Your ideal golf course.

If you were to design a course from scratch, have you ever thought of how you would like to lay it out? The standard modern 'championship' course these days seems to be a pretty standard par 72 with 10 par 4's, 4 par 3's and 4 par 5's. The par 3's are generally pretty long and most courses seem to finish with either a long tough par 4 or a par 5, often with water in front of the green.

If any of you have played The Shire (near Watford, just inside the M25) you will know that it has 6 holes of each par with no two consecutive holes being of the same par with the exception of the 9th and 10th which are both par 4's. I found this quite refreshing and also very entertaining to play. The only other course like this that I've come across before is the Red course at the Berkshires.

A pet hate of mine is the endless stream of modern par 3's that play overly long. I look at a 'short' hole as an opportunity to fire one in close and chase a birdie, not just smash a 3 wood and hope I end up somewhere near the green. That's what long par 4's are for.

So, should the '6 of each par' be used as a template for new courses, with at least one short hole that is no more than a flick with a wedge or 9 iron?

Can of worms there D4S, prepare for the Mac lecture

super_realist wrote:Can of worms there D4S, prepare for the Mac lecture

I know, just thought I would start up an 'interesting' debate

Interesting thread D4S and one that is literally open to personal opinion and fancy.

I haven't played the Shires but I have played both courses at the Berkshire, have to say the red is very interesting and offers a different take on golf and the composition of a course, but it is not as good a challenge as the Blue course, that is simply superb from a personal point of view.

When I was a kid me and the other juniors took part in a comp run by our pro where we had to design what we thought was our ideal course, you can imagine the types of holes he had designed, anaconda style bunkers Island greens and fairways you name it we had it. When you look back at that you think what the hell was I doing designing that crap.

If I was to do that now, i'd totally change my tack on how to do it. I think the best way look at any future designs would be look at what you class as a great course and how it plays then think what can those holes or little details do to add to anything you thinking of designing.

My personal preference would be go for a par 71 course, it wouldn't be overly long so club golfers would struggle but designed in a way the setup can be changed to toughen it up when required for all levels, I'd have a good mix of risk reward,

3 par 5's of varying length one where you can go for it and birdie is a real option, one where you can decide if it's worth risking a shot at it in 2 but can also offer bogey if you don't pull it off and the other a longer tighter hole where birde feels like an acomplisment but par is a good score.

4 par 3's 2 would be over 200+ yards where accuracy is premium the other 2 shorter par's well guarded but where you can have a real go at the pins with a short iron to try get some shots back.

the remainder would be par 4's, again a real mix of risk reward, 2 at least where you can have a pop at the green from the tee but there would be bunkers or some natural form of hazard lying in wait if you fail to make it, I would on these holes have simple bail out areas where those that cannot make the carry can safely hit to and make a straight forward par then mix the rest up.

My course would be for those that think their way around and would play fairly tight and would not allow bombers to get away with simply hitting it as hard as they can as for me a golf course should be plotted its way round not simply overpowered

P.s the course also would not have a DOAK rating and I would take not having one as the highest form of compliment possible

Mav

Interesting response re: The Berkshires. I thought the Blue was a lovely course but not a patch on the Red. I really enjoyed the mix of holes on the Red. As you say, all down to personal preference.

Obviously, you are completely wrong though

D4S theres one thing for it then

I enjoyed both the Berkshires course but the Blue edged it for me in the setup maybe thats because we played it the day after it hosted a county game so it was setup real tight. There is of course the fact the equal mix on the red lets you really put a score together but as for being wrong, even when i'm wrong i'm right

I always wondered if it would be possible (I thought somewhere in the Emirates) if they could build a replica of 18 of the most famous holes in golf (ie that one at TPC Sawgrass with the island green, the stadium hole and other direct copies of famous links course holes, one from Augusta etc)

I understand that this would not necessarly give a flowing round but it does seem a possiblity and the Arabs are mad enough to come up with something like this as money and land / water constraints are rarely a problem

I agree that the Red at The Berkshire is a huge amount of fun to play but have found that it plays a lot easier than other courses, not that this is necessarily a bad thing.

You are right that most modern courses seem be going that way and I think there needs to be a bit more invention when coming up with new courses. It seems they design them with the idea of hosting events in the future.

Surely what is most of the fun about playing different golf courses is the variety on offer?! Some may be seen as quirky designs but I don't think that makes for a bad golf course. Cypress Point has back to back par 3s and par 5s but you don't hear many complaints about the lay out of that course!

Why would you decide on how many par 3's, 4's and 5's you would have before having seen the land. It is nice, and probably ideal, to have a good mix but not at the expense of using what the land has given you. The most important thing is to find a routing that fits the natural landscape, if you don’t get the 4 par 3's you wanted then tough.

The great thing about a skilled architect is that not only will they fit the course to the land but be able to provide the player with extra treats such as a set of par three's with varied length of shot requirements.

Mac

Valid points and I quite agree with what you said but I was thinking more 'ideal world' than 'real world'

Plus a lot of modern golf courses have been built from flat open farm fields so a lot of them have no natural routing to follow. Linksland would be a completely different story altogether though.

Agree with the Dubai emirates thing. Imagine having somewhere like Dornoch but with good weather.

They have built a couple of places like that in the US. Think one is called the Tour 18 down near Houston somewhere.

what about NGLA, it was CBM's attempt at bringing many ideal template holes together. By all accounts that worked out ok.

Think you may be thinking about Royal Links in Vegas. 18 replicas of holes on the Open rota. Haven't played it....yet!!

JAS wrote:Think you may be thinking about Royal Links in Vegas. 18 replicas of holes on the Open rota. Haven't played it....yet!!

http://www.royallinksgolfclub.com/index.cfm

If it's less than 10 on the Doak scale I'm not interested.

No, I am thinking of NGLA for sure.




SR

No doubt NGLA is a doak 10???

I like the idea of 6 of each par also within each par grouping I'd have a long, a short and tricky, a big risk/reward, a straightforward birdie opportunity. I'd also want an equal number of right to left and left to right doglegs. There would be strategic water but not excessive, the bunkers would be deep (not mere sandy lies). There would also be trees/bushes strategically placed to make the golfer think. I'm also a fan of Dornoch type greens of which there would be a few but not an excessive amount.

Mac, what a lovely bloke Charles Blair Macdonald seems to have been??!!

Like to see good visibilty of what each shot requires,not a fan of blind shots,
changes of hole shape and direction to bring wind and weather variables,quick between green and tee,not to much elevation change,no buggy tracks,good condition and decent clubhouse.Then I am quite happy.

mustputt

Why do you say that?

I played St Kittocks at St Andrews recently, off the yellows, as we were on an away day and wanted to enjoy ourselves.
Of the eight shots we hit into the 4 par threes we only managed to hit one green.
We did not use anything higher than a 9 iron off the tee.

The holes looked simple off the tee but the architect must have had an ace up his sleeve.

Or else


We were just rubbish.

Mac, i can't say i met him (well i could but it would be a lie) but I read a thing about him a few weeks back. Apparently he was a member at Shinnecock until he was paired with a black fella in the US Open held there. So disgusted was he that he left and decided to set up and build NGLA right on Shinnecock's doorstep against the wishes of the local community.

Apparently a member jokingly remarked that the course should include a windmill so CBM bought one and sent him a bill. The windmill is still there.

Sounds like a real good laugh this guy?!

Sounds like we are going from one template to another.
Why not throw away the templates

If a course is really well laid out, flows nicely and provides good variety, surely the balance of par 3's, 4's and 5's is almost irrelevant? (Though must admit a course I play sometimes which has samey par 3 holes for 2 and 3, then three par fives in four holes lacks a certain something.)

If a course doesn't flow, no amount of contrived holes will redeem it. As my favourite PGA Pro says, is it a golfcourse or is it just a nice walk in the woods?

There are plenty better courses around but doubt there are many that flow better than Harbour Town (par 71) with four fab par 3's, none longer than about 180yds.

Loved playing the Berkshire Red (and Blue for that matter), but can't say many individual holes stood out.

Who said that Kwini?

I would guess it was Ogilvy?

No, he's a local PGA Of America Club Pro. You won't have heard of him, still less able to pronounce his name.
But he's a great follower of course design, from the local nine-holer to the classics; there's a local-ish course, Donald Ross front nine with a back nine added. Two completely different characteristics, one flows, one doesn't. Guess which is which.

Drive - Dreadfully long Par 3's do get old quickly. I'm not much a fan of the drivable 4 par either, which seem to be all the rage this day, but are only really drivable for the touring pro.

Good to see fine routing get attention on this thread. One of the most undervalued segments of great golf design. The US centric cart culture enables many designers to build courses that are hardly walkable and routing it seems is often an afterthought.

Reading back through this thread and thinking about it, I cant help but think of a few of my favourite holes on courses I've played which I'd like to replicate.... I'd need some really weird bit of real estate to accommodate all my favourites tho!!

I think routing is the single most important factor, a course has to be laid out right so that it can be walked and played by all. Then there is setting itup so your everyday club golfer gets the fun out of playing, but aso being able to set it up so it challenges even the best players. Sadly now course's are being designed to have too many signature holes and pro events that they forget about the everyday club golfer who will play it far more than any touring professional