It’s not great if you have to fondle your balls too often

I have a theory that the length of time and frequency with which your ball spends in your hand is marker of how well designed the course you are playing is.

The first point is the length of time your ball is in your hand/pocket. This will be determined by the time it takes from the point you pick your ball out the hole to the point you tee it up on the next hole. You may touch the ball during a hole, but this time is short in comparison and will be covered by the frequency of which you touch the ball.

The main factor that will determine how long the ball is in your hand between holes is the distance between green and the next tee. I well routed course will not require long walks or even worse carts between holes as the architect will have been able to find a combination of holes such that inter hole walks are minimized. This in turn ensures a good flow and rhythm to any round played on the course and may also contribute to quicker rounds. A course is not just the best 18 holes on the site but rather the combination which maximises 18 holes as one entity.

The frequency of which you touch the ball is a marker of good architecture because you should almost always be able to play the ball as it lies. If long rough and large areas of other foliage are persistently too close to the playing corridors then the number of lost balls will increase. This not only stops players playing the ball as it lies, the most fundamental principle of the game, it contributes to slow play and reduced enjoyment for playing the game.

This is not just an initial design principle but also a philosophy in the continued maintenance of the course. Temptations such as letting rough encroach fairways so that balls are lost and fairway bunkers become bunkers in the rough must be avoided.

Other hazards such as water will also mean there is more chance that players have to place their hand on the ball should they have to take a drop. This does not mean water cannot be used but a safe option should be provided so that anyone not comfortable with the carry does not have to take it on.

The player is not really meant to touch the ball so it seems intuitive that this theory should be correct and that following it would result in more enjoyable and quicker rounds.

Mac, change the record. Talking about nothing but course design is so boring.
If you know so much about the subject and are so passionate about it, why don't you give up your civil service job and start your own design consultancy.

Super

That would be great but sadly my interest does not translate into talent or qualifications.

PS I dont work for the civil service.

s_r - just remember you don't have to read them

If everyone finds them boring and ignores them they'll soon drop off the front page. Conversely if others find them interesting then they have done their job

Either way if you don't like them, don't read them

Why not, although your views on course design are a bit closed minded and seem to be a bit too focussed on creating the "perfect" course rather than working with what is actually available in terms of money or ground why don't you start doing some designs on free software like Sketchup, or get a copy of AutoCAD and get in touch with a few companies.

It might get you out of your current dreary position.
Qualifications are not always a pre-requisite, especially in creative areas. Most artisitic types are not academic at all and baulk at having to write a few thousand words.
What have you got to lose.

Super

By making sure that you limit the distance between green to next tee then surely I am advocating using what you have even if it is not perfect?

If the budget is small then there is all the more reason to make the design as simple as possible without having to build path networks between holes.

I am confused about where you think I have said you should not work with the ground available?

The best position for tee and green are not necessarily near each other. Being too close can also cause bottlenecks on the course.
Therefore it might be necessary to have a bit of a walk. Obviously you don't want long distances but it's not really a big deal unless you are a big fat git who can't walk 18 holes without spewing his guts up.
I'd much rather have a 200 yard walk to the next tee if it meant a better hole than a 20 yard walk from the previous green.

There is also HSA legislation that dictates a minimum distance between greens and the next tee in order to minimise cross overs...

Maverick wrote:There is also HSA legislation that dictates a minimum distance between greens and the next tee in order to minimise cross overs...

I'm guessing that only relates to new build courses? The reason I ask is I looked at the 17th/18th holes at TOC last week and the 18th tee is practically an extension of the 17th green.

D4S. TOC has lots of greens and tees which are very close to one another (1&2, 5&6, 6&7, 7&8, 10&11, 11&13, 16&17 and 17&18) which is presumably why Mac thinks it's the golden rule of course design.

I haven't had a trip down to Old Thorns this year but someone was telling me the other day that they've re-ordered some of the holes there - if this is true, one of the reasons was probably to cut down on some green-to-tee walks. I seem to remember quite a walk from 5 to 6 and then somewhere in the middle of the back nine

The walk from the 11th to 12th at Kingsbarns is probably about 300 yards, perhaps more, but the 12th is one of the finest holes in the UK. I don't really see what the issue is or why greens and tees need to be close together.

D4S: thats correct, the HSA regulations apply to all courses now being built and don't quote me on this includes those built I think with the last 10-15 years give or take a year or two.

All courses that are older have had a levy put on their liability cover to allow for the fact there is more chance of someone being hit due to close proximatey.

I think the longest walk i've ever had between a tee and green is about 1000yards up hill....

Mav

Where was the 1000 yard walk?

Does anyone have any other examples of long walks between holes?

I think in Scotland we are lucky that long walks between holes are not that common.

One of the Donnington courses near Newbury (Donnington Valley or Donnington Grove, I forget which) has a LOOOOONG walk which actually goes over the A34 I think. Most visitors there take a buggy - some actually park the buggy up after the long walk/drive (it takes about 5 minutes in a buggy!), play the loop of 5 or 6 holes carrying, then pick the buggy up again for the journey back to the main part of the course

Mav
Saftey is not a planning requirement within a golf course, Cooncils can only advise.

I had to check some plans for an alteration at an Open Championship Course and there was a glaring saftey failing.
To be fair they quickly altered the plans ......but they could not be forced to.

Davie wrote:One of the Donnington courses near Newbury (Donnington Valley or Donnington Grove, I forget which) has a LOOOOONG walk which actually goes over the A34 I think. Most visitors there take a buggy - some actually park the buggy up after the long walk/drive (it takes about 5 minutes in a buggy!), play the loop of 5 or 6 holes carrying, then pick the buggy up again for the journey back to the main part of the course

Yes correct, I've played that course as well. It was indeed one of those names before changing it's name to Parasampia. I believe it may have since changed it's name back again. There is a long drive from the 1st green across the A34 to the 2nd, a loop of holes round to the 8th before an even longer drive back across the A34 to the 9th. Then there is a 3rd long drive to the 10th tee.

Not a bad course by modern standards but the layout makes it very difficult to play without a buggy.
I believe Kiawah Island also has a very long drive between 9th and 10th holes?

SR
I am getting the feeling that if Mac says "white" you'll say "black". There is a personal edge to these criticisms which I don't think is really necessary and to be honest is becoming a tad tedious.
Over long walks between green and tee are not a favourite of mine but sometimes they can be worth it if it leads to improved golf holes as a result. When you are as decrepit as I am it is great when the next tee is a short hop away....

There is certainly no personal edge GWS, I have similar disagreements with Diggers and latterly with Gael I'd still be happy to have a pint with them, although 4 hours in Mac's company might be a bit much.

Manor House at Castle Coombe has a deep valley running through the middle of the course. This leads to ridiculously long walks (a good 5 minutes... up hill) on the 4 ocasions you have to cross it. These 4 holes are spectacular, then you have about 4 other decent holes, however the rest of the course is pretty lame.

Davie wrote:s_r - just remember you don't have to read them

If everyone finds them boring and ignores them they'll soon drop off the front page. Conversely if others find them interesting then they have done their job

Either way if you don't like them, don't read them

Although I agree with these principles Davie, I have to say that these repetitive posts are becoming quite boring. I'm not saying you should take any action, it's just that Mac has become just like those evangelical people who don't stop talking about god and can't resist shoving their religion in your face every two minutes.

Gee thanks raycastle

So why is it ok for some people to only post about the pro game yet for me to post topics about course design is somehow an issue.

I just assumed we were all interested in playing better courses and why they were more fun to play.

Have no fear, your unfortunate comments will not stop me posting about topics I and others find interesting.

It's not the topics, but rather the continual (compulsive?) repetition of the same narrow view. It comes across as a bit obsessive.

But hey, feel free to post away. I'm not stopping you.

The ironic thing Ray is that for such a course design zealot he plays at a tinpot muni, rated a puny 4 on his beloved Doak scale.

I enjoy your topics McLaren.

The rules topics I think are boring though.

To each their own.

sorry if im way behind but what exactly is this "DOAK" scale?

Hendo,
It's some pointless, arbitary and completely unscientific scale that Mac judges every course on.
Curiously it rates the turgid, dreary Old Course as a 10, and the finest test in Open Golf, Carnoustie as a 9.

Basically it's a load of b0ll0cks and means absolutely nothing.

haha ok. ill see how it judges my home course before casting judgement

The Doak Scale

The Doak Scale for rating golf courses was invented by the American architect Tom Doak

The scale is deliberately skewed to split hairs between the good, better and the best, and is familiar to a large number of golf course architecture enthusiasts - two good reasons to use it for an exercise of this type. Here it is:

1: Very basic course; clear architectural malpractice and/or poor maintenance. Avoid even if desperate for a game.

2: mediocre course with little architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. (Play it in a scramble and drink a lot of beer).

3: about the level of the avg. course in the world.

4: modestly interesting; with at least a couple of distinctive holes or some scenic interest. Also reserved for some very good courses which are much too short or narrow to provide sufficient chalenge for low-handicappers.

5: Well above the avg. course, but the middle of this scale. A good course if in the vicinity, but not worth setting aside a day to visit.

6: A very good course, definitely worth a game, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn't disappoint you.

7: An excellent course, worth checking out if within 50-100 miles. You can expect sound design; interesting hiles; good conditions and a pretty setting; if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

8: One of the very best in the region and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but will make up for them with something really special.

9: Outstanding course. One of the best in the world with no weaknesses. Should see in your lifetime.

10: Nearly perfect. If you skipped even one hole you would miss something worth seeing. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get.

I've just googled some Doak scale courses, what a complete and utter load of rubbish!

The Belfry better than Monifieth

Royal Aberdeen, SA New and Saunton are all 5's which puts them below Wentworth (living on reputation)

Royal Worlington and Newmarket is a 9, I've spoken to people that have described it as a complete waste of time and money!

Then finally TOC, a 10. Better than Carnoustie, Sunningdale, Ganton, RCD

I guess the old saying, one man's meat is another poison holds very true when it comes to ranking golf courses

Exactly D4S. TOC as ten is absurd. If TOC was transported to Hull, Scunthorpe or some other armpit of a coastal town without any history it would probably be a 6 at best. Just goes to show that it isn't an objective review of courses at all.
Complete tosh from Doak.

Guys, I think you will find Doak himself has said he would probably rate all the courses differently should he carry out the exercise agian. He has also said it was a bit of fun for some mates and was never intended for wider publication. So if you want to believe it was ever meant to be anything else then go ahead.

I have certainly never said it was.

S_R - The Doak scale is absolutely subjective ... as are Robert Parker's, Broadbent's etc. rating of wine. Since when was he supposed to be "objective" about it?

From the courses he's rated that I've played, I have to say I pretty much agree with him. No right or wrong ... just opinions and some, from my perspective, more informed than others.

Never played TOC (was scheduled on 9/13/01). Look forward to it someday however.

Royal Worlington is a great course, tends to be put down by people who are sniffy about 9 holers.
The 6th [or 7th] is in my top 10 short holes.

Sr, I'm sure most of us don't need the benefit of being a course designer to know what makes a good course and by and large we'd probably all put a similar list together.
What most of us object to is that certain people treat it like some sort of gospel and some of the courses he's put above others not because of how good the course is, but due to other reasons such as history and sentimentality.
I've played TOC infinitely more times than Doak has, and only an idiot blinded by history would give it a rating of 10.

His criteria for 10 is: "Nearly perfect. If you skipped even one hole you would miss something worth seeing. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get."

You could miss out 14 holes on TOC and you'd still not be missing anything.

DOAK moron who thinks he is always right yet unsurprisingly rates the well known course high on reputation...

Doon interesting saying that as I'd heard through a good friend who has his hands in with Faldo design that they have been told HAS stipulates a minimum distance between green and next tee is possible he fed me a load of BS as we did have the discussion over a fine bottle of 18year old single malt...

The 1000 yard walk was at a course out in the states can't even remember the name of the place was in some backwater and only played it as we were delayed a day or 7! on coming home when the ash cloud struck britain

Mav

What makes you think that doak always thinks that he is right?

Super/mav

Why is it when i mention other minimalist architecs like coore & crenshaw you do not show the same hatred you show doak?

Yes I believe strategic and natural/minimalist architecture produces better courses but why is that so offensive to you?

Why do others saying they think the belfry or doral are great courses not cause you to come on here and spout hatred?

Are you totally unwilling to admit you may not understand golf course architecture and therefore do not understand what TOC has to offer and that the strategies of the holes are just brilliant?

I am sorry if my views that a simpler form of the game would be better for all offend you but it will not stop me posting my opinion.

Mac please spare me the lesson....

Doak why do I despise him so much, maybe because the way he and you to a large extent spout what he classes as good golf course architecture as gospel and the almost divine and perfect based on his DOAK scale.

As for TOC it is not a case of not understanding it at all, I've played it many times in varying conditions in firendly and competitive play and just do not see it as the so called all encompassing test of links golf you and others claim it to be.
In fact it pales in comparrison to many other links courses that are on the Open rota and many that are not. Its not even the best course at St Andrews! If St Andrews did not have the history it does I doubt it would still be hosting the Open.

Rather than stating we do not understand the course maybe you should consider another view for a change we simply don't rate it as "all that"

I'd $uch rather play Porthcawl or Pprt Rush, RSG even Hoylake!

This debate will never really move on, simply because TOC *is* The Old Course.

Not everyone is caught up in the emotion and sentiment of TOC, but it's a plain fact that many people are.

If you were to ask me one course in the world that I'd like to play, I may take into account courses like Augusta National - simply because it is virtually impossible that I'd ever get the chance.

If you take away that "impossibility" criteria, then pretty much top of my list is TOC - simply because of what it represents. Yes I know what people say and I've seen with my own eyes (on TV at least) that maybe TOC isn't "all that" - but it has one thing that few other courses have. The history.

The debate may well work better if TOC is left out of the ratings, but for the sentimentality reason alone, people will never agree on the Old Course

Mac, Like I've said before, I've probably played TOC more times than any other person on this forum. Certainly more than you and Doak combined. I've played it since I was 12, from a 20 handicapper shooting over 100 right down to shooting 68's on it from the medals, in winter, summer, morning, evening wind, rain, snow or shine. I've seen virtually every position on the course it's possible to see.
The simple fact is i DO know it better than you, and while I enjoy playing it, that doesn't make it well designed or a great course.

The holes that have absolutely nothing to them and present no challenge are as follows.
1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10, 13, 15 and 18.
Can you name any supposedly world class courses that have so many dud and forgettable holes? I wouldn't even put TOC in a Fife top ten, let alone a UK one.

As for why I don't jump up and talk about The Belfry or Doral? Well probably because I haven't played them so how can I comment? Although it doesn't stop you talking about The Castle and you haven't played that, so I doubt you've played Doral or The Belfry either so how can you talk about them?

Just in case you ask why I play TOC if I don't like it, I do actually enjoy it and I do think it's a "good" course, but basically it's because it's good for your confidence, because you can score well even if you are playing poorly. I can hit the ball anywhere virtually and I'll still have a shot. It's a course that helps you get your game back on track. There probably isn't a course in the world where it's possible to hit such a high % of GIR so easily.

However if I want a real challenge, I'll play either the New (which has many more well designed holes than TOC) or the Jubilee (which requires every shot of the last 6 or so holes to be precise)

As for Mav or I knowing nothing about course design, simply quoting Doak and other contrived books doesn't mean you do either. You've always shown yourself to be a crowd follower with your love of Tiger Woods and Manchester United, for all we know you are merely hamming up TOC because you think you are supposed to say it's great. It isn't. As always say you wouldn't be so complimentary about it if it was in Hull. In fact plant it next to any good links course and it would be the number 2 every
time.
You always say the Castle is a dreadful piece of design, but the last three holes in particular would have someone like you climaxing in your pants given the different number of ways in which they can be played, but as you haven't played it you'll never know so you just pretend it isn't any good because being a "contrived" course it doesn't sit well with your Doak indoctrination.

Just admit you are dazzled like so many are by the history, rather than by the course. There's no shame it that's the real reason you love it. I'd probably feel the same if I wasn't local, but the benefit I have is that I can see it as a golf course, and not a piece of history, because the history has never meant anything to me.

Davie, as I've just alluded I take your point about history, but we're talking about what makes it a quality course and it's design. TOC is exceptionally average in this aspect. It's like saying Notts County's ground is the best because of the history, yet we don't hold the FA Cup there, and people don't go dewey eyed over it.

Super

You clearly base a course purely on whether it is of championship standard. Fair enough but we will never agree with your thoughts on TOC. You should also leave the argument that putting TOC in a scummier town would make a difference, well no it wouldn't.

Also if it is such a terrible course then why did the following architects value the design principles of TOC so highly;

Old Tom
Tillinghast
Doak
Alister MacKenzie
Colt

And many, many more.

Funny how they know what it offers yet you, who has played it so often, still cannot see what lessons can be learned from TOC.

Davie if you want to play a course for its history then by all means take in TOC and what the town of St Andrews has to offer, but it really isn't that great a test of your golf. You would be able to say yes I've played it and that's something even I wanted to be able to say at one stage but having been there a few times I can state I'm not that impressed. IMO only about 4 holes are a test even in a howling wind and I've played it at its full championship length...

If you want to play a good course in Scotland on the open rota go for Carnoustie that is a damn fine links and will test even the best golfer as it has shown over the years.

Golf course design really is a personal thing even to the designer as long as they put something together that both they and the person paying his wages put something together they think is a fine test then to them that's a good design doesn't in anyway mean it is though.....

Mac quoting names of peolple/designers who think its good doesn't mean it is that is just there opinion! Mackenzie also thinks Augista is a master piece when that is a clearly flawed design! Oh and he based parts of that on TOC and that's in his own words! Good golf course design is down to one thing personal opinion and throwing names at it doesn't improve it nor should it change one's mind on it unless of course your are a sheep!

Mac, When have I said that? I've got lots of courses that I love that are nowhere near Championship standard. Some of them so quirky and short that most people would turn their nose up at, but they require such imagination and course management that they truly test your game.
AS for the different town scenario, there's a perfect example not 10miles away as the crow flies. Carnoustie. It's without question a better course in terms of both design and challenge but despite this isn't as highly rated by yourself and Doak. So you are probably being influenced by the history.
Give me Carnoustie over TOC anyday. It's like comparing the football and stadium of the Premier League to a provincial SPL club.

Speak to most people from St.Andrews (i.e those who know) and they'll say it's not even the best course in the town.

For the likes of Doak etc to castigate TOC would be career suicide. They know that the place is a virtual shrine to golfers, a mecca which most will never visit, so will never get to see how underwhelming it is. To praise TOC within golfing circles is merely currying favour.
It's like a TV broadcaster slagging off the BBC, just because they are the original broadcasters, doesn't mean they are the best, but they're given this respectful deference, despite their standards being well below what other broadcasters have offered.
Doak is a virtual nobody whose opinions don't really matter, but he's smoking crack if he thinks it's one of the top courses in the world. For those not local I'm sure the experience of playing it is better than the actual golf element, but that's a completely different thing.

Mav

How many of mackenzies key design features do you actually think are left on ANGC?

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/georgia/augusta-changes

You seem to be in the same "championship test" camp when it comes to design.

Davie

TOC is an absolute blast to play so go for it.

Can we all stop calling St Andrews 'the home of golf, blah blah blah'.

It is not.

There are plenty of courses and clubs who have a greater claim.

Newcomers to golf only relate to St Andrews because the R&A are based there. The R&A took over the running of The Open because Prestwick and HGEG could not be @rsed to deal with thon low life professionals and jumped up caddies. HCEG set up the rules of the game when they played at Leith Links.
First mention of golf in Scotland was at Perth North Inch and Linlithgow. First club Royal Blackheath, first clubhouse Mussleburgh.

Davie, next time you are up north, give me a shout. I'll play any course you like in addition to TOC such as the Jubillee, New, Castle or Kingsbarns and you'll see that history apart, from a golf perspective it's a really ordinary 18 holes.
The only holes which stand out are 2, 7, 11 and 17, and 12 might sneak in as a risk/reward tee shot.

You'll never see a more boring stretch than 8,9,10 in your life. While the tee shot at 1 and 18 will leave you wondering what all the fuss is about ( and that Mac needs sectioning)

Mac are you really that oblivious to the world that you cannot accept there are those of us that do not rate TOC. Just because it is TOC does not mean we have to fawn over it or dribble over it like a school boy over his first girly mag!

I'm not judging it by championship standards I've played may unknown course's that are far more challenging and cause more to pause for thought at how to play than TOC where you can literally just let rip with confidence that you always have a shot that's not links golf! Put TOC on even the kent coast and it would struggle to make top 10....

Doon has the nail on the head about home of golf to....

Also Doon Royal Blackheath great course, beautiful clubhouse and fantastic test of every shot you have in the bag

Mav, I'm of the opinion that if people think that TOC is the best thing since sliced bread then in my opinion it means they probably haven't played enough courses.

TOC is a bit like Cheryl Cole, much fancied, hyped , and talked about, but when you actually look at it, precious little substance, and nothing you couldn't find better elsewhere.

Also Mac on point of ANGC. Why do you think so many changes have happend from McKenzies origianl that was loosly based on TOC? Because it was a poor design....

SR. I'm with you on that there are so many courses I'd recommend over TOC to all and far more worthy of the green fee. To base opinion of how good a course is based on what it supposedly is rather than how it plays is crazy

Only played TOC once and totally agree with all comments on here from SR and Mav etc. Played it on quite a windy day and was pretty disappointed with my score of 77, which included 3 out of a green side trap on the 2nd!!

Was really quite disappointed after id played it as was expecting something in stature or difficulty as Carnoustie that ive played quite a few times. As others have said its like night and day.

Can see why all the pro's go so low on TOC as only defence is the wind or the bunkers.

Glad ive played it but says something yes id like to play it again but wont be rushing back to pay my 125 quid or whatever it is.