Western Gailes

The amazing 5th at Western Gailes









Western Gailes turned out to be a big surprise since I had assumed the course to be a very wild and very quirky. It was probably the least quirky links course I have ever played. Most of the fairways are set in natural low and flattish land between the dunes with almost every shot being very easy to understand. If someone were to build a course on links land now this is what I would expect it to look like. The bunkering was excellent and almost all clearly visible from each shot. The greens had some interesting contour, but for the most part the contours were on the gentle side. The layout is very fair and very straightforward, so much so that I would recommend this as the best starting course for a trip through to play Scottish links golf.

The burns(creeks) were fascinating in particular the one at #15 since the far edge was intentionally picked up to make the locations very clear, but it also created a beautiful deep shadow lines and then ended with a run away slope on the back that could be used to kick the ball onto the green. At Western Gailes there were four crossings and most of them were used to front a green similar to the famous 16th at Turnberry. They make for some delicate approaches with front pins and a fascinating contrast to the dunes holes.

The bunkers were generally very small, deep and tough to get out of. The certainly make a great model for difficulty with minimal maintenance. What was really interesting was that some of the contour around them was kept tight and ran directly into the bunkers. It proves that bunkers do not need size to have an impact and that short grass still can have much more far reaching effects if used well. I want to use the idea of slopes that are short and banks that feed the ball into the bunker since the effective area of a bunker quite large without needing a lot of actual sand.

What I enjoyed the most about Western Gailes was the way the course offered so many fun options around the greens. There was a great deal of short grass, but also the rough was kept very light which invited the player to use the ground. The other cool thing they did was using an even shorter cut than the fairway immediately around the green which allowed for putting from almost all sides. This idea needs to come across the pond. I have only seen this done at Rustic Canyon and on the approaches at high end Philadelphia area courses.



The par three 6th down in the bowl









The last thing that struck me about the course was the color. The greens and fairways are similar to what we enjoy by where it gets so much better is in the rough. In the rough you have the fescue with its light brown wispy tops, interspersed with the deep brown of heather (which can bloom a dramatic purple), the purple leaved wild rose which is beautiful but tough to play out of, and of course the deep green of the gorse bush. Add in the taller and nastier looking sea grass and these contrasts do much more to frame a hole than trees can. I much prefer looking at the cant and roll of the land that a dull stand of trees any day.

Sandtrap Interview

The following is part of an interview I did with Alan Olson at The Sand Trap.com. The link to the web site and interview itself is below. I recently found out a number of friends who read the blog regularly missed this and asked if I could post the interview. I also thought it would provide people with lots to read while I’m gone.

The link to the full article:
http://thesandtrap.com/archives/throwing_darts/ian_andrew_golf_course_architect.php

What styles and architects have influenced the design work you do today? What have you taken from them an applied in your own work, and how well have some of the features of older courses migrated into the modern world of golf?

The Golden Age of architecture is without a doubt the high water mark of golf architecture. The work of architects like Alister Mackenzie, H.S. Colt, Charles Alison, George Thomas, A.W. Tillinghast, C.B. MacDonald, Seth Raynor and Stanley Thompson still remain the ultimate benchmark of greatness for golf architects. Even their quality of the writing has been a huge asset to understanding how great golf architecture is created. The courses that they have built have become the foundation of great golf course architecture. They have influenced me with the boldness of their architecture and how many of their courses feature a few holes that border on controversy. They never played it safe; they were always innovative in their approach and never afraid to push the boundaries of either the player’s ability or their art. They all certainly had a knack for finding the best holes in the landscape, even if it meant ignoring one stunning hole to find a better overall golf course. They most often found their greatest holes, but also had the ability to create them when the land was offering little assistance. Finally they all spent an inordinate amount of time on the smallest of details which is the most overlooked factor in creating a great course. I think it is also important to point out that architects like George Crump and Hugh Wilson were just as influential on architecture even with only one course.

I think it also important to recognize when peers have done some exceptional work too. If we ignore our peers, we limit what we can learn. I’m really enjoying the recent work of many of the so-called minimalists. Tom Doak and Bill Coore in particular, are creating exceptional courses and working in their own unique styles which I enjoy. I find their architecture is firmly routed in the principles of the architects from the Golden Age. I’ve had lots of opportunity to talk with both and I find that our principles are very similar which give me a lot of confidence going forward to build my own courses.

My philosophy is I’ll borrow from any architect at any time. Every site has an example we can draw from to find the best solution. I believe, like C.B. MacDonald, that there are likely no new ideas and that is our responsibility to identify the best of what has been done and find new and interesting ways to apply them. My first project makes a good example; it had no elevation change on the entire site so I borrowed the concepts from Pinehurst #2. I raised the green sites up onto plateaus to add interest and challenge to the course. I created some very dramatic contoured greens to make the second shot and putting very difficult. I also borrowed Ross’s technique of using the drainage swales to create the appearance of elevation change. People seem to enjoy the enormous amount of creative shots around the greens and don’t seem to notice that the site is still relatively flat. I believe you look to the best example you know that work and then try to improve upon this with you own ideas to add even more interest and fun.


Describe your style of design, your “signature” if you will.

I think the architect’s responsibility is to make the game interesting rather than just aspiring to make the game difficult. A player should face a round full of options where they can take multiple routes or even hit different shots into greens depending on wind or their own ability. I believe in little earth moving, designing shorter courses, multiple short fours, very contoured and complicated greens, fairway width, opportunity for chipping, and building dramatic hand sculpted bunkers. I don’t think I will ever have a “signature” or distinctive style because I want every course to be a response to the surroundings. From my point of view, anything else is an imposition on the land, and that doesn’t lead to great architecture.


Did the explosion of golf courses in the mid 1990’s harm golf as a whole with cookie – cutter designs created to cash in on a booming trend, or was the growth good for the game of golf? Why or why not?

Even bad architecture can’t really harm golf, but it certainly does make for a very weak business for the person who paid to build the course. That said I do think that some of the most important architectural work in the last 50 years has occurred at courses like Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Rustic Canyon. Golf architecture has once again made important strides in the right direction for golf. I do think the nineties will be another period where the most popular designers will have a legacy of quantity and not quality.

Where the build out of the nineties has hurt the game most is the cost of golf went up exponentially with each vanity driven dream trying to outspend the last one. There is a remarkable willingness to buy into the concept that that a golf course is only great if it’s expensive. The result is participation in the game dropped because it is affected by economics – golf became too expensive for the ‘average’ person. Again we will repeat the previous cycles, as prices drop with oversupply, the game will find it’s footing once again. As for architects, the oversupply means it will be harder for us to find new projects for the foreseeable future.

Are modern golf courses too difficult for the average golfer as opposed to the classic designs that featured different levels of risk/reward based on a golfer’s playing ability and if so what features should be “re-introduced” to modern golf course design to make the game of golf more enjoyable? Also, why is the short par four seemingly on the path to extinction?

Ninety percent of everything wrong with golf can be summed up by length. From the ball, to the additional cost of building new courses, the monotony of excessively long layouts, through to the loss of the short par four. Everything seems to be designed to host a PGA tournament; from the necessary length, perfect playing conditions, clearly indicated strategies, through to the gentle contours required for lightening-fast greens. It’s like every architect and owner somehow feels their new masterpiece is destined to hold a tour event and they design their courses accordingly. These courses are generally way too difficult, feature little or no options and have a high green fee. If architects would return to building courses for those who actually use them we would have much better courses.

So what should be re-introduced? Golf courses need to be shorter and wider. Width introduces options for a better player and playability for the vast majority of players. Options lead to interesting choices, which lead to a more enjoyable golf experience. If we enjoy the game, we will play more. If participation rises, the health of the game improves, it helps all of us who love this game. Before anyone suggests short and wide courses are too easy, just look at the scoring average for the tenth hole at Riviera during the Nissan Open. Difficulty and length are not a direct correlation. Just think of Merion and Pine Valley, two courses that are very difficult despite being short by modern standards

These are 4 of 17 question in the interview

Travel + Leisure Golf - My Article in September Issue

click on each page to read the article and use the image expansion tool bottom right to blow it up further - it will take 10-20 seconds to pop up automatically on your computer

The Hole Series

click on image to make larger

In this month's Score magazine is another installment of my Hole Series.

Your Strategy to Beat the Architect

The short, direct and dangerous route on the left and the long and safe route on the right - great strategy by Stranz at Tabacco Road


We all want to shoot lower scores. Almost everyone sticks to swing tips, lessons or practice to improve their ability to hit the ball better. A few spend the time to learn course management and make great strides in keeping rounds together when they usually would come apart. Very few take the time to analyze the strategies and the architects thinking in order to beat them at their own game.

Ever noticed how on certain architect’s courses you always seem to play well, whereas on another architect’s you seem to always make mistakes. And I’m not talking about the simple factors like width or green contour, but more about what the architect gets you to do. I find most architects are creatures of pattern and tend to use a similar bag of tricks most times out. The very clever ones seem to be able to spin an infinite amount of variation using a myriad of old ideas, but the majority sticks to a limited set of options on a consistent theme. The clever ones require a lot of work for you to learn the course and one playing is never enough to try and out think them (if you ever can – see my piece on the 10th at Riviera to understand what I mean). For the rest, all you need to do is spend enough time observing their habits and it will help you with your decision making.

Most architects seem to prefer to stick to the basics on strategy. Bunker the fairway right and the green on the left and you have the most common strategy in golf. Play towards the trouble for the best angle into the green. This is the base strategy of probably half of all “designed” holes in golf. There may be more bunkers surrounding the ones that matter, but if you remove the fluff, you will be able to often break it down to this idea. Now this can vary from Flynn’s use of carry bunkers on a diagonal to clearly indicate the line and location for the tee shot, or be illustrated by the use of parallel bunkers by Willie Park Jr. (and others) where you play as close to them as possible for that ideal line. My only warning is for someone like Pete Dye, he will offer this on 16 or 17 holes and then on that exception you find you made the perfect shot to end up with the worst line. As Pete said, you have to do it occasionally to keep their attention, otherwise they are too comfortable.

Where it gets more fun is when you play a course by a less conventional architect like Mike Stranz. Mike’s philosophy was enticement and punishment. He loved to offer a shorter dangerous route combined with a longer safer route. Scoring will come from avoiding the pitfalls with Mike, but the big challenge is how long can you avoid your desire to “give it a go.” I watched a clinic on how to score at Tobacco Road, my playing partner (Bobby Weed) took the occasional chance for some birdies, but also played safely away from certain death settling for a par right from the get go. Often restraint is the most important tactic on a course made for gambling – although it’s not near as fun..

Each architect has their favorites, William Flynn and Doug Carrick love carry angles and using that technique to indicate the ideal line. Rees Jones leans towards the most basic of approaches of position for line with almost no variation on that approach. Bob Cupp likes to guard the line to the “mayor’s office,” a spot which sets up perfectly for an approach into the fall of the green. Each of us has our beliefs in what we think “you” should have to do in your round of golf. Learn our beliefs and our habits and you may save an extra shot.

Stanley Thompson is Officially a Person of National Historic Significance

I got an email from Ken Donovan today that couldn’t have made me happier.

“Stanley Thompson has just been recognized as a person of National Historic Significance by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. This designation will take place at Cape Breton Highlands Links in Ingonish. “

Ken is best known for writing the wonderful essay called "Thinking Down the Road: Stanley Thompson, Canada's Golf Architect, Artist and Visionary, 1893-1953". If you haven’t read it you should, it’s found in the The Nashwaak Review, St.Thomas University, Fredericton, New Brunswick, vol. 14/15 (Fall, 2004 -Winter, 2005), pp. 252-302. The interview with Geoff Cornish in the back is as entertaining as his wonderful essay. The pictures are enough to leave your mouth open wishing you could see it in that form.

And that is where this announcement comes in…….

This means that an important course under government control, like Highland Links, can be restored as a place of historic importance. The fact that Highland Links is a historic site would give the people in charge of the course the opportunity to go to Parks Canada and explain to them why the tree removal is necessary to “restore the historical views and playing widths”. This would provide an opportunity to finally open up many of the long corridors and view sheds lost through growth and Parks Canada policies.

This also opens up the slight possibility of restoring the bunkers back to the original locations and shapes. They are clearly shown in a wealth of photos that are easily obtained through the course or through the National archives. There are even a few found in advertisements and other sources. I dream of seeing Highland Links restored properly, and this definitely takes this from the unlikely back to the possible. It’s a very happy day for any golf historian. I have to commend Ken and Mark for their efforts .

The other courses that spring to mind are Banff Springs and Green Gables which are also on Park Canada land. It’s never to late for Banff, but it may be too late for Green Gables which is scheduled for a renovation by McBroom which from all reports will fundamentally change the course.

On a more personal level, I don’t think this changes things at most existing courses. It may encourage more preservation, but most courses are well aware of the legacy that they understand is worth protecting. I look forward to seeing the impact at Highlands, it’s so appropriate that the ceremony will be held there to honour Stanley Thompson.

Field Notes

The proposed 13th at Red Deer













There are a lot of occasions where you are invited out to review a golf course and get invited to explore all opportunities. You find out from the club that they are open to making changes either for improving the overall quality of the course or to find much coveted length. Often this leads to the exploration of alternative ideas to improve holes, a chance to review strategies, or even the occasional look for an entirely new hole. When I do this, I tend to sketch my thoughts in the field and these “doodles” are often fairly accurate reflections of what I end up doing later.

The image at the top is for the new green site (which is actually the original green location) for a hole at Red Deer Golf & Country Club. When reviewing the course I determined the club had a great opportunity to shorten one of the fours into a drivable par four to add more balance to the layout. When I looked at the green site and circumstance I immediately thought of the 7th green site at Scarboro. That hole is a really great short par four by Tillinghast, and it offered a great solution on how to make the hole at Red Deer complicated and dangerous at 315 yards.

The cleverness of this hole comes from the green and the bunkering. The green is narrow and very difficult to hit from anywhere but directly in front. The narrowness demands great accuracy and makes the choice between laying-up and trying to hitting it real close a tough decision. The fact the green is elevated with a strong back to front pitch and the false front adds additional challenge for better players who spin the ball. That’s why I often turn to the great holes and green sites for inspiration; there are so many good ideas from which to draw the best answer for the club. You just have to be familiar with the holes and able to recognize where they fit best.




3rd at Kawartha














The image above is the other side of drawing ideas in the field. Working drawings provide the basic scope and general direction for the work, but the reality is many holes are altered in the field to make sure that the what you see in your head makes it all the way to built form. These are called field fits and they are done to tie in work properly, ensure visibility, create the intended slopes, provide more movement, add dramatic flair, and generally add more of the architects imagination and creativity than any plan could explain. all I find they occasionally require some doodling to work the ideas out in my head or to explain to a shaper the concepts as opposed to the grades. I was at Kawartha today removing all the mounds and trees from a recent renovation to the 3rd fairway and trying to make a situation where the tee shot still fit the rest of the course despite a much wider clearing. The concept explains much of what I’m trying to do with fairway movement and bunkering to use the width provided and still create strong strategies that work on that site.

The Red Deer Charette

This is the extension of the 4th hole to bring the Red Deer River into play and into view



This wasn’t a completely a charette because I did do some preliminary routing work to give myself some ideas on what was possible. Usually the first stage is to walk the golf course with members of the greens committee and the superintendent. I like to use the initial stage is to collect ideas and alternatives for discussion. Since the interview was conducted out on the course where we did discuss ideas, I was familiar with the holes and had a good feel for what direction the club wanted to go. A little routing investigation was a smart head start. I still intentionally took on the approach of a charette, to see if I could make the plan grow from a couple days looking at the course and talking through ideas.

I arrived at Red Deer (just in time for rain), and we went into a boardroom to talk about the plans and possible ideas. I definitely prefer to meet before going out to review the course, because it makes it easier to focus on what I need to accomplish. The club confirmed they were very interested in additional yardage being an important part of the plan, but proved to be very open to the ideas in trying to return a little more traditional architectural character. They understood when I recommended that a little restraint should be shown to retain a variety in yardages and a little courage would be required to really make the course a reflection of its era. I was very pleased that they agreed with my approach and were willing to take a long view and make a few extra changes to undue certain modernizations that did not fit. It was a relief that they understood my traditional vision for the club.




The potential new par three looking the other way up the river




We did make it outside after the meeting to walk and review the larger changes. I did discover some of my ideas worked better than expected including a new potential par three with a spectacular view up the river. I also found one of my larger changes did not since the mapping did not match what was in the field. We returned to the clubhouse and had dinner, this time with the entire board and once again went through our options. I took some time to explain my thought process and walk them through the potential changes. I also gave them two possible plans depending on whether a proposed land swap did go through. The committee was quite enthusiastic about the change so at that point I had clear direction. I wasn’t sure we could accomplish all this in one visit, but the committee made was pleased with the plans. I still wasn’t done.

I spent the second day looking at alternatives and reviewing them. I also spent four hours accumulating all the problems and difficulties of the property for the Superintendent. A superintendent a sharp as Wayne is an architect’s dream. I felt I finally had all the background information together and was ready to return to the plan.. I finished up with a round of golf with the Director of Golf, club president and next years club president. It was eye opening to see where the ball was going, which fortunately it went where I aimed that day! I did make a few revisions according to what I learnt from that round.

That night I went back to the hotel and begun the traditional end to the charette. I finalized a plan based upon the current envelope, the club’s direction, and my notes from the field. I began to produce a series of sketches to illustrate the changes to the holes. I also collected a series of images to illustrate the style of architecture using examples from existing courses to talk about different ideas. I ended up even producing a few simple illustrations to explain the different principles of modern architecture versus a more traditional architectural approach. In short, more carry bunkers off the tee and flanking bunkers at the greens versus more target bunkers off the tee and forced carries at the green.. The next day I presented the ideas to the membership and it was met with quite a few question and a very strong level of support. At the end of the presentation I knew I had a plan (with a little more tinkering at home).

I would definitely do this again.

Technology Part 3 – Defending without length

I couldn't find this post in the archives - I think I may have forgoten to post it when it didn't become an article for a magazine.

So what can an architect do to add difficulty without adding length and till maintain playability? Island greens, more water, forced carries, long rough, fescue and fast greens all add difficulty and 6 hour rounds, so what are the alternatives?

1. Make the player think. Alister Mackenzie said, “A first class hole must have the subtleties and strategic problems which are difficult to understand, and are therefore extremely likely to be condemned at first sight even by the best of players.” Giving the players options and tempting situations keeps them a bit off balance, even with the equipment they have today. If the strategy is simple and straight forward they will play to their strengths, but if a hole is full of enticing options they will often entertain the most foolish line trying to gain an advantage on the course. The 10th at Riviera is the perfect example, where the smartest play is the least obvious and the riskiest play is the most understandable.













2. Make them manufacture shots. The shot that the professionals are most uncomfortable with is being forced to hit a fade from a draw lie, or a draw from a fade lie. They would rather take their natural swing than have to manufacture a shot. Using the natural cross-slope of the land to influence play is the least used and most effective method to add additional difficulty to a hole. This is a technique perfected by William Flynn at Huntingdon Valley, where he routed many holes against the natural slope of the land to force the players to work the ball against the grade.

3. Place pressure on their expectations. Short holes are wonderful things; they give the average player a chance to make a par, whereas the great player feels the pressure to “make” a birdie. At Merion, the better player feels great pressure to score on the shorter middle holes and almost always become far too aggressive trying to score through this stretch. The results are usually disastrous, particularly when the shorter holes require more management than some of the longer ones.

4. Closely mown grass around greens. This has long been a staple of links courses throughout the world. Bluegrass surrounding a green offers only one type of recovery — the flop — a favorite of good players, and it also contains a missed approach. However, if the green surrounds are closely mown, the near miss often gets propelled away from the green. Now the good player must decide whether to putt, bump and run, or to attempt a flop shot. Options present opportunities, but also lead to mistakes. The US Open at Pinehurst showed the difficulty created by short grass around greens.














5. Bold undulations on the greens. With bold undulations on the putting surface, positional play becomes even more important to gaining access to many of the pin positions. It will even dictate strategy right back to the tee. If you miss the approach, you are left with a delicate putt requiring the player’s full imagination to avoid dropping a stroke. St. Andrew’s is a great example where a player will hit many greens and still make lots of bogies by being on the wrong side of the hole.

6. Bunkers that are a Hazard. Walter Travis had the following quote about bunkers. "The primary idea of a hazard is to punish, to the extent of one stroke, a poorly played shot, and to make the recovery exceedingly difficult, and even by the virtue of the following shot being extraordinarily good. If this end is not attained, the existing hazard fails to fill its functions." When the player aims at the perfectly groomed hazard because it offers an advantage, the hazard ceases to be relevant to the intent of the game.

7. Intimidation. A hazard with little penalty for a miss has no psychological impact on a good player and the player will swing with confidence. When the penalty for missing is severe, a player’s pulse will quicken and they will feel the pressure to make the shot. If the player begins to think about the consequences of missing his shot instead of a good result, the architect has intimidated the player. At Pine Valley, the first time player is so overwhelmed with the possibility of disaster everywhere that they rarely notice the wide fairways and large greens that George Crump has provided.











8. Removing the clear line of site to a target. As architects, we are always looking for a way to add tension throughout the round. The blind shot has the same psychological impact as water, out of bounds or a forced carry (without the penalty strokes). Players have come to expect everything to be visible and clearly defined on each shot, and any break in this modern pattern frustrates them. Even blocking the view of the green, but allowing for the flag to be seen, upsets the player’s ability to visualize the shot. Tobacco Road uses this technique to make the player uncomfortable, but as the Scot’s would tell you the hole is only blind once, and because of this Tobacco Road is much less intimidating on the second play.

Is a Larger Ball the Answer?: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/05/larger-ball-this-is-new-idea-that-has.html

Working with Golf’s true sculptor – the shaper

Paul Timbers, Grant and Donnie Robb at Kawartha








The first green surface I had any involvement with was the 5th green at Greystone. It was one of the first times Doug had me join him out on site to teach me some of the basic things I needed to learn about creating greens and other features on the golf course. It was a great chance to see drainage installed among other important details that I had to learn before I could design anything. Through circumstance Doug had to go review some major drainage works and grading and suggested it would be better if I join Albert and see how a green is built first. The 5th green was set into a natural amphitheater and was an excellent green site already. Albert was in the process of making the plateau when I arrived.

I introduced myself to Albert and said I’m here to learn from you, and I received a smile and an “OK, that’s not what I’m used to but that should prove interesting.” Little did I know that a little humility was the perfect way to get to know the often cantankerous and moody Albert, who also happens to be one of the best shapers I have ever had the pleasure of working with and a good friend. Albert asked me what I wanted on the green surface, and to be honest I just kind of repeated what Doug had talked about out of fear. Albert said, “what about the swale in back it’s not on the drawings but it would be a good idea.” Lesson one - listen to what the shaper suggests - I said I agreed with him that a swale was a great idea, but asked can we keep the green surface the same size. Albert said “Sure but I need to lower it a couple of feet and take it slightly right, but that will work fine.” Lesson two - when a good shaper says he can make it work - get out of his hair and don’t give useless directions. In 15 minutes it all fit in wonderfully, and I can say I honestly had no part in this. I realized right then that Albert just knew instinctively what would work - lesson three - trust them and work “with” them.

Albert shaped up the green and we got out a laser to shoot some grades. The green looked awesome to me, but I though a pin position was impossible to access because the slope was away from the approach on a long iron in. I explained how I thought the ball should be received particularly on such a tough shot and asked what he thought. Albert smiled and said you’re right that would be too tough and said give me two minutes and he reshaped the section to receive the ball. Lesson four – always explain how the shots should work- they can make anything work but must understand clearly what you intend (as opposed to what you drew). Intent is the key direction we have to offer. Talking in broad strokes helps a shaper, micromanaging a shaper is a great way to get crap (and that’s your fault not his).

My advice to any young architects is to respect the shapers, explain yourself fully on what you expect, trust them for input, let them contribute to some of the final forms, take a stance that you have a final say to avoid and idea you don’t like but allow them to venture a little to discover better ideas. Treat them like a good friend and they will make you look better than you are, and you will end up with some of the closest and most reliable friends you will ever make.

I’m going to miss at least a couple of names, but I want to thank all the great shapers who have made me look like I have a clue:
From Evans – Albert, Louie Melo, Mike Zant, Dave Sutherland and Dan Minduik (sp.?)
Gateman – Richard Armitrage (Ballantrae), Louis Pedro, and Darren Hancocks
TDI – Steve Tate, Jamie, Domenic Carrere, Brian and Paul
NMP – Michele
And all the independents or small companies – Spencer Adams, John Northy, Doug Shwartz, Gary Elison, Ron (be gone), Peter, Dan, (I miss) “Moose” Thompson, Gord Wendover and the unbelievable talented Thomas (“Dickie Do”)
Finally the ones that have seen everything and done it all and continue to share their wealth of experience - Dick Kirkpatrick and Paul Timbers

Longer isn't the Answer

From Cam Cole in the National Post on Saturday:

[Cam Cole] “This is a big time course, so….”
“Is that what it is Calgary’s Steven Ames interjected.”…
…”He didn’t mean Medinah wasn’t a good golf course. He just meant that as major challenges go, this one is too soft, too getable – and it maybe proving the definitive argument that simply making courses longer is meaningless to the generation of professionals who can handle long but have trouble with narrow.
One of these days people who design courses – and the organizations who designate them as major sites – are going to figure that out.”





Since I’ve been on this particular bandwagon for quite sometime and have written a whole series of articles on this subject – you can understand how happy I was to read that everyone is coming to realize the truth. Only the USGA and other ruling bodies have not come to terms with this reality. The USGA and there “architects of choice” Rees Jones and Tom Fazio have set about a policy of lengthening every course to prepare for a major. Well we have all come to realize that all this policy has done is make the architects in question wealthy without having any impact on play.

So I ask you, what do you think are the factors that combine to make difficulty? The most common answer is length, rough and green speed. This is considered the holy trinity by the USGA and other tournament committees. They feel that length is needed to put long irons back in the hands of the players and to make the players play the courses “like the players did in the past”. Using the longer rough is an attempt to balance the reward for accuracy with the rewards for length. Green speed has become last line of defense with the idea that speed makes recovery shots and putting extremely difficult.

Well here’s my response to their methods. Length only manages to eliminates the shorter players from being competitive. It does not put long irons in most of the player’s hands because we can’t possibly make it long enough to battle technology. If we did go to that extreme and the weather was horrible, players would shoot ridiculously high scores because the course would become unmanageable. We would be better off with much longer fairways that restrict the roll of the ball and place some limits on spinning shots.

The rough is a deterrent, and here I feel they’re right. For the life of me I can’t figure out why it isn’t a policy to grow long rough at all the events to eliminate the boring “bomb and gouge” method of play. I don’t watch professional golf for this reason. It’s still a tough call since no rough on sloping sites allows for risk of letting the ball “really get away” because there in nothing to stop it from heading into the trees or down slopes to a much worse fate. The long rough places a premium on accuracy off the tee but also contains missed shots and saves many bad approaches coming into greens from being much worse. This is a good area to potentially mix the heights or approaches on a regular basis for variety.

Green speed has made the professional game easier! Yes I honestly believe this. Players now don’t have to have a putting “stroke” they only need to have a way to get the ball on line. The greens are so short and so perfect that they don’t have to think about grain, texture or any other factor that they once had to overcome. Since the greens are so fast many of the really great pin positions are lost because they are too extreme which takes away from the architecture of the course. Greens are now designed or renovated flatter for fairness which works to the player’s advantage. It’s easier than it used to be.

On that note, what is the number one way to make a course difficult, green contour! Pinehurst #2 proved that green contour and the fear of the consequences is the best way to keep the scoring in check. It got the players thinking and many of them played holes hesitantly which is not a way to “go low”. With many of the greens being so complicated, fairway position became important so that they could spin the ball and hit into a receptive slope to keep the ball on the surface. Green contours are what make the short 10th hole at Riviera lethal despite being only 310 yards. Green contours are what keep the scores down at the Masters, not the extra 500 yards and the rough. Green contours are the best defense against the modern players.

Found - Kawartha's plan

This was not planned. I found out today that an art gallery has the 1932 Stanley Thompson plan for Kawartha Golf & Country Club. I will get more information and post the location, so that others can visit the drawing if they wish.

This makes me more optimistic that the drawings are not gone, they are out there to be found.

Finding Stanley Thompson….

The famous Banff model










Between the 1940’s and the 1970’s many amateur historians or collectors removed drawings and plans from clubs, particularly when the club showed no interest in preserving and keeping the documents. Sometimes they had the club’s blessing, sometimes they did not. Often they would take it home before it got tossed away. Other materials were archived and forgotten.

Finding Stanley Thompson’s missing documents has been my personal Holy Grail for well over 10 years. I share this obsession with other people including Bill Newton of the Stanley Thompson Society. Bill provided me with a window to what is lost, “When I was about nine or ten and on a visit to Uncle Stan at Dormie House, I remember his sand table where he sculpted holes, the large map of Canada with red pins marking his projects, and a paper mache model of a golf course. Many years later, I realized that it was of Banff. And years after that, I became haunted with the notion of it all lost along with other items. Consequently, I formed the Society with preservation as a primary objective.”



Big Baby at Jasper around opening







A year ago I was given a number of Stanley Thompson letters from a gentleman acting as an intermediary for a collector. I received the documents, digitally scanned them for distribution, and presented the originals to Karen Hewsen, the librarian and archivist at the RCGA, for preservation. It is my opinion that, if we are to understand the history of golf architecture, these historical pieces belong in public archives and not in private collections. Clubs and collectors may prefer to keep their originals, but with the current digital scanning technology, even a scan made available to the RCGA’s archives would help. The part that still haunts me is his collection he has all Stanley’s drawings including the water color and I dearly would like that to be available to the public again. Right now he won’t part with any of it.

Karen Hewson has speculated that the whole collection is sitting lost in the National Archives in a box waiting to some day be catalogued. I was hoping she was right, but Geoff Cornish had said in an interview done recently that they left everything behind when they moved to Dormie House. I fear that the models are most likely long gone because of this, but it has surfaced recently that the gentleman who owned/bought the office building did indeed go through his things and keep a few items. I understand John Smith from the Thompson Society has reportedly talked to him about acquiring the items. I would love to find out what he has even if there is no way for any of us to acquire the records – just so we know what is still around.


Routing plan for Highland Links





I’m very dependent on finding these items to do an accurate restoration work. It was photos donated by Paul MacNaughton to St. George’s Golf & Country Club that were instrumental in the accuracy of the bunker restoration work that I completed for St. George’s in 2002. The information in those photos contributed directly to the success of the project, giving important insights and valuable data that we otherwise would not have had. Craig Moore has just recently found a 1955 aerial of the Cutten Club that will make our restoration efforts far more accurate. Imagine a window into the course only two years after his death.

There is so much missing from his field note books (like Sunningdale’s) to his models (like Banff’s); is it in a dusty box or on the wall of a collector’s house. I sit and wonder.

A Routing Study - Highland Links

The 2nd looking down to the green











This by far is the most unusual of Thompson's routings, and it is why this is one of the most enjoyable experiences in golf. When Stanley surveyed the property on foot, he must have recognised how unique each area of the golf course was going to be. After he had finalised his routing, whether intended or intuitive, he made a decision of shear genius. He separated each unique area with a long walk. So why was this important? This makes the course unfold like a series of chapters from a great book, each chapter (or set of holes) has its own unique setting. When combined together it makes for wonderful journey through the local landscape.

I’ll explain this further. The first six holes are routed along the rolling land of the headland, which originally had ocean views on all six holes (this is something they desperately need to fix). I couldn’t think of a better way to start with all those ocean views!





The wild and much tighter 7th







After the sixth green, the hole that plays along the ocean, Stanley takes you inland on a long walk to relax and enjoy the river valley as you enter the forested highlands (first change of pace and setting). The trees and mountains now dominate the setting of the course, and the player has to adjust to a more secluded and intimate setting. The holes are now fully framed by trees and mountains, with the tee shot on the 7th being intentional tight and tough to offer a complete contrast to the previous holes. Stanley does a wonderful job of creating an exciting stretch of holes while still maintaining a walkable course through this tough terrain. This stretch continues through to the tenth green.



The valley holes of 10-12









Once again a change of scenery started with a walk over the old swinging bridge and along the magnificent Clyde Brook. The 11th and 12th were once wide open, flat and fairly straightforward. This gentle stretch of land and golf was made to act as a breather in the middle of the round before taking on the tougher stretch to follow. I love how the old photos show the river was intended to be visible from both holes. I found out the river was to be the focus of the two holes but they ran out of money to pay for the bridge crossing that was required. The walk from 12 green to the 13th tee is the prettiest walk in golf (another great transition to a new setting) again along the river and up to the 13th tee.

At the thirteenth hole, Stanley returns the player to very rolling land with views out to the ocean. While the holes are much tougher, experiencing a view of the ocean make them inspiring. This remains my favourite stretch of holes on the course and the golfing terrain he selected has no equal. The highlight of the round is probably the dramatic 15th that tumbles wildly down towards the ocean in the background. Once again the golfers experience another wonderful walk, this one by the church, to the final set of holes.



The magnificent 15th








Holes 16 to 18 do not have a view to the ocean, although, I can’t help but wonder if the ocean was clearly visible on the right of the 18th hole. The final stretch is a return to the darker evergreens similar to the opening holes, here Stanley had designed a series of friendly holes to give players an opportunity to make a par. Stanley was always cognisant of resort play and making the courses enjoyable for the average player. I think he felt after such a long journey, making a par in the final stretch would be a great way to finish the round.




The 17th hole






Highlands remains a top 100 course in the world. Out of the five best Thompson courses, it is probably the most understated architecturally, but it may be the course that works most closely with the landscape. This is why many feel it is Thompson’s best work and the best course in Canada.

Top 100 Continued - What makes a course great and My Top 25

Toronto's wonderful 15th green site









So what makes them great?

1. Great routing – hardest element to measure, but best described as the holes seem to all work perfectly one after the other.
Example: Highland Links is a wonderful run where each hole seems in the right spot (I'll touch on this tomorrow by discussing the Highland routing)

2. Great architecture – from greens to bunkering
Example: St. George’s bunkering is so good it can almost carry the course single handed

3. Great setting – there is no comparing an Oceanside course to a housing course
Example: Dakota Dunes versus Eagle’s Nest

4. Mixture of hole types and hole lengths – 18 holes in a valley setting or a 7,400 yard course is dull
Example: Devil’s Paintbrush provides the seemingly impossible with the seemingly too easy all day, a testament to good design and fun

5. Balance of strong and fun holes – can beat your brains in or be too easy either
Example: Hamilton does a wonderful job of testing all your skills and giving you plenty of opportunity, a perfect mix of brains and brawn

6. Great par threes – It is almost a must
Example: Jasper Park has a perfect set from pitch to driver and all yardages in between

7. A full mixture of par fours from drivable to unmanageable
Example: Toronto Golf has the perfect mix of all yardages green types and settings

8. Par fives that are interesting rather than just long
Example: No course in the world can top the mixture of great par fives at Highlands

9. A golf course that makes you think – 18 clearly defined holes with one option per shot lacks strategy – the course must invite you to take risk and play smart
Example: Kudos to Rod Whitman for giving you a million options at Blackhawk.

10. A course that has continuity – from architectural style through to feel, too many ideas or too many elements ruins a good piece of architecture

This is the weak point of Canadian architecture, the new courses have an advantage because they haven’t been tinkered with. This is also the reason so many of the courses like Mayfair have gone from the top to off the list.

My Top 25

St. George’s
Highland GL
Jasper Park
Hamilton
Toronto

Banff Springs
National
Capilano
Devil’s Paintbrush
Eagle’s Nest

Westmount
Scarboro
St. Thomas
Catarqui
Blackhawk

Rosedale
Lookout Point
Summit
Osprey Valley Heathlands
Wolf Creek

Beaconsfield
Bigwin Island
Laval
Oviinbyrd
Riverside

My take on the Top 100 – The Panel

Hamilton G&CC 12th hole








I see the list as a selection of the greatest 100 Canadian “golf experiences”, rather than the selection of the greatest 100 “golf courses”

My main issue is with the list is who makes up of the panel. To Bob Week’s defense he has done a great job of improving the panel but I still think he needs to go one step further. Removing the two top Canadian amateurs and the two PGA tour professionals would help remove some of the bias that all top golfers bring to the table. They almost always judge a course on how it makes them play. They tend to favor long tough golf courses in immaculate shape over anything else. They also have a tendency to see only the courses that hold events or exclusive private clubs where they are treated exceptionally well. They don’t have the time to travel the countryside to see enough lesser known courses to have a balanced perspective. I’m not saying they aren’t interested in or don’t understand good architecture, but I do believe they come with certain expectations that favor the elite city courses over the rest. Just look at the list.

The panel is always strongest if all the members are well traveled, because then we are comparing courses on equal terms. There are a few guys who are not as well traveled as you would hope. I’ve been to every city except Victoria and I still think I haven’t seen enough. So who would help the list….w ell what group is better traveled than the golf architects? I strongly believe the panel would improve with the addition of around 5 or 6 architects to help provide balance to the list. Doug Carrick, Tom McBroom and Graham Cooke just to offer a couple of names would help provide perspective from one coast to the other. I think this would also help get more support for the courses in smaller towns that often overlooked since the architects often seek out lesser known gems on their travels. I think that courses of significant architectural merit, like Toronto GC would finally get the proper support they deserve. The current panel is very bias towards new work, and architects tend to be more bias towards older courses and this would help balance things out.

Some may suggest the architects have the most to gain and would vote for there own work. This may be true if Tom’s list of top holes in the world found in Paul Daley’s book is any indication, but I think you can trust that group to vote for the best courses. I think the best way to oversee this is to make the architect’s votes public. If they are bias to their own work, this can be easily seen, and they can be removed from the panel. No architect needs that humiliation. You may suggest architects have too much to gain to be part of the process but so do the director of golf, golf superintendent, director of marketing (for clublink no less), who are all part of the panel! I think it’s time to bring back the architects to the panel. I think it will make a better list.

I’ll post my top 25 this afternoon, and I may write something else too, then I think I will drop this topic at the end of today.

Top 100 - how many have you played?

Ive played:

9 of the first 10
10 of the second 10
7 of the 3rd 10
5 of the 4th 10
6 of the next 10
13 of the next 25
and 14 of the last 25

64 of the top 100..... I would love to know the panelist average since I have more opportunity than most with my renovation travels.

Top 100 - More thoughts

I thought I'd post on and off on this subject today and tomorrow and then move on.

Here's some thoughts on misplaced courses.

1. National - this is simply not the best we have to offer in Canada

2. Beacon Hall - never got this one, never will, a nice club on a nice piece of property with very safe architecture. Does not make my top 25

4. Paintbrush - love the course, but a little too high

9. Shauaghnessy - this is proof that too much extra credit is given for hosting an open (see Glen Abbey)

11. Taboo - way too high, nice course, but service far exceeeds the quality of the course (or does that matter?)

13. Glen Abbey - not in my top 25, just look at the front nine by itself and tell me the course is great

23. Copper Creek - I worked on this an even I know it's wrong

35. Osprey Valley Heathlands - top 25, Carrick Design's best detailing ever

47. Bear Mountain - is a new course, what gives?

49. Summit - misunderstood for how good it is, too understated perhaps, should be top 25

54. St. Thomas - easily a top 15-20 if you go and see the course

57. Catarqui - top 20, a great piece of Thompson history

59. Marine Drive - a completely dull course played down a "hallway"

62. Laval - sufferes from no visitors, great back nine

63. Rosedale - other than being short please tell me where the weakness is?

67. Scarboro - could be top 10 and no worse than 20. Never understand why people don't get this one is it just yardage?

72. Mt. Bruno is definately a top 25 candidate, but may be access is the issue

76. Beaconsfield - may favourite Montreal layout gets no love, is this still fall out from the Ladies Open? Top 25-30

84. Glendale - This course is a bit of a sleeper, worth seeing

86. Lake Joseph - the top 10 was silly , but so is this

I already supplied my list of courses that should have made this.

Top 100 - Initial thoughts

I will definately be writing on Score's Top 100 in Canada tomorrow. This is what I think is missing from Score’s list?

Top 50
Kawartha
Burlington
Islesmere
Royal Ottawa

Top 100
Highland CC
Maple Downs
Oshawa
Galt
Waskesiu
Red Deer
Kanawaki

A Bank of Rough Fronting a Green

Merion West has a great example








For a change I find myself writing first thing in the morning.

Often architects have found natural plateau sites in their routings, and occasionally some are even high enough to be classified as skyline greens. For some courses the banks were still left at fairway height like the fantastic green site called “Foxy” at Dornoch, but at many others like the Merion West the slope was left as rough. A slope of long grass used to be a very common technique used to handle this situation, but this has become a rare in today’s golf courses.

Why is it disappearing?

Most architects have a tendency to turn to bunkers to front every green site because of the dramatic effect that they offer and the contrast that they present. The dark green and light green contrast pales in comparison to the flash of white against the sea of green. I think many see the bank of grass as too old fashioned a look and something that doesn’t fit into the playability model of the modern architect. I do think the major change in philosophy came through increased grading, most of these are turned into a maintainable slope that becomes a fairway approach. The theory is the weaker player could run it up while the strong player must head the potential of coming up shot and rolling the ball back. Considering modern architecture props almost all greens in the air for “definition” I’m surprised it isn’t used more just for variety.

Why is this still a good technique?

The grass bank makes a nice change of pace to always bunkering the slopes. It offers players a fairly easy recovery since most of these shots are up hill and from a comfortable lie. It is much less cost to maintain than a bunker and helps weaker players with speed of play. This can be a handy choice for public or resort courses. The hazard is unique since it does not capture or repel the ball and holds the shots in place making the course a bit easier than short grass would. It is also a wonderful way to create shadows and the bluegrass offers a great contrast between the fairway and the green. Finally it is a wonderful was to show the elevation change between the fairway and the green.

Would I use this technique a lot? No, it has to have it’s place, but Pete Dye proved it still can be used as a wonderful simple contrast to front a green. It’s never wise to throw out any idea because they all have their place.

Thursday and Friday: an arguement building in the field/an arguement for working drawings

The Value of Sweeping Fairway Contours

The sketches show the technique, but the sweep is greater on site






There is a wonderful A.W. Tillinghast quote where he states that straight fairways are akin to the travesty of placing a sugar bowl helmet-like on a child’s head and giving him a haircut. I tend to agree. While I occasionally encourage “straighter” lines with some restoration to keep the look authentic, I generally find long sweeping lines are what makes the best fairway contouring of all. Fairway lines are at best when they sweep left and right around either the bunkering or the natural features of the golf hole. They are at there very worst when they are quick swings back and forth that look more like an attempt to chase a snake than create beautiful fairway lines.

The first time I truly understood the power of sweeping fairways was at Mike Stranz’s Shore Course at Monterey Peninsula Country Club. Mike used the sweeping contours, large scale hazards and the sweeping panorama of the Monterey Peninsula to make one of the most visually stunning courses I have ever seen. I found his work fit perfectly into the spectacular surroundings and the scale and movement were magic across the open land that he had to work with.


The sweep is magnificent at this scale





The joy of these wide swings left and right is that they also make for excellent strategy too. The value is that they offer long carry lines that continue to work regardless of the changes in technology because the hazard and contour are still sweeping beyond the planned centerlines. This may be the most technology resistant strategy that I have seen. The key seems to be having enough movement left or right to continue the carry angle well beyond someone’s ability to carry the ball.

Making this all work requires room and scale. You can’t take a narrow tree lined corridor and make these happen. When you’re in a tree lined environment it is best to stick to modest moves to fit the scale of place. When the corridor is widened, you begin to gain opportunity to expand the horizontal movement. If there is no tree lines and the scenery is part of the setting, large horizontal movement of the fairways seem to fit the grandeur of the surroundings. The more room, the more appropriate, and they are certainly the best answer on a massive site. Look at Sand Hills, those are large horizontal moves around spectacular and large natural features.

If you wanted to employ this technique you will need to have a large site. You must employ or find hazards on a very grand scale. You must employ the use of long or natural areas to provide separation and definition. This could even be used to make something special out of a flat site as long as you had the room to meander those fairways.

Interview at TheSandTrap.com

This is a fairly long interview, but the questions were quite good. From running a business to architecture, to equipment, to the USGA to the Masters committee, it covers a lot of ground.

Use this link to go straight to the interview:

<http://thesandtrap.com/archives/throwing_darts/

The Best in Canadian Golf - Part 1

Best Golf Course in Canada: St. George’s Golf & Country Club

It is the best routing of the Canadian course with its brilliant use of the bisecting valleys. It is one of the finest examples of Stanly Thompson’s architecture and has some of his best bunkering. Out of all his work, this is the one that could comfortably hold the best players in the game at bay, and still provide a pleasant round for its membership.

Runner up: Highland Golf Links

Best Par Three











This is a landslide win for the Devil’s Cauldron at Banff Springs. It would also be my pick for the finest hole in Canada too. The hole plays over a small glacier fed lake to a beautiful green site set in a natural amphitheater on a plateau above the lake. Thompson further framed in the green with a beautiful array of bunkers providing some additional drama to the setting. The backdrop of the green is small sliver of dark spruce which helps emphasize the beautiful natural setting for the green, but the most unforgettable part of the hole is how the shear mountain face seems to loom right over the hole. You feel a thrill just standing on the tee looking at everything around you and Thompson delivers an exceptional one shotter that lives up to the setting.

Runner up: The Bad Baby at Jasper Park (best short three)

Best Long Par Four










My favorite is the 2nd hole at Highland Golf Links

My favorite long four has no bunkers and no water, so how can it be great? What makes the hole so much fun to play is the terrain of the land and the contour of the green. The hole is a dogleg to the right with the landing area tumbling down like a gentle mogul run to the green site. The player can choose to carry the corner of the trees and valley to shorten the hole or to play straight out leaving a very long approach. The shot in is downhill but the lie can be anything due to the wildness of the fairway. The green sits just beyond a deep swale in front. With no bunkers, so you can run it on or fly it in. The green is a stunner with the deep swale dissecting the centre of the green making putting, chipping and the approach shots fascinating.

Runner up: 2nd hole at St. George’s

Best Short Par Four










My favorite is the very drivable short 7th hole at Scarboro Golf & Country Club. From the tee the green is very inviting and reachable for a very long hitter. The fairway has no bunkering until really close to the green where two fairway bunkers pinch the approach. The green is also open in front with two deep bunkers flanking the right and left of the green. The key to the hole is the small and narrow green that also has a very steep bank of fairway in front of the green. This makes the pitch extremely delicate pitch. Finding yourself in the left or right fairway bunkers is the toughest bunker shot you can face. Finding yourself right, left or long all leads for a tough recovery shot considering the shape and pitch of the green, even short is no bargain because how much higher the green is than the fairway. A great short four test your judgment and nerve with obvious risks and rewards. The best ones lull you into playing aggressive when you shouldn’t – this describes the 7th well.

Runner up: The 4th at Highland Links (from the old tee)

Best Par Five









The 18th at Capilano offers the best finishing hole in Canada and my favourite par five. The tee shot is uphill between a series of Thompson bunkers where placement is at a premium. The second shot is a classic risk and reward scenario where you either take your shot aggressively to the upper right fairway leaving an easy short approach between the bunkers; or you play to the lower fairway leaving a tough semi-blind shot over very deep bunkers to the green. The green has plenty of slope and provides the final touch on this terrific three shot par five. Finally the setting is one of the greatest in Canada, the hole plays by the spectacular clubhouse, the mountains are infull view when you look back down the hole and the city of Vancouver can be seen in the distance from the green.

Runner up: The 14th at Summit Golf & Country Club

If I Founded a Private Golf Club

My course would have great contours and minimal emmenities







If I had the money, I would love to build a golf club. First off if I were to build a course it would be public, but I’m going to offer up my version of how I would set up a my own club through all my experiences with private clubs.

The golf course has to take priority over every facet of the club, since it’s the reason people join. It must be a great golf course that is enjoyable to play each and every day. My model would be the National Golf Links of America which is full of limitless options, playability and enough challenge even for the better player. The National is a course where you would be as happy at 20 as you would at 70.

There should be no tee times. This eliminates certain groups controlling key times and promotes a more social atmosphere of waiting and “finding” a game. The course will have no cart paths although carts will be available to those with a doctor’s note. Ideally a real honest youth caddy program would be established. They will be juniors who will be offered access to all facilities, have lessons offered twice a week by the professional staff, and once a month receive a short lecture from “a member” to help them gain important life skills for their future (like understanding compound interest). I’ve seen this work extremely well in other areas and wonder why this hasn’t come into golf. The membership will be encouraged to interact with the staff and visa versa. My favourite club to work at actively encourages this policy and it makes for a wonderful place to be. They have almost no staff or membership turnover – not hard to figure out why.

The clubhouse should be small and understated. There should be a pro shop, a place to get a burger and a beer and nice locker facilities – that’s it. The showers must have the Merion style waterfall heads, if you’ve experienced them you’ll understand why. There should be no dining room, since they can’t compete with restaurants, and lose money for the club. The food should be good, but I’ve never seen the value in a chef and a menu. There should be no outside events on the course or in the clubhouse. There should be no workout facilities, curling rink, tennis counts or pool - you belong to play golf. By doing this the clubhouse will make money or the prices can be kept very reasonable.

The club will have full practice facilities including a short game facility and a wildly rolling green like the putting course at St. Andrews. There will be no shuttling of players, golf bags or anything else back and forth; you will have to carry your own bag if you want to go somewhere.

Finally the structure of the club is important too. There will be a board and they will only make decisions on financial and clubhouse issues. There will only be one committee, the green’s committee, which will deal only on issues related to the course. In my version of things the superintendent will have the final say on everything but budget. His job is up for review after each contract so he has enough pressure already without facing micromanagement.

While I would keep the rules to a readable two page document with simple rules of decorum, I would insist upon two items. One that allows the board to pay a member back at any point if he has become a detriment to the club, and the second being no changes can be made without the input of the architect.

More Great Holes - the 13th at The Golf Club

The low timber wall and marsh very much in play from the tee at The Golf Club.



In modern times there is no greater influence on the latest crop of designers than Pete Dye. Not only has he helped personally shape the thinking of the two top designers in the game right now, he has also had at least some influence on all the designers of his generation. His attempt to change golf architecture worked, initially ushering in style that dominated the 80’s and 90’s, and later on ushering in the new school of “minimalism” as more people caught on to The Golf Club and Crooked Stick.

There is no question in my mind that Pete Dye’s work in the 1960’s and 1970’s was far more revolutionary and important than the work he is better known for. I have talked at length about The Golf Club being one of my influences and an inspiration to many of the current architects leading a new trend. I also think it showcases much of his architectural thinking and his strong use of strategy to make a great golf course.

The Golf Club initially blew me away with its look and feel, it took longer to recognize the underlying strategies of holes like 6 and 7. The fact that it was done right in the middle of everything Trent Jones is really fun historically. The hole that caught my attention the most was the 13th. At 370 yards, it was relatively short, but what an interesting hole to play. Pete Dye took uninspiring section of land and created first a marshland and then a pond to influence play. This also impacted the look and feel of the hole too. Dye says he was influenced by Prestwick when he created this course, but truth be told it is 100% Pete Dye. The marsh is a wonderful natural looking feature that gives the hole a soft edge; he then accentuated this with a hard defined edge using a low timber wall to define the carry line. The blue line on the plan locates the low wall, the red line shows the effective carry angle, the yellow the logical lines in to the green. The player stands upon the tee and has the opportunity to play short, but because of the obvious carry line is drawn into risking a carry over the corner of the marsh to shorten the hole. If successful, the next shot in is a beauty with the pond on the left, the fantastically clever timber edged waste on the right and the pond in behind the green. Of course the front is wide open, since the flanking hazards are the ones that the best players have the most trouble with and the weaker players are left with a safe route in. This is a classic set of strategies within a very natural setting - which was 100% created by Pete!

More great holes – Bigwin’s 9th

Everything is clear from the tee, now can you make the carry?









I had a lot of fun going through my favorite Doug Carrick holes to come up with this one. It brought back some wonderful memories of Osprey valley and other projects I worked on. I think his most famous would be “Cliffhanger” at Greywolf at Panororama in BC. My favorite course of his remains Eagle’s Nest, but I couldn’t find one hole one hole that I considered his best work. In the end the hole that I enjoying playing the most was the 9th at Bigwin Island.

The interesting thing about this hole is this one evolved a lot in the field because the site of the hole was the only good source of sand on the project. They continued to mine it in order to take as much sand as possible trying to limit the amount of barging of sand across to the site. The interesting thing is the cut that sourced all the sand ended up being the feature that made the hole.

The drive is from a high tee looking out over the hole. You are faced with a long carry up the left side of around 240 yards to make the upper fairway. Since the bank is bluegrass, and the green is directly on that line, you almost always have a go at the short upper route. The other option is to play to a nice wide lower fairway on the right where you have lots of room. Either side, you must avoid the pair of deep menacing bunkers that splits the two sides of the landing. From the upper fairway the green is flanked right and left by bunkers, but is clearly open in front and can be attacked since you will hit a short iron. From below, you must carry the right front bunker and hit into a narrow angle of the green with either a mid or long iron. This is a much more difficult shot.

Into the wind the tee shot is very daunting and sometimes you have no choice but to go right. With the wind you automatically have to have a go the shorter route because of the advantage. The most common wind blows across the hole towards the trees on the left of the upper fairway, so you usually have to start the ball over the bunkers. Either way this is a fun hole to play and one you look forward to.

More great holes – French Creek’s 15th

The 15th hole from the tee









I thought I would spend this week describing “other great holes” that really inspired me. I’ll try to mix up the architects and concentrate on the ones I have not mentioned in my first 18 holes in 18 days series.

Every once in a while you find yourself out touring a courses where you run into a “true” original hole. They are the rarest of all gems, since most holes can be traced back to the holes that inspired them or the habits of the architect. These great holes almost always occur with the influence of the natural land leading the way, but every once in a while someone has the skill to create one. I think this is why most of us admire Mike Stranz so much, there may be other architects that I admire more, but he is one of the few who could possibly build a great hole from scratch. For the non-architects reading, this is much harder than you can possibly know.




Looking back from the green









The 15th hole at French Creek is one that recently caught my attention. First off there is nothing as much fun as a 290 yard par four that is easily drivable from all the tees. Gil Hanse created a hole where the green is attainable with only the most precise shot, yet the distance and visibility instantly draws out your driver; exactly like a good short four should. Hanse also provided an upper fairway that leads into the green in cas you can’t hit it far enough to drive the green The upper plateau and bowl collects tee shots and long lay-ups as long as you carry the fairway bunkers and keep the shot out of the long grass on the right. A tee shot finding the upper fairway is rewarded with a clear shot into the green flanked by bunkers on either side. The last option is play to the unguarded lower fairway which can be accessed with a short iron. The problem with this alternative is that the approach is hit up hill to a green that you can’t see. The green is perpendicular to this angle and is protected both long and short with penal bunkers.

I love this hole since each alternative works well; you simply pick the route that suits your style of play best. Gil does a nice job of creating a short four where the risks are worth the gamble and the opportunity to play aggressive is hard to ignore. This is what a short four is supposed to be about.

More great holes - Highland Golf Links 13th

A sketch of the knol in front of the 13th green








I have always had a soft heart for any hole that presents the option of playing a running shot into a green. It is most often encouraged by a downhill approach or by a green that falls away from play. Sometimes weather gets involved and the holes become best approached along the ground. But the rarest and finest version of this type of hole is the one where the landform dictates the running approach. Last week I pointed out the ridges that front the greens at Thousand Islands Club that are certainly best approached by playing short and bouncing the ball on. The hole that pushes this idea out the furthest is the 13th at Highland Golf Links.

435 yards away from the green Thompson places you on a high tee with all the elements of the hole clearly in view. The fairway slopes very hard from right to left with a series of wonderful undulations throughout. The player will likely cut the ball of the tee to hold the slope of the fairway and be left to face a draw lie on the approach, although any stance is possible because of the wild undulations in the fairway.














The prominent feature of the hole is the large roll right in front of the green. The player is simply left with the decision of how are you going to play over, around or along the prominent mound to get to the green. You can fly the mound, but the green has no slope, so a ball just short or long will easily skid over the back. You can not play right, since the ball will bound into the right swale for a very awkward up and down. A ball hitting the left of the mound will likely be run into the only bunker on the hole. The player is left to try to bounce the ball off the mound to find the green or they can even play the long running approach over the mound and onto the green. How often do we face that as a legitimate option?

This offers a window into an older view of architecture that is built around chance as much as shot-making. Modern architecture likes to control each view and each type of shot throughout the design, but often removes the elements of luck and fun by removing unusual landforms. Golden age architects, like Thompson, left the natural and unusual contours for players to contend with by using the landform instead of a formal hazard to define and defend a green site. The landform on thirteen offers multiple options and the player is left to use their creativity to play the hole. Stanley’s use of the natural roll in front of the green makes for one of the most entertaining approaches anywhere in the world of golf.

Where Maintenance Meets Architecture

Recently I went out to play a course I had designed. I had built the course with the intent of borrowing the concepts and ideas of Pinehurst #2. I was building a public golf course in a senior’s development and felt that playability was paramount to the success and enjoyment of the course. I made the course very wide off the tee and not overly long at 6,800 yards. Even the hazards were kept down with limited use of water and a liberal use of bunkering. Even the set up of the bunkering allowed for conservative play around the hazards. Most greens were set up defending one side and providing chipping areas on the other side to create a bail side to each green. I wanted players to have the ability to play within themselves and still make some pars along the way. The only place where I set up to make more difficult was the greens. The greens were intended to be the defense of the course and the defining feature.

I set out to make the greens dramatically contoured with lots of difficulty. I also borrowed from the Pinehurst concept and set all of the greens up in the air to place a further premium on the accuracy of the approach. I also used short grass intentionally around all of the greens to create short game opportunities and to even to further repel the ball away in some cases. My intention was to create a second shot golf course that was fun. All the soils were sandy loam which created a great opportunity to keeping the short grass fairly tight and fast. Originally the turf around the greens was kept tight enough that players could hit a flop shot, a chip shot, or most importantly could putt when they felt that was the best option. I wanted the best player to make choices and possibly make mistakes in judgment. I wanted the weaker player to always play to their strength so that they could enjoy the challenge around the greens. The key to what I had designed was the use of short grass around the greens

When I played that round I found myself in one of the green side chipping areas right away. I looked forward to the fun of creating a shot that used the slopes to find its way to the hole. I love to bump and run my way around those shots since I have a fairly good ground game. I also love to watch opponents (in a match) try the flop shot because it’s the most dangerous of all the shots. I hit my chip at the bank to use the slope to direct the ball up and at the hole and my ball hit the slope and literally stayed where it hit. What did I do wrong was my first thought? When I had a closer look at the bank and the turf in the chipping areas I found it was very thick which had eliminated the opportunity to use the ground. You now had to hit a flop shot everywhere and that was not what I intended. The playing conditions had compromised the most important feature of what I designed.

I got together with superintendent and we talked about it, to his credit he made immediate improvements to the chipping areas which brought back the options. It shows how important it is to communicate with the superintendent about what you are trying to do with your course to make sure you both understand what you are looking for as a designer. It can also confirm that your expectations are reasonable. I was grateful that he could and would make such an immediate change in the playing conditions to return the intent of the design. Architects are very dependent on superintendents to keep our vision intact, and often the best and the brightest ones make us look good with their ability and skill.

A.W. Tillinghast

Last week I was one of the three finalists to interview for the work at Scarboro Golf & Country Club. In preparation for my interview, and as part of the booklet I presented the club, I ended up writing a small overview about Tillinghast for the club. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Tillinghast this may offer some enjoyable reading.

A. W. Tillinghast was born in Philadelphia in 1874, the only child of a prosperous family. He became captivated by the game of golf in the 1890s, and made annual pilgrimages to Scotland where he took lessons from Old Tom Morris – one of golf’s greatest icons. Tillinghast was a good enough player to compete, playing in early US Amateurs and Opens. His golf architecture career began when he was asked to lay out a course for friends on their farm at Shawnee-on-the-Delaware. It was an instant success and he immediately went into the golf design business.

For nearly 20 years he ran a very successful and busy design business, until the bottom fell out of golf after the market crash of 1929. He designed approximately 60 courses and remodeled or expanded an equal number during this time. Because of his skills and social connections, he acquired more than his share of great projects and left behind a handful of courses that are considered among the finest in golf. Some of his best include 36 holes at Winged Foot, both Baltusrol layouts, the San Francisco Golf Club, the East Course of the Baltimore Country Club, Somerset Hills in New Jersey, 27 holes of Ridgewood (also in New Jersey), and the Black Course at Bethpage on Long Island. He had a great run of courses and success until the Great Depression ruined his business. He eventually had to work for the PGA of America to keep his head above water, but eventually became totally disenchanted with golf when he lost his house. He and his wife moved to California to set up an antiques shop, selling his collected possesions. With limited success, he attempted to re-establish himself with Billy Bell, but never achieved the same excellence. He died in 1942 in Toledo Ohio.




The enduring image of Tillinghast is that of the impeccably dressed architect poring over the plans for a golf course. He enjoyed being out “in the dirt” relying on inspiration to fine tune the details of each hole as it emerged from the landscape. There are great stories of Tillinghast sitting under the shade of a tree, bottle in hand, calling out directions to his workmen. He was undoubtedly was as colorful as he was talented, but there was more to him than the great stories. Tillinghast was the first designer who consciously set out to create golf holes that were visually attractive. He helped transform golf course architecture from its roots in nature to a greater art form. He drew on the principles of landscape design, engineering and art to transform a property into a spectacular playing field. To Tillinghast’s credit he also consistently changed style from one project to the next. The bunker and green complexes at Winged Foot and Baltusrol are not even remotely alike, yet both courses are a joy to look at and play despite their obvious differences. Variety was his greatest strength, all you need to do is look at his most famous works and marvel in how different each one looked.

In recent years the extent of his legacy to golf has become better appreciated as Winged Foot and Baltusrol have once again hosted major championships. His work has easily stood the test of time and he is easily included with the likes of Colt and Mackenzie in any conversations about the best architects in history.