Land Ho!

The american style of course is becoming more and more prevalent in new designs, particularly in the inland areas of the UK where ideal golf land might be less available. But are they really appropriate in the UK. Or sustainable?

An american style of course is typified by large numbers of water hazards and heavy bunkering coupled with excessive watering. Add to this a tendancy to build the greens and tees to 'USGA' standards is all of this really right for a british countryside course? Often the grasses used are imported from an inappropriate location and are not native to the UK. And as such a competition ensues in which neither is the winner and the golfer is often the loser due to the poor surfaces such competition for growth creates.

So why do designers, even european designers, continue to build these pointless homages to amercian excess?

We as an understated nation of people don't need a course which is more water than grass. There are more than enough features to be found in the countryside to create a challenge without resorting to a water feature, complete with fountain, on every hole.

so Americans. Pointless.

Have you been indoctrinated by Mac?

Can't wait to see what the new course at Kessock looks like when the Scottish Open comes along.

They imported tonnes of sand to form a 'links' feel on a non links site.

It is strange that the Americans now wish to build wild scottish type courses in the USA whilst the dippy developers in the UK wish to build old fashioned USA style courses.

Not all of them, but many do look totally out of place.

LJ

Do you not mean modern american style courses. I think you will find the classic courses did not have the features of which you speak. Spain and the rest of Europe are just as guilty, as well as us. After all we have had the likes of the belfry for probably 40 years.

The penal school of thought has been prevalent around the world at least sine the 50's/60's. Cannot just blame the americans.

We are fed a diet of lush, green manicured American courses on TV, and that's what people begin to expect here.

It's a sad state of affairs, because when you go to golf days at lovely courses like Swinley Forest or Worplesden or Hunstanton or Sunningdale or Gullane or Prestonfield, people say things like 'it needs a lake in front of the last green', 'the bunkers are too deep' or 'the fairways are too undulating'.

You can't educate pork I guess.

Can you imagine how boring and how one dimensional our golf would be if all we had were Links courses.
You might not like these new American style courses (and no one is forcing you to play them) , but variety makes things that little bit more interesting and challenges your game in different ways.

SR

No one, and especially not me, is saying that all courses should be links courses but overly penal design is not how to make a great course. There are many examples of modest inland courses that demonstrate how it should be done.

I've played a lot of courses in my time and I've never played one that I would call overly penal.
There seems to be this notion that American style courses are overly difficult and unfair when in truth many are very easy courses indeed.

I have however played good and bad examples of all types of course, there is no template as to what makes a great course, it's horses for courses.

super_realist wrote:I've played a lot of courses in my time and I've never played one that I would call overly penal.

I would think that nudist golf course would be a be too penal for me

SR

Well in some ways there is a template, many designers use template holes inspired by the great holes on the great courses. Some concepts are classic and will always work.

For example: Redan's, cape holes, road holes etc

super_realist wrote:Can you imagine how boring and how one dimensional our golf would be if all we had were Links courses.
You might not like these new American style courses (and no one is forcing you to play them) , but variety makes things that little bit more interesting and challenges your game in different ways.

A fair point! And there is also the little consideration of the land available to build new courses on. You can't build a links or heathland course on old farming land 50 miles from the sea. So it's really a question of making the best out of the land you have available. You could build parkland courses but then you'd have to wait 50 years for all your little saplings to grow into trees before the course would be anything like the designer intended.

I'm not the biggest fan of american style courses either but there are some decent ones such as The Oxfordshire and East Sussex National. Not played The Grove or the big money one near Middlesborough but they are supposed to be very good also.

What makes a good hole is subjective though Mac. Simply because it is on a Links course, is 300 years old or came from the mind of Braid doesn't make it great, similarly an American type hole drawn on the back of a fag packet doesn't necessarily make it bad.
For example you see the 18th at TOC as a classic hole, my opinion is that it's a spectacularly dreary finishing hole, completely inappropriate for a championship climax. Whereas there are some matchplay holes on the Belfry which help create excellent drama due to the risk reward element.
Neither of us are right to state any hole is good or bad as it's merely an opinion.

One man's meat etc.

The best looking courses USPGA style, links style, parkland etc, etc, etc are courses that were designed/planned to fit into the existing comtours, topography and natural surrounds. 'Creating' an unatural course is like marrying a stunner and on your wedding night finding out she's had surgery - PLASTIC -

I would be hard pressed to suggest there is a specific American style. For every forced featured, over-watered, housing development course, there probably exists a classic from the golden age of golf course architecture (1900 to WW2), that make terrific use of the land/features available.

Also, there is no way to not build a "forced" looking course in the American Southwest. Ever been to Scottsdale? It's a big country with some vastly different climates and terrain.

Never occurred to me that there's an "American style" of course, though some shown on PGA Tour event coverage can appear stereotypical.

From the UK point of view there is a very obvious american type of course.

And most often they are likened to those which are shown on the tv broadcasts. Long, flat, lots of water, lots of bunkers, and one dimensional in nature of the shots required.

The game clearly went through a major expansion in the 60's and the courses that were thought to meet the needs of an expanding golfing public seem to have been the water laden manufactured layouts.

We may see many of these type of layouts on the PGA tour but I don't think we can label them exclusively as "american". As shotrock points out there is a great variety in the US, maybe even more so than in the UK due to a wider range of environments.

I guess the root of these designs may lie with the likes of Robert Trent Jones, but he was born in the UK after all!

As golf grew so did the amount of courses getting built on naturally unsuitable land, did the architects copy those of the US or do the only thing possible. In most cases opt for a lake to make up for lack of design inspiration.

Ever played a Trent Jones course Mac?

He's better than Doak. In fact Doak isn't worthy to lick his bootheels.

Kapalua?
Waialae?
Torrey Pines?
Pebble Beach?
Quail Hollow?
Innisbrook Copperhead?
Harbour Town?
Just to suggest some played in the first dozen or so events on Tour.
You'll see completely different characteristics at Congressional and Aronomink, not to mention Plainfield, TPC Deere Run, Greenbrier and Cog Hill still to come.
Would say each of the above has characteristics entirely in keeping with their terrain (very flat obviously at Waialae and Harbour Town, but not the rest) and a minimum of penal water.

Please don't judge every course by the TPC benchmark, of which you'll see another poor example this week.

I don't necessarily agree that american courses (or TPC layouts) are poor by any stretch of the imagination. I learned the game on a course that has huge bunkering and water on some 13 or 14 holes.

I don't understand what is so wrong about a course with water on it?
No different to any other hazard, as in it's down to course management to make sure you avoid it.

super_realist wrote:I don't understand what is so wrong about a course with water on it?
No different to any other hazard, as in it's down to course management to make sure you avoid it.

Excessive water can be harsh compared to excessive bunkering from the average players point of view.

Difference is with the inability of most to get out of a fairway bunker with any degree of success the drop from water will usually end up costing less strokes.

Fewer strokes LJ, surely. Tut Tut.

Long, forced carries over water (or other unplayable hazard, hotel grounds?) are bad design features anywhere in the world, unless there is a bail-out route.

super_realist wrote:Fewer strokes LJ, surely. Tut Tut.

Are you saying I don't talk proper?!

I'm sure there are many in the US that think UK courses are mostly links, with driving wind and pot bunkers as their primary defense. The reality, of course much different and stereotypes are always worth battling.

LJ - I assume you are just winding things ups with your Doak comment. He's, as you probably know, done some exceptional work and is very well regarded.

Are they any worse than bunkers with vertical revetted faced bunkers in fairways where you can end up with no shot whatsoever?

I agree with bad design in terms of the architect not providing an option to take the water out of play with good course management, but bad design isn't restricted to water.

One thing to bear in mind is that in southern Europe and many parts of the US, lack of rainfall means that lakes are a necessity to collect and store water to irrigate the course. It therefore makes sense to make use of these lakes and incorporate them into the design of the course, especially if the land in question is flat and featureless.

When you talk about US style courses in the UK do you mean tracks like The Oxfordshire?

Just curious as to what you mean. The only other I can think of that I've played that might fit the category is the lesser course at Hawkstone Park (though people maybe don't know that one)

There are lots of them.

Usually anything with 'National' in the title will qualify.

Woolston Manor is certainly what I would term an american type course.

I would also say that somewhere like the London Club is very american.

I can probably think of more given a while to consider them

I think I know the type you mean LJ - just trying to put a name to an example of one I may have played

I actually have a problem with courses that label themselves as having greens to USGA standards.

What I read into that is bumpy and rudey poo with no real thought as to the suitability of the grass based on the soil in the area.

What the hell is wrong with R&A standards?

LondonJonnyO wrote:There are lots of them.

Usually anything with 'National' in the title will qualify.

Woolston Manor is certainly what I would term an american type course.

I would also say that somewhere like the London Club is very american.

I can probably think of more given a while to consider them

There are a few I've played and disliked, besides the Belfry: Carden Park, The Vale (Home of Welsh Golf) The Ping place in Lincolnshire, and plenty more

Would you describe The Shire as American style, even though it was designed by Seve (RIP)?

Not played it.... but it does look to make excessive use of water features with lots of forced carries from the tee.

raycastleunited wrote:Would you describe The Shire as American style, even though it was designed by Seve (RIP)?

I've played it, yes very much an American style course.

Although, because it's got 6 holes of each par it's good fun as there is plenty of variation.

looks fairly cheap at 50 quid a round as well

I think that US style courses are great for their purpose. I personally can't stand them and The London Club is a pet hate of mine but they are also generally set up like US courses on the service side of things. By this I mean a hotel, couple of restaurants, bag drop, buggies galore and most importantly great corporate membership!

I play a fair but of corporate golf and when you play a great course like Walton Heath or Wentworth the average corporate hacker cannot stand it because they cannot hit fairways so spend half the day rummaging in the trees and rough. With US style courses, a bad golfer can spray the ball all over the show because the course is more open and although there are loads of hazards, it is easier to stand in a bunker and take 3 shots out or drop another one down if it's wet than spend time looking for a ball.

As I said, I don't really like them but can appreciate how they offer a lot of golfers a more enjoyable day than other types of courses.

LondonJonnyO wrote:looks fairly cheap at 50 quid a round as well

from what i've heard £50 is either great value or a rip off... course conditioning varies immensely. when i played it last summer the greens were terrible at a time of year when other courses were top notch, however i have heard others rave about the set up. lots of forced carries... 5 of the par 3's are over water, enough to give mac a nervous breakdown.

if you like a challenge you can play it at 7000 yards+ off the back tees.

ray

we played it off the back tees, actually found it easier as there are lots of fiddly lay ups off the tees if you play from the yellows. Lots of doglegs and water that you can only hit an iron to avoid whereas from the back you can open your shoulders a bit with the big dawg

There is a middle road

Father Hawtree built some good courses in the 1960's, they were a cross between the 'traditional' and emerging USA designs.

When they mix and match it generally causes problems.
I remember someone puting a few new 'USA style' bunkers into Parkstone in the 1970's and they made a total horses behind of it.

drive4show wrote:ray

we played it off the back tees, actually found it easier as there are lots of fiddly lay ups off the tees if you play from the yellows. Lots of doglegs and water that you can only hit an iron to avoid whereas from the back you can open your shoulders a bit with the big dawg

good point... we played it off the whites. I remember hitting a 6 iron off the tee on the par 5 3rd, there was really no option to take a more aggressive route

one of the "american" features i dislike is the use of artificial, rolling mounding along the side of fairways. nothing natural about it, just makes you feel a little seasick. in the penal bunkers vs oceans of water debate, the penal bunkers allow greater opportunities for risk or reward holes. acres of water just seems a bit simple and rather dull if used excessively. whereas you can have combinations of different types of bunkers relevant to a single or sometimes multiple holes that offer a variety of challenges.

I like playing american style courses....when i'm in america that is.
I think too much articficial styling is going into all course design these days. Not many designers are using the natural surroundings effectively instead choosing to create man made hazards.

I've been lucky enough to play many courses in the states from Sawgrass to Doral, Riviera to Mertyle Beach, but the best course i've ever played out there and one that seems to have best use made of it's natural environment is Shinnecock. The focus these days seems to be to make stadium style courses like sawgrass and scottsdale. Yet the best courses are the ones that were there long before that not many are untouched though, I loved playing Riviera but would have prefered to play it without the bear trap that just seemed to ruin the feel of a good course.

Alas the Yankees seem intent on creating the hooyah atmosphere they get at the small ampitheatres like 17th Sawgrass and 16th Scottsdale rather than focusing on the course

Mav,
Was the "bear trap" at Riviera or at PGA National?

Sorry Kwini got myself muddled up there! All course muddled into one as I was trying to remember which i'd played! Must remember lay of the suace pre 3pm!

Grahame
Re rolling fairway moundings.... and old greenkeeper I know used to call them buried Loch Ness Monsters, there is a lot of them about.
About as natural as the swimming pool in front of the 18th green at Wentworth.

I beleive that when you design a golf course, you have to use as much of the natural features that are available, but in order to test golfers, then adding water features, and bunkering, to test golfers of all levels is vital to add to the pleasure of the course. If you wish to call it Americanism then fine, but thats the type of courses I enjoy.

Those who like to slag off the Bellfrey, would bet that none of them could play to their handicap on it, so to me it is a good test of golf, and thats what most golfers want.

George1507 wrote:We are fed a diet of lush, green manicured American courses on TV, and that's what people begin to expect here.

It's a sad state of affairs, because when you go to golf days at lovely courses like Swinley Forest or Worplesden or Hunstanton or Sunningdale or Gullane or Prestonfield, people say things like 'it needs a lake in front of the last green', 'the bunkers are too deep' or 'the fairways are too undulating'.

You can't educate pork I guess.

George: you can dress a sow in a fine silk dress, but you'll never stop it gruntin'