Are Golf Course Architects Any Good?

[Deleted member 21258]

I hate bunkers or ditchs in the middle of fairways at playing distance, with a passion. In my eyes makes holes far to one dimension, I like questions and choices on shots.

Also like for better players being asked the most questions, with regards to risk vs reward and making it harder as you get better. Beau Desert Golf club is making some good changes on that front. Ganton, Lytham are classic courses like that, better you are the more questions you are asked.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

@DRW I don't know what the fuss is about the 18th at Ganton. You just hit over it, don't you

 

[sunshine]

I hate bunkers or ditchs in the middle of fairways at playing distance, with a passion. In my eyes makes holes far to one dimension, I like questions and choices on shots.

I don't mind a ditch or bunker if it makes you ask the question if you can / should carry the trouble. But no more than a few holes. The pot bunker in the middle of the fairway on the 1st on the Himalayas at Princes is a great example of this. You can lay up short of it or play to the left to leave a longer approach, or be aggressive and go to the right or past it to leave a wedge in to the green (Personally I aim stright for it, because there is now way I'm going to hit a 5 yard target 250 yards away ).

Also like for better players being asked the most questions, with regards to risk vs reward and making it harder as you get better. Beau Desert Golf club is making some good changes on that front. Ganton, Lytham are classic courses like that, better you are the more questions you are asked.

Totally agree with this point, and that describes the approach being followed with the renovations at my club, e.g. fairway bunkers being moved 50 yards further down the hole to challenge the better players and make it easier for the weaker player.

 

[patricks148]

I hate bunkers or ditchs in the middle of fairways at playing distance, with a passion. In my eyes makes holes far to one dimension, I like questions and choices on shots.

Also like for better players being asked the most questions, with regards to risk vs reward and making it harder as you get better. Beau Desert Golf club is making some good changes on that front. Ganton, Lytham are classic courses like that, better you are the more questions you are asked.

I'd agree, esp not barrier type, pot bunkers at least there a chance of missing. Club and its committees also need to be more on the ball, especially when it comes for setting up the course from different tees. M&E set Nairn up to be played from the blacks, which it is a challenge to elite golfers, but... of the medal tees, it punishes mid hitters between 220 and 250, off the tee on quite a few holes there's a bunker in the way. If you can carry it 260 plus there is only one bunker in play off the tee and that was a bunker before hand. Bruntsfield which is another course they did was the same. When we played there on our boys trip, our group who are all single figure players most under 6, but all over 50 admittedly all found it one dimensional off the tee and not one liked the bunker changes. Alas no one at my club bothered to think of the implications off the medal tees. Scoring wise its made a big difference. We do have a lot of young plus fig players who all hit the ball a country mile and a few shoot under par every week in the comps, before the changes under par once in a blue moon. Of course there are some benefits, the waste bunkers are much easier to get out of and you can, if you are in the middle advance the ball out 100 yards or more. The pot bunkers it was a least a shot penalty and you most of the time had to hurt get it out and no more. I think we lost 30 pot fairway bunkes , that has a positive cost saving at least.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Surely a hazard in the fairway gives you choices; lay up, try and go over or down the side.
If hazards are in the rough they then make the hole one dimensional, hit the fairway with whatever club you want, and on you go.

I'd have hazards at 260, in the fairway.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

@DRW I don't know what the fuss is about the 18th at Ganton. You just hit over it, don't you

Thats the beauty with the pandy hazard at the angle, you either can have an 'easy' short carry of 70-80ish yards (like my wife does and just makes it) or if you are an okay length player you can carry over the whole hazard ?180ish to a good place on the fairway(like your son did or I have) or if you are seriously good length player you can hit it over everything including the road, high risk! So in many ways, how much do you want to chew off and how far can you hit it.

I like choices like those, better players have the choice of any of the above(with more risk), wife only has one choice, I have a couple of choices.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Surely a hazard in the fairway gives you choices; lay up, try and go over or down the side.
If hazards are in the rough they then make the hole one dimensional, hit the fairway with whatever club you want, and on you go.

I'd have hazards at 260, in the fairway.

The fairway bunkers or hazards(ditch, heather, thick rough in the fairway) I refer to, mean for the normal players you either have to lay up or go over. Going down the side, means in the plop or still the hazards is there.

I like bunkers that creep into the fairway but not all the way across it and asks, can you hit the shot and miss the bunker. So you have the 3 choices you say.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Thats the beauty with the pandy hazard at the angle, you either can have an 'easy' short carry of 70-80ish yards (like my wife does and just makes it) or if you are an okay length player you can carry over the whole hazard ?180ish to a good place on the fairway(like your son did or I have) or if you are seriously good length player you can hit it over everything including the road, high risk! So in many ways, how much do you want to chew off and how far can you hit it.

I like choices like those, better players have the choice of any of the above(with more risk), wife only has one choice, I have a couple of choices.

I'm with your wife on this one . You are right though, it gives options for all. A great risk and reward tee shot. Even the short option gets the knees knocking and the heart pounding.

 

[Jason.H]

Ours like many other courses have fairway bunkers that were once a deterrent to big hitters, now they fly them and it’s the average joe going in them.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Over the last few years we have done a lot of thinning out of mature trees; clearing out of rubbish beneath them, and removal of trees that do not sit naturally within the context of the other trees on any hole. All this is being done with the guidance of our course architect and arborist - with their focus being on exploiting the trees that are natural to our parkland/heathland landscape; removing those that are alien or that block our appreciation of our specimen trees - and giving us options.

Many members bemoan this as ‘making the course easier’. I counter that in most cases the player is still penalised by being off the fairway…but that now as intended the player has options…where previously the only option, if ball was found, was to get it into a playable position if it wasn’t, then play out. Now in most circumstances we can find our ball, and we will almost always now have a higher risk shot option more directly towards the green. The play out sideways option remains.

And of course the course architect has his vision for any hole, and so for example a couple of years ago we removed two mature larches from the side of our 14th. They stuck out like a wall from the rhs of the hole 100yds from the green and if you were behind them…tough…hack out sideways was your ‘option’. Much consternation…much asking Why? Their removal has made the hole easier from the side they were on. No longer…we have this winter done major changes to the last 100yds of the hole and now if you are in a position where previously you were behind the larches, you now have a clear option to go for the green, but the remodelling and new bunkering have made the shot high, or very high, risk depending on flag position.

Its the ‘vision thing‘ that the architect has that most of us don’t.

 

[richart]

I love the sandy areas, being bought back into life at various courses.

More playable than rough, look better than rough/gorse and some have history and dont forgot that many links courses are sand dunes, so were sand to start with with the nature than grew over the sand in recent years.

For instance the 18th at Ganton

View attachment 46382View attachment 46381
View attachment 46383

View attachment 46384

What it became :-
View attachment 46385
And now restored :-
View attachment 46386

Alternatively the 8th hole at St Georges Hill Red looks stunning having been tidied up. Infortunately I have no idea how to post a picture.

Agree though that some sandy areas look great and other just look unkept.

 

[clubchamp98]

I think most people could look at a golf hole and think of ways of improving it by moving bunkers, tees etc. But a golf architect will understand the implications of making those changes much better, and how to implement it.

As for new builds, it's amazing how an architect can take an empty piece of land and visualise a routing. What imagination to be able to do that. To be fair, today's architects have so many great layouts to take their inspiration from. I am in awe of how the likes of Colt, MacKenzie and Braid laid out courses a hundred years ago that are still enchanting today.

Most people in my experience think changes to holes that suits them are great.
but if it dosnt suit them they don’t like it.

 

[Jigger]

Old golf design was a celebration of golf whereas I reckon modern design is probably cost and land size orientated to a fair extend, much to the frustration of designers.

some courses, with no ambition to hold pro tournaments, are also too long for the average amateur. GIR should be in reach for most to keep the game enjoyable. Having a 200+ approach every hold ain’t golf.

there’s a course called Sharpley up here. Designed for pay and play and open all year round. Only course to put prices up in the winter! Its fairways are generous and rough is low. Bunkers are not particularly well placed as they don’t really come into play, but it has everything for the average amateur including a couple of drivable par 4s. It’s main defence is its fast undulating greens but in the main it’s just fun to play and builds confidence brilliantly. they keep the redress code casual too.

I think there’s a lot more room for clubs like this to help get people started and the design is decent and keeps you interested.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Alternatively the 8th hole at St Georges Hill Red looks stunning having been tidied up. Infortunately I have no idea how to post a picture.

Agree though that some sandy areas look great and other just look unkept.

8th hole, is great hole for the better player. Looks like it has changed quite a bit over the years(almost hard to believe they are all the same hole ). Look at the green in picture one, good for a six putt What a clubhouse at that course.

Some pictures :-




All stolen from twitter

 

[clubchamp98]

8th hole, is great hole for the better player. Looks like it has changed quite a bit over the years(almost hard to believe they are all the same hole ). Look at the green in picture one, good for a six putt What a clubhouse at that course.

Some pictures :-
View attachment 46393

View attachment 46395View attachment 46394

All stolen from twitter

What a fabulous looking hole?

 

[Deleted member 21258]

What a fabulous looking hole?

Personally love the hole.

 

[clubchamp98]

Personally love the hole.

I work part time for a sports turf company .
we have worked on lots of places but that hole is stunning.
reminds me a bit Of Moortown.

 

[Jacko_G]

The bottom line is you get when you pay for. Go cheap - guess what.....

 

[rudebhoy]

The bottom line is you get when you pay for. Go cheap - guess what.....

I played a while back with a course designer. He was responsible for the design and build of a local course where the owner wanted a championship length course but with a minimal budget. Talk about a poison chalice.

He made a reasonable fist of it, I've played it a couple of times and enjoyed it, but it does get criticised by some for being too long and a bit boring.

 

[Neil Armstrong]

I found a few things. First: architects don't always follow the brief, second: the brief is watered down by 'member committees', third: designs are neither ambitious nor adventurous, fourth: 'member committees' water down even further, fifth: clubs even with money are reluctant to spend it, sixth: you end up with a mis-managed half-baked project that doesn't present value for money nor achieve the true ambition for what could be achieved. UNLESS, you have an imaginative and progressive management who are prepared to extend the envelope, or are directed and financed by the R&A (which most clubs are not).

Yes I too have seen 'signature' designs which appear to be transportable and repeatable!