What Makes a Course Design Great

[tulefog]

I was going to ask Iacas this question in the thread about Pasatiempo, but I thought it was a little off topic. Iacas referred to himself as a "design geek." My question is, what makes the design of a golf course great? Of course, we all appreciate the natural beauty of surrounding areas and well tended course conditions. My question is, all other things being equal, what makes the design of one course great and another mediocre?

[andymane]

Well of course like you stated, the way it looks is always the first thing you notice. But for me i think its things like, elavation changes, sloping fairways, layout of hazards, i like a course that really makes you think about your next shot. and i also like courses that make you utilize EVERY club in the bag. yeah its nice to stand on the tee box of a hole that has a huge fairway and minimal hazards, but i also appreciate being forced to use something other than my driver from the tee, makes you better as a player i believe. cant wait to hear what the other think a great course consist of.........

[saevel25]

So to me the great courses, don't penalize you for a good shot. They don't force perfect drives on each hole, but you must be rewarded if you do hit the shot. Emphasis on approach shots, being below the hole, sometimes knowing when to go for the pin or not. Greens that have character. For me the best course i ever played was brookside in canton ohio, amazing design by donald ross, the greens make the course, which i like. Courses like TPC sawgrass are nice, but to me there gimmicky in a way. I like Pete Dye courses, but he puts to much emphasis on mistakes, precision golf is fun, but the classics to me are still the best. I still got to play a Fazio or Robert Trent Jones courses. Gary Player does a good job on courses as well. Never liked Jack's courses, he put to much emphasis on driving of the ball, if your just a bit off its almost like an automatic double. Still Donald Ross's Brookside is my top right now, just amazing. Doesn't penalize you with the drives, but rewards you if you hit a very good shot off the tee. The key is the approach, knowing when to go for a pin or not, knowing were to miss if need be. Then the adventure starts on the greens, greens that run off on the edges, large greens that undulate, have character. I had the funnest putting day of my life, made two 30+ foot birdie putts, one a double breaker. Just so much fun.

[bwdial]

For me, great design is more about what an architect does with the land that is there. There are plenty of courses that are monuments to earth moving equipment and railroad ties. I prefer courses that seem like they've simply been poured onto the land. Of course, it isn't just the aesthetics of the course. It also needs to be challenging, but at the same time, it should be fair. Par threes over 220 yards are okay, but they don't necessarily need to be over water to an island green. Also, forced carries that would be nearly impossible for tour pros are best saved for them. If every tee shot to a par four or five requires me to carry the ball further than my longest drive rolls out on a firm fairway with a stiff tailwind, I'm not going to appreciate the design.

[golfro]

good design to me is the right balance between all these factors:
- difficulty/challenging design without being tricked up
- natural looking
- visually intriguing
- plays with variation for different clubs off the tee
- plays with variation for different approaches

[jamo]

It's all about options. Giving you different ways to play holes. It's about breaking out from the norm, making you say "oh, I've never played a hole like that before, I would have never thought of it." I think a great example of this is George Wright Golf Course in Hyde Park, Boston. It is in a city, so it's pretty condensed and not very long, and it's 80 years old and not very expensive, so the upkeep isn't amazing (though better than what you would expect). But it's a Donald Ross design, with numerous dome greens and lot of great architecture.

The 6th hole is 395 from the back (blue) tees, and about 10-20 yards closer from the middle (white) tees. The drive is flat, but there are woods left and trees right separating it from the 5th hole. There are a few bunkers on the left between the woods and the fairway. The beginning of the fairway is pretty wide, but about at the 150 mark it pinches in from the right. Where is pinches in the tree line runs about 45* to the fairway, and the tree line is lined with several bunkers. To top it all off, there is a large tree overhanging the right edge of the green, and the green is heavily sloped with a bunker short and left. If you play it right, there is a large slope right of the green than funnels to the green. But you need to be careful because there is also a bunker short and right. And to top it all off, there is a tree just to the right of the tee box that can come into play on bad shots.

This hole is great because you have options. It's fairly long, but you can take a driver and try to bomb it. You run the risk of the trees on the right and the woods on the left. If you do go into the woods on the right you have zero angle to the green because of the trees.

If you lay up you will have a longer second shot and it's still not easy. If you lay up right you again have no angle to the green, and would have to hit over trees. You also risk the right bunkers. If you go left you risk the bunker and the woods.

Basically you always have options, but no matter what you will be punished for bad shots. The awesome thing to me is that you get punished not by huge rough or ridiculous length, but by architectural design.

Here is a picture of the hole, I circled the tee because it was tricky to see.

[golfro]

here's one of my favorite holes. bunker in the middle forces you to decide, either hit it long, be dead accurate to the right or left, or hit it short and lay up.
think about your approach shot. hit it short and spill it right/left, you end up in bunker...
you have to be accurate on this hole.

[iacas]

It's different for different people.

Some people like drama - forced carries, water, cliffs, big bunker lips. Others like more playability where any ability can get the ball to the hole eventually.

Some people like options. Others like to be required to hit a certain shot and be rewarded if they pull it off.

Some like a mix of all of the above, but in different proportions to others, perhaps.

Virtually everyone favors the course they grew up playing or the course on which they currently play the most.

[leo3]

I agree with iacas, different strokes for different folks. My criteria for a good course is

1. Variety of hole design, doglegs left and right, uphill and downhill approach shots, varying length on par 3's and 4's, etc.

2. Visual intimidation, bunkers and hazards that may not actually be in play for a good shot, but guide you where to play your ball.

3. No hidden trouble, the hole is right there in front of you, no surprises

4. Challenging green complexes, lots of contours, lots of short game options

These preferences are most likely influenced by the courses at my home club, a mixture of Donald Ross, Tom Fazio, and Ellis Maples courses.

[Fat Slice]

There are many different kinds of players and I feel that the best layouts present a fair challenge to all of them. For example, bunker and dogleg positions should create a fair risk/reward from all tee boxes if possible. A well-designed course will give a great reward to a great shot but still give a good reward to a good shot (when a safe line is attempted). The best layouts will give a good reward to a good safe shot, but will penalize a 'good' shot that's not a great shot when going for the great shot (and great reward).

Any course will reward a decent shot, that's the nature of moving the ball toward the hole. I like a course that makes you think "What's different about this hole/shot?" and if you figure it out you have an advantage.

Aesthetically, flowing with the terrain is always nice - Callippe Preserve in Pleasanton, CA is a good example of this, as is Roddy Ranch in Antioch, CA. I tend to enjoy 'optical illusions' where things seem longer or shorter than they really are. GPS and rangefinders have taken some of the fun out of those layouts, but then again once you play a course a couple of times you figure it out anyway.

Since I play a LOT of courses, I can say that the mature vision of a course, where the tree have grown in fully, is always nicer than the new course with small staked trees.

A good design does not have internal OB stakes. A good design does not have 'tricked up' greens or two layups on the same hole. And while this isn't part of the design of the course, the greenskeeper can wreck a good hole with a stupid pin placement. If a course is lucky enough to be able to present stunning views, that's great! That's combination of design and location. You can stand on a few of the tee boxes at Mauna Lani and just stare out at the course and the horizon and forget about teeing off.

[MSchott]

For me, great design is more about what an architect does with the land that is there. There are plenty of courses that are monuments to earth moving equipment and railroad ties. I prefer courses that seem like they've simply been poured onto the land.

Completely agree. Read Tom Doak's book on golf course architecture. His favorite early design is his High Pointe course in Northern Michigan. He moved little land and had great natural green sites.

In many ways the typical mini course is a good example of using the land as it lays as they didn't have huge construction budgets. Also, the architect needs to use the land to its best advantage. Elevated tees are good and water should be strategic not penal. Donald Ross courses are my favorite to play. The courses are fair yet offer many options and the strategies are right in front of you.

[saevel25]

For me i hate true doglegs, ones that really come close to 90 degrees left or right. I think there bland, you can't see the hole out, your forced to hit a certain distance than have the exact same distance in. to me there just used to fit to a piece of land. Thats why i will protest playing salt fork in ohio again, its dogleg after dogleg, just annoying.

Pete Dye courses are fun, kinda gimmicky to me, i think. They tend to have alot of water, very pleasing to the eye, but its precision golf. Its fun once in a while, but nothing i would like to play all the time.

I do like courses that fit the land, minimal disturbance, i think they fit better visually to the eye if they don't seem out of of place.

I agree, right now Donald Ross tops my list. He gets you with elevation changes, slight. Most of his greens sit above the fairway for runoff of water, so you always have to be careful or you might end up catching a half club short and then your in trouble hitting alot of false fronts.

[jamo]

I think I have another few good examples. The 4th hole at TPC Boston was totally gutted and redone a few years ago, I believe by Brad Faxon after Arnold Palmer designed the course originally. The 4th is only only 298 yards from the Championship tees (where the Pros play from) and 254 yards from the Black tees (where I've played from). Most pros play it with a 3 wood or a driver, and it was the same for me.

The first time I played there I hit a 3 wood over the 3 bunkers on the right into the collection area, and the second time I hit it just short of the far left bunker. My next shot that time was an attempted flop shot, but I flew an extremely skinny green, and it flew into the same collection area. From there it is next to impossible to get to a front pin. The front of the green is shaped such that on the right side there is a tall lip, but if you get over it it funnels to the hole. On the left side of the green it slopes to towards the rough, and towards the left bunker. Because there is a lip on the right side you can't really bump and run it, but because it slopes towards the bunker you need to get it to stop fast. A flop shot is really the only option. Both times I was unable to hold the green and it went into the bunker. This hole is great simply because it is just so hard to get to that green. It even gives you the smart option of playing away from the pin to the back of the green, taking your medicine.

Because of the water about 100 yards from the flag, the 5th hole is also great. It's 465 from the Championship tees and 375 from the Blacks. But because it is all downhill on the tee shot it plays shorter. The problem is, if you lay up you might not catch the downhill slope, which would leave you way short. Basically, this hole is great because you need to hit the perfect club the perfect distance to take advantage of the hole.

Here is a picture, the top one is the 4th and the bottom is the 5th: