveaway to proportion!

Gil, by the way, in this context, on a hole like #14 Inniscrone has an unusually long and large fairway running into the par 3 green site, far more than anyone would ever need to functionally play on. When I asked him about that he said it just created a much better proportion throughout the entire hole and made it all blend together naturally instead of having what might appear to be a segmented green site about 170yd out there!

The same was true in the restoration planning of GMGC. On our #14 I asked him if we just couldn't borrow some seemingly excessive fairway turf from the front of a long fairway strip on this 185yd par 3 and he said the same thing---although the front of this excessive fairway strip might not be functional for any of our golfers it did create the proper proportion to make the green end blend in better and also with the overall hole site.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()