Green Committee's - Part 2 of 3 - The Role of a Greens Committee

I'll give Architect Alister Mackenzie, who apparently had little regard for committees, the first word. In his 1930s manuscript, The Spirit of St. Andrews, he wrote, "The history of most golf clubs is that a committee is appointed, they make mistakes, and just as they are beginning to learn from their mistakes, they resign office and are replaced by others who make still greater mistakes, and so it goes on."

The Greens Committee has a responsibility of overseeing the management of the golf course, but they must not be involved in its day-to-day management. They should be involved in the selection of a golf course superintendent and a golf course architect. They should also provide the superintendent with a basic budget and general direction for the club. They are not there to micromanage either expert. They need not have specific knowledge of turfgrass management or golf architecture, but they must understand the game of golf. They must be willing to learn and know when to listen. Know it alls or dictators are disruptive to a greens committee and the experts it hires

In charge of the committee is the green chairman. The chairperson’s task is to organize and hold regular meetings of the committee and superintendent to discuss new ideas or to deal with any problems that have arisen. The greens chair or committee representative should also be present for any meeting with the golf architect, and should be able to make to make quick decisions when changes arise in the field. An effective chairman and committee can develop and implement plans that can be enjoyed by golfers for generations. Conversely, an ineffectual committee can drag the course down, through meddling or poor decision making. Being a chairman or member of the Green Committee is not a popularity contest. Tough decisions frequently must be made regarding disruptive and expensive programs and projects, and thick skin and an ample dose of conviction are required. Green Committees serve a vital role in the operation of the golf course.

If you are going to serve on a greens committee remember you are there to serve the best interests of the golf course, not for your own personal interests. If you can not do this, do not serve on the committee. As a golf course architect that is my commitment, the best interests of the course must come first.


I think Alister MacKenzie should be allowed to also have the final word of advice to a greens committee. “How often have we known committees, presumably consisting of men of intelligence, receiving the statement that golf is played for fun, with eyes and mouths wide open in astonishment? It is always difficult to persuade them that the chief consideration that should influence us in making any alterations to a golf course is to give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. Any change to a course that does not do this is manifestly a failure.”

7 most common mistakes: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/04/part-3-of-3-7-common-mistakes-of.html

Green Committee's - Part 1 of 3 - Will they Listen?

The 10th at Toronto Golf

As my wife said, “What it all boils down to is the club belongs to the members”

I have had a few situations in my career where a green’s committee or chairman only wants me to do their bidding for them. They have decided on the changes that they want to make and how they want it done – all they need is an architect to do it. What they want from their architect is to act as salesman, construction supervisor and mostly a figurehead. They want the rest of the club to assume that all work is approved and directed by the architect while they secretly go about their business behind the scenes. This is unfortunately more common than you would think. After all ask any golfer and they will tell you they know lots about golf architect. For some architects this is an arrangement is acceptable as long as they are well paid, for me it is pure frustration.

In the past I was guilty of trying to please too many people and have certainly learned from this experience. To be truthful, the quality of the work is always comprised – as I stated before what is a horse designed by a committee? A mule. I face an interesting decision along these lines once again with a course I love run by people who want to direct rather than listen. What an interesting dilemma - get involved and hope for committee change - or pass on the work and never work with the club again.

Why have I returned to this topic?

Well I just read through the Report to Members from the Course Committee regarding Toronto Golf Club. They are working with Dr. Martin Hawtree, a man they have hired due to his expertise with H.S. Colt. I was really looking forward to the direction that he offered them. Toronto Golf Club happens to be one of my favourite 5 courses in Canada. The one thing that struck me about the report was there was a great deal of backslapping about how great Toronto Golf is and how lucky to have a Harry Colt design, but very little deals with correcting the lost history and restoration they should be taking on.

Colt bunkers built in 1914

I have a copy of the Colt Plan and have all Colt and Alison’s field notes, so that I’m well versed in what in the history and legacy of the course. I would bet that he gave them a very clear vision and directive of what he wants to do and I would love to see that report. I sure got the impression that the committee has chosen to simplify his thoughts to avoid making drastic moves that could upset membership. I want to make it clear this is MY speculation, but I’ve seen this style of report before. If you can’t make the right decision for fear of upsetting someone – stay off the board and for god’s sakes don’t chair a committee – your doing harm.

I’m only going to give one example that stood out – since I have some historic photos to make a point “Our bunkers are not good examples of Colt’s work”. The committee report talks about repairing the leading lip instead of restoring the bunkers. They have Colt’s instructions on how to build them and how they should look. There are lots more examples in the report, but I just wish clubs would listen to their architects. The results at St. Georges should have been a lesson for all clubs (including Toronto). There was lots of committee involvement ( I like that involvement), but they also trusted (me) the architect to do what is best for the course, and now everyone is pleased with the results including historians.

The role of a green's committee and the green's chairman: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/04/green-committees-part-2-of-3-role-of.html

The Best Hole I know –the 10th at Riviera

the smart line in red, the usual line in yellow





My favorite “designed” hole is undoubtedly the short par four 10th at Riviera. I love most short par fours since everybody has a chance on a short par four. For the average player, here lies the opportunity to make a par; and for the better player, a chance to make birdie.

The 10th hole at Riviera may be the most deceiving hole in all of golf, after all a 311 yard par four should be a push-over right? The hole is easily reachable from the tee which naturally entices a bold player to play for the green. One of the joys of the Nissan is watching how many players try to hit the green, and make five. Even though they know missing right is certain peril and most strokes are lost from missing right, they continue to look directly at the green. The true genius of the design lies in the green itself, it slopes sharply away unless you come in from well left. This is a very special hole, after all how many holes do you know where the longest way to the hole is the most efficient to make a score?




the green falls away to the right





But is doesn’t stop with just the green. When you see the hole, you are surprised to find out it is built over a huge flat wide-open expanse. Thomas and Bell have added a series of bunkers that further add to the feeling of width. The other thing the bunkers do is perfectly frame the line directly to the green. The funny part is the left edge of the fairway, where the smart lay-up is played, looks like the worst option from the tee. How many holes do you know where the smart play is the least obvious and the riskiest play is the most understandable?





notice how the bunkers tell you to go at the green, and look at all the width



The player is left on the tee just brimming with confidence that they can knock it on, and the architect has gone well out of his way to encourage this. You may get lucky with your silly choice and make a birdie or a par through an excellent tee shot (as I did). But as my host, a regular member said, you won’t pull that off two days in a row. Once you make six from the right, you take the route to the left all but a few times a year – if you want to score.
The hole has many options, needs a great deal of learning to play it well, and allows all level of players a good chance at a score. This is a perfect hole at only 311 yards. So please explain to me why we need 7500 yard courses?

Template Architecture – Borrowing from the Past

the original redan







Before beginning the National Golf Links of America, Charles Blair MacDonald toured the great courses of the United Kingdom and Europe. He set out to find the finest holes and to dissect them to use their strategies. He didn’t try to replicate any of the great holes, he was far too smart for that, instead he choose to take the holes and adapt them to suit the site conditions. His decision to adapt meant that he could use multiple ideas on a single hole, and it also meant that a hole could become more through better ground than the original.

The 15th (The Redan) at North Berwick, Scotland is more than a hole, it is an architectural concept. The green is set on an angle running away to the left, what makes the green unique is the land from the fairway in front to the back of the green runs away from play too. Add in bunkers tight on the front and back, combined with the narrow nature of the green, and you have one of the most imaginative holes in golf.






the redan at NLGA







MacDonald brought the Redan to NLGA. His Redan is better than the original for one main reason. It offers all the same architecture, but it is clearly visible since it is slightly downhill the whole way. All Raynor’s and MacDonald’s Redans were made visible, because he saw the blindness in the original as a weakness. While following the architecture of the original, he looked for ways to improve the architecture. This is template architecture.





the 3rd at Tobacco Road







At Tobacco Road Mike Stranz’s 3rd hole borrows directly from the 3rd hole at Pine Valley. Pine Valley’s 3rd is a par three surrounded by sand with a green that feeds the ball from right to back left to access the tucked pin positions. Both holes look much alike, but the problem is they do not play alike. The 3rd at Pine Valley the steep grades are used to feed the ball into flatter areas on the green; whereas the severity of Mike’s green make much of the pin position relatively inaccessible due to strong slopes and the lack of good flattish pinning areas. While they look very similar, this is an example where the original works strategicly better than the newer version.






the 3rd at Pine valley







Finally since it is Master’s week I thought I would talk about the 4th at Augusta National. The 4th was MacKenzie and Jones’s tribute to the amazing 11th (called Edan) at St. Andrew’s. The front bunkers at Augusta are placed to mimic the Strath and Shell bunker fronting the green, while a little more formal and a little less intimidating, the position is quite close. The biggest difference now is the green at Augusta is missing the huge shelf that makes the Edan at St. Andrew’s truly unique and a tough test of distance control. Augusta’s green is well sloped but has no major change of elevation. The other new difference is the hole at Augusta is 240 yards, which removes the remaining comparisons by the distance alone. The Edan has been built at Garden City (#18) and lots of other course too. None have matched the cunning of the original green contours.

All great architecture has roots in classic holes, seeing and understanding the great strategies is vital in creating your own great holes. Even the best architects in history paid attention to what others did well before them.

The Rise of Inoffensive Architecture

One of the leading architects of my time has chosen an architectural style that is definitely pretty, very comfortable to play and offers instant familiarity right from the first play. The best description I can make of this architecture is inoffensive. There is nothing wrong with the work, and it is popular with players, but there is nothing about it that stirs the soul. You never face a moment of angst or agitation from having to make a decision from incomplete information. You simply know everything about the work from first play. You rarely lay-up, you are not forced to think, or made to fear the ramifications of a miss. It could be describes as “comfort” golf.

The biggest problem I personally find with these courses is the lack of discovery over repeated plays. When you know each strategy from first sight, and the risk reward scenarios are at a minimum, you simply just play golf. I’m not sure how much fun golf is without risky options, alternate routes, overcoming extremely difficult scenarios, or paying the price for too much courage. The game is not meant to be fair, yet this architecture treats the game as if it is supposed to be fair. Options equal Interest. Interest equals fun. This golf offers little in the way of options or interest; it is simple as comfortable as your favorite chair. Somehow, I don’t think that is what Tillinghast, Colt and MacKenzie had in mind.

Walter Travis mentioned that it is the architect’s responsibility to improve the skills of the player by challenging their ability to overcome difficult tasks. I’m sorry, I should find the actual quote. He felt that the more challenge they were asked to overcome, the more their skills would improve. He felt courses should evolve and add trouble as the membership became more familiar “and comfortable” with the layout.

Why has golf headed in this direction? Is it the fear of criticism? Is it the desire or architects to please rather than push the player, which leads to a short-term popularity of the architect? Is it the marketing idiots and their terrible influence on the golf industry dumbing down the game?

Alister MacKenzie has the best quote on the subject:
“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.”

My Eclectic Top 18 in the World

The 3rd at Royal County Down







On Golfclubatlas somebody once asked for the best 18 holes based upon the original list in the World Atlas of Golf. The task was to come up with 18 in holes in proper order, by 18 different architects, and from18 different courses. When I made my list, I was quite pleased when Tom Doak suggested that my list should have been used in the new printing, and other than the 12th he could find no fault with the list. He was pleased that I didn’t always take the obvious, like 16 at Cypress Point, nor a hole from Augusta National. Well the reality was I had not been to Augusta and I stuck to only holes I have seen. This list also provides a nice window into what I like too.

The toughest selections for me was the opener, the 9th and the 12th. The other more fascinating issue is the lack of a Donald Ross Hole or a hole by Pete Dye. I have a great deal of respect for both architects, but could not find that elusive hole. I look forward to any suggestions somebody has for those two architects or those three holes.







The reverse redan puchbowl green of the rollercoaster 6th at The Creek Club


1st Garden City - Travis
2nd Pine Valley - Crump
3rd Royal County Down – George Coombe
4th Banff Springs - Thompson (Devil's cauldren)
5th Merion (East) - Wilson
6th The Creek Club - Raynor (punchbowl)
7th San Francisco GC - Tillinghaust (The duel hole)
8th Crystal Downs - MacKenzie/Maxwell par 5
9th Friar's Head - Coore and Crenshaw

10th Riviera - George Thomas
11th St. Andrew’s – Nature/Robertson (Eden)
12th Sunningdale - (old) Park/Colt
13th Gleneagles (Kings) - Braid (Braid's Brawest)
14th Royal Dornock - Morris (Foxy)
15th North Berwick - Strath (the Redan)
16th Shinnecock - Flynn
17th The National Golf Links of America – C.B. MacDonald (Peconic)
18th Pebble Beach – Egan

My Thoughts on Being a Member of the ASGCA

Two of my good friends, Gil hanse and Art Schaupeter





Ever since I was about 13 years old, I wanted to be a golf course architect and eventually become a member of the ASGCA. I finally got voted in three years ago. The funny part was while I was eligible for many years; I did not join due to the cost and the lack of clarity in the application process. While the standards are simple (5 new courses where you have a lead role in the project), the grayness of standards leaves a lot of confusion.
I always wondered if I was eligible due to Doug’s insistence on routing all the courses before handing them over. Well it turns out that is fairly common in large firms and is understood by the committee; but you still have to spend about $5,000 that you cannot recuperate, to find out what they think. That sucks in my books. I finally joined when my wife told me should would not go anywhere with me and the kids until I had joined. I always bailed and took the kids to Florida in the winter with my initiation money.

“I never quite knew what the ASGCA experience would hold for me, and I was skeptical about joining.” from one of the current associates

Well I have now been to two meetings and I’m honestly not convinced of whether this is the right or wrong thing to do. It certainly is an expensive habit and I still don’t understand the benefits beyond great friendships. I hope that will simply come with time.

I went to the last meeting with some thought about dropping the idea of the ASGCA if the money became a burden - but I must admit that the week definitely made me change my mind. I don’t know how this will play out, but I was convinced to stay. A few new friends (members) in particular spent a lot of time with me sharing their experiences and ideas for how to run a small successful business. Essentially we all convinced each other that we are not crazy and set up a nice support group for each other. This is priceless to me.




meeting Jack and Arnold, priceless






I enjoy the camaraderie and many close friendships that I have already picked up very quickly. The younger architects, in particular, are open and like to share ideas and enjoy constructive criticism to improve. The older members are always a highlight of each meeting, with their swapping of stories, I like being part of that history. The publications and initiatives to educate agencies are good for the future of golf development, and their benefit to me is obvious. I guess the question is more selfishly am I getting enough, when I’m spending so much money, which I really don’t have a lot of.

There are a few things that bother me about the society beyond cost. I find it hard to get involved, particularly since the committees don’t meet or report. I’m also at a loss in how the executive is appointed and how the membership has any role in the process. I’m fairly certain we do not, which is not very democratic. The society seems to be run by and for the larger firms at first blush. This will always sit poorly with me if I learn this is the reality.

I do want to get involved, Jeff Brauer tells me that is the way to get the most from it, but I’m not clearly sure how. I would also like more interaction between members so that I have more opportunity to share with them or learn from them. I want more clarity in how the society functions and have more input in its direction. I hope the new development of a Master Plan/Directive for the Society way help alleviate all these concerns. I’m certainly hopeful to this end.

So far it is certainly fun, the question is, is it beneficial?

Pinehurst #2

the 8th, my favourite green site





Well, another course that I have played a couple of times and walked once backwards too.

The “deuce” is one of my favorite designs for its ability to get the weaker player around with the width between tree lines, light rough and limited amounts of bunkers in play. The higher handicap is unlikely to lose a ball and quite likely to find the occasional par to make a very memorable round.

The quality of the deuce is its ability to ratchet up the pressure and difficulty on a better player. The greens are the course and probably the only reason that the deuce is held in high esteem. Many people think the deuce is ugly and boring, since the crowned greens are supposedly repetitive. Well I certainly don’t agree. Each crown comes at different heights and many have to be engaged with different types of shots to remain on the surface. For example you must run it into #2, while you have to fly it into #9. A running draw (for me – the lefty) helps at #11, whereas a delicate pitch is required at #12. The course can not be broken down to domed greens that are hard to hit where a player has lots of chipping; that is selling the course far too short.

I went to see if the course was too hard and the greens were too fast for a reasonable game. I found out the course is kept at 9 feet for resort play, which means the greens would rarely be out of control. They are still very challenging even at 9 feet. Yes the crowns are severe, and yes I did putt into a bunker after hitting a green in regulation; but there is nothing there that can not be managed with smart play. My personal issue was a horrendous read of a putt combined with a frightening pin position.




the incredibly difficult 9th green






The things that I had forgotten from a previous trip were how incredibly difficult the par 3’s are. The 15th green has only about 2,500 sq.ft. of “real” green to pin. They were all exceptionally good holes. I also forgot how truly plain the deuce is, while brilliant in design, the course is fairly benign until you get close to the greens.

Still, the deuce is a great model for a public course. Hard to lose a ball, lots of room through out the round, very little difficult maintenance, lots of alternate options to hitting shots, encourages the ground game, rewards only a thinker, and test the putting skills. Great architecture - when put in that context. She ain’t pretty – but she is nearly perfect.

My Thoughts on Tobacco Road

approach to #16

Round One

The first hole is a good example of what lies ahead. The tee shot is intimidating and the blind carry over the dune in the second landing area is enough to make the knuckles white. After watching my playing partner 4 putt the reverse redan green. I wondered what we were in for. The course is high on the intimidation scale, with a lot of similar character to Pine Valley. There is lots of room, but don’t you dare miss!

My general impression was that the course was far more playable than I expected, and that after the opening three the course really got going. There was far more room off the tee than expected, but often that was not clear because of his use of deception and intentional blindness. Yes Mike intentionally created many blind tee shots. When I say intentionally, it is because he shaped the entire site. The shaping at the course is some of the best in golf, there is no question that Mike Stranz is an artist.

The joy of the course is the optional routes. He often provides an overly aggressive route with huge reward, and a lay-up option for a much safer and well, boring option. He is certainly a master of enticement, because you can’t help but try the shot that is most daring. His architecture sucks you into his strategy - and into areas of greater punishment. This is excellent gamesmanship on his part.

The bunkering and detailing have few peers in golf, and really the greatest contention lies in the blindness and the greens. The blindness did not bother me, with all but a few shots being perfectly obvious, despite not being able to see the fairway. The greens were the most surprising feature. They are some of the boldest greens I have seen. Some are magnificent and others are too far over the top even for my taste for wild greens. There were situations where you had no possible way of getting from one tier to another.

Overall, I would say this is a must play for anyone who loves golf, and in particular for anyone involved in golf architecture. Mike Stranz swung for the fences all day and hit a home run in my books.

approach to the blind punchbowl at #13

Round Two

I intentionally arranged two rounds because I was worried about having a rash judgment about the course. The return visit had an interesting effect. Knowing where to go and what the risk was made playing a lot easier and a lot more enjoyable. I found the course manageable, fair and quite thrilling to play. Much of the intimidation was gone, and now the risk lay in over-reaching my abilities. He was still sucking me into taking way too many chances. I couldn’t see to help it, some routes draw you like a siren to the rocks.

The other effect it had was in helping me see a few things with out the initial “wow factor” blindness. The super wide greens (150 yards!) struck me as a feature that offered nothing but a chain of small greens and a horrible aesthetic. I did not get this idea. I did not like the idea. The second hole, 3rd tee and 11th tee is shoehorned in and creates one of the strangest and most dangerous situations I have seen. Some holes, like the 7th fairway. Were too over-shaped but in general it is damned good

I did decide on the second time through I liked most of the super wild greens and that different pins made a substantial difference to the enjoyment. I thoroughly enjoyed the whole round, taking big chances (swinging for the fences), playing aggressive when I could. I played a lot of Ross courses that I enjoyed over the week, but I still think that Mike’s course is the one I would want to play “next.”

My first game with my son

I was reluctant to encourage my oldest to play golf, since it is a huge part of the bond that my father and I share. I became a golfer, and then a golf architect, because I inherited my father’s love for the game. Once I realized that Cam really wanted to play and I got over my silly worries, I was excited about teaching him the game. A brilliant man, Gene Greco, advised me to just let him tee up and hit it. Pick up if you need him to, let him walk a few holes if he wants to, but make him hit every chip and putt. What great advice.

Dad and I took Cam out to a local Florida muni for a lesson. Cam was carrying his very first set of clubs that I had bought to fit to him properly. I must say that the equipment manufacturers have created lines of cheaply price junior clubs of real quality. I think this is one group that has done its part to help promote future golfers.

My father is a good teacher, who wanted to make sure that he had a good swing before we even considered taking him out. He struggled for a while, as he made subtle correction to his grip and posture, until he proceeded to hit the ball regularly in the air with a nice swing. Before you worry about me, I have no interest in creating a competitive golfer, I just want to him to enjoy what the game offers.

He hit the ball well enough and consistent enough that we decided to play. It was a nice quiet Tuesday afternoon at the muni, and there was nobody on the tee of one of the three nines. Perfect let’s go! We went into the pro shop and said we wanted to play nine holes. At the local municipal course we were told “he’s too young to play.” He was 9. My dad said “there’s nobody out there and he hits the ball fine, besides he’s with us and we’ll pick up to keep up.” They said NO, there are too many regulars (seniors) who play at this time. I paid for a twosome in silence.

Needless to say, I stuffed Cam’s clubs in the side of my bag, and Dad and I went out as a twosome “with a caddie.” We played the first hole as a twosome and the rest he played without picking up.I can not possibly describe the joy of watching both my father and son play. It was the first round where I can not remember a single stroke of my own, but I remember every chip, putt and duff in detail. My father began the day slightly worried about holding people up, but by the middle of the round realized this was not going to be a problem.

The lesson I learned from this was there is no “right” age for kids to begin. It’s a matter of when they are ready.

5 Modern Courses Worthy of Study

As a follow up to Dave's question, I offer my five modern courses.






The Golf Club is very understaed except the occasion wild bunker








The opener sums up th course well, understated and brilliant





The Golf Club – Pete Dye - variety
I distinctly remember my visit to The Golf Club, I was expecting the TPC at Sawgrass, and was very surprised at how understated the golf course was. Everything on the course, except a couple of very bold features, blended into the surrounding so much that it looked “found” rather than created. There were many great lessons beyond the look or the feel. Pete offered up the largest array of bunkering techniques I have ever recognized on one course. Hazards were central, non-existent, used for carry angles, used for deception, used to frame, and used for show. He did it all, and it worked well because he pulled it together with the overall feel of the site. Anyone visiting here will see where the new minimalists draw their inspiration from. For me it proved you don’t have to define or defends everything, variety is far more important.






The 4th, likely the toughest hole on the course




Pacific Dunes – Tom Doak – ignoring standards
There are many things to admire about Pacific Dunes. The setting and views down the coastline are obvious, but that’s just a start. Doak was smart enough to see this as a resort course and resisted the drive for length, instead he opted for a golf course that was beautiful and eminently playable. It took guts not to find 7000 yards or get constrained by standards. His unconventional placement of threes throughout the round is a testament to using what he found, and not forcing something in. He was also smart enough to recognize the golf course would be very exposed to the wind, and so he created lots of width in the course to keep it playable in tough conditions. The use of interior bunkering to place emphasis on driving the ball in a mild wind was a clever way of keeping width and challenge at the same time. This is proved to me that a great course could be built without length and still be very playable for the average player.







The 2nd hole is a transition from the wooded dunes to the potato fields, but you can't tell.


Friar’s Head – Coore and Crenshaw – the contours make the game great
It would be easy to talk about the magnificent routing that incorporates the Potato Farm with the Wooded Dunes, but Coore and Crenshaw bring something even greater to every site. They design in the fun. The main way they do this is with great contours. The ripples and rumples left in the fairway that add crazy stances or challenging lies for the approach. The humps bumps and hollows all left short around the green that ask your best imagination to solve their complex lines. Then finally at the green the use of humps, tiers and rolls to create greens that complicate an approach and are confounding to putt. This all adds up to a course that would change with each and every play. Isn’t that what we all want to achieve?

I’ve already recently profiled my other two choices















Rustic Canyon - Gil Hanse - ground contours















Monterey Peninsula (Shore) – Stranz - borrowed scenery


Two other courses that I concidered:
World Woods (Pine Barrens) – Tom Fazio
Bandon Dunes – David Kidd

The courses I wish I had seen that seem worthy of the list:
Sand Hills
Kingsbarns
Kingsley Club

The Travel and Leisure Golf Article that Came From These Lists: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/09/travel-leisure-golf-my-article-in.html

10 Golf Courses to Study Golf Architecture – Part I

I thought it would be interesting to see which course have had the most influence on my design ideas and why. What I’m also providing is my list of must see course for any budding golf architect.










1. St. Andrew’s (nature) – the contours make the course

If you could only study one course it would be St. Andrew’s. There are too many lessons to explain, but the one that is most important is the value of a contour on and off the green. St. Andrew’s features some of the boldest undulations on any putting surface, and positional play is important to accessing many of the pins. It shows how great greens can dictate strategy right back to the tee. The wonderful knolls, knuckles, rolls, humps, and hollows found around the greens require additional creativity to deal with. They take a player’s full imagination to overcome and there is nothing more fun than that.













2. Pinehurst #2 (Ross) – the difficulty of short grass

Whether Ross created the fall away greens and chipping areas is a moot point, all that matters is what effect it has on play. Short grass can be a more effective hazard that a bunker, it’s easier for a weaker player, but far more daunting for a better player. The advantage to a weaker player is they can play to their strengths, the disadvantage to a good player is they are faced with too many options. Bad decisions are often a bigger factor than poor execution. They may not need to be a severe as Pinehurst’s greens, but the effect is still the same.














3. Muirfield (H.S. Colt) – adaptable to all conditions and players

The beauty of Muirfield is how well it adapts to all types of conditions and players. H.S. Colt designed a course with two loops in the opposite direction ensuring that the wind would be encountered on all sides and that the wind would never be the same for more than three holes in a row. The bunkering completes this masterpiece by the way its placed. There is room off the tee on most holes, and the player is invited to play a shorter line; but the more aggressive the player gets, the more difficult the course plays. Colt has bunkered in a manner that the landing areas tighten the further the player tries to go. The player is left deciding whether to play safer or risk Colt’s penalty for being too aggressive.














4. San Francisco (Tillinghast) – scale and grandeur

I admire Tillinghast’s ability to think on a grand scale. This is likely the hardest of all the skills to explain or to aquire. San Francisco is as big and wide a golf course that I know, it features some of the most elaborate and bold bunkering that I have ever seen. The delight is how the architecture fits the property through Tillinghast’s use of additional clearing width and large open spaces. It takes a very clever architect to understand how to expand the scale of a golf course without overwhelming everything around it. This is one of the few cases where it works to perfection.










5. Pine Valley (Crump) – difficult does not mean length

Like St. Andrew’s there are too many great lessons to learn, so I will stick with one, yardage. Pine Valley proves that difficulty and length are not synonymous. The course is a relative short 6,600 yards from the tips, and an easy driving course too, and yet it is one of the hardest courses in the world. How? Through intimidation, penal hazards and a series of very difficult approach shots where a miss is punished harshly. Pine Valley has a better variety of hole lengths than any other course in the world. Crump gives you the opportunity to go for a par four and asks you to hit a long running approach into another. Variety is the spice of life and variety in yardages makes for the most interesting golf courses.

The Next 5 Worth Studying: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/03/10-golf-courses-to-study-golf.html

10 Golf Courses to Study Golf Architecture – Part II

6. Merion (Hugh Wilson) – greatness on a small property

Merion may be the best routing in golf. On such a small property Hugh Wilson was able to find a flawless layout. The fun of the golf course routing is that it has a number of unconventional aspects to it: all par fives are in the first four holes, there is a long run of shorter holes from 7 through to 13, all climaxed by a grinding finishing 5. It works so well for two reasons; the first is that Wilson has simply used the best available holes and not been influenced by convention. The second is the rhythm of the course, it works almost like a three act play. The player is given a firm introduction to the course and it’s challenges in the opening 6, he is given an opportunity to try and be much more aggressive or to even score if he dares for the next 7, and the final act is survival. Merion gives the player all they can handle in the final 5 to see how good they really are.














7. Royal County Down (Morris, Coombe and Colt) – sense of place

Royal County Down has bearded bunkers, brilliant purple heather, dark green gorse, magnificent golden dunes, the slate grey sea, spectacular deep purple mountains and a beautiful red brick hotel fronting the town itself. The architecture is great on it’s own, but the surroundings simply add to the experience and make Royal County Down one of the finest places to be anywhere. If you can combine great architecture into the right surroundings, you have magic. These are the courses that stay with us the rest of our lives.
The lesson is to find the right site first.














8. National Golf links of America (MacDonald) – understanding strategies of the great holes

Many people believe there are no new ideas to bring to the game, that everything has been done, and the newness is more the ability of the architect to adapt old ideas to new situations. Charles Blair MacDonald (a Canadian!) adapted the great holes and strategies to create the National Golf Links of America. The lesson is simple, to be a great architect you must study and understand the ideas of the great holes before you can design them yourself. MacDonald’s adaptations are some of the finest, and some of his more innovative uses of them are well worth studying too.












9. Cypress Point (MacKenzie) – blending in and standing out

If you polled the architects Alister MacKenzie would likely be chosen as the greatest architect in history. He had a wonderful knack of incorporating natural features, and in particular natural hazards, into the golf course. At Cypress Point his bunkers were the key. The blended naturally right into the dunes, they contrasted wonderfully while mimicking the tree tops, and they added an elegant flair to the ocean side holes without competing with all the natural beauty. The artistry of his bunkers is breathtaking, yet for all their character and movement, they still magically blend comfortably into the surroundings.













10. Riviera (Thomas) – asking the player to work the ball

George Thomas probably combined strategy and beauty as well as any architect. He was a master strategist, who rewarded a player for positional play, but liked to make the player work to get the ball into position. There is no course quite like Riviera, where a player is continuously encouraged to hit either a draw or fade off the tee. Where the course excels further is the continuous balance back and forth so that no player has an advantage; many of the holes call for fade from the tee and then the draw on the approach, the next hole will often ask for the exact opposite strategy so no player can gain an advantage. He expertly used a combination of Eucalyptus trees, bunkers, slopes of the greens, and the baranca to make the player shape their shots. Riviera is a remarkably well balanced test of shot-making.

5 Modern Ones Worth Studying: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/03/5-modern-courses-worthy-of-study.html

Mike Stranz’s Shore Course

Mike's illustration of the 9th hole





“I hope to carefully shape this new course so she will bend and sweep with the natural terrain of the rocks, trees, grasses and ocean. My dream is that she will appear as she has been dancing among the Cypress on this coastline forever, and now she is the new, wonderful discovery of just a lucky few people.” Mike Stranz describing what he wanted to do at the Shore Course.




Mike's illustration of the 11th




Last year I went out to see the Shore Course at Monterey Peninsula with two other architects, Scot Sherman and Art Schaupeter. This was the course that Mike Stranz had won the commission with some of the most impressive sketches I have ever seen – it was a complete rebuild. This was to be my first chance to finally see a Mike Stranz course, the guy that many called a radical, an architect that drew praise and criticism in equal measures.

I know Mike’s favorite quote is by Alister Mackenzie “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”



The completed 11th hole









Defenders of Mike like to point out that his courses are visually intimidating, but have great playability hidden in the course and that his application of width and optional routes does reduce the perceived difficulty. Mike has commented that many players try to play from the wrong set of tees and also try to play beyond themselves. I wanted to form my own opinion.

I did expect to be overwhelmed with his obvious creativity, but was curious to see if I cared for the level of difficulty he was reputed to build in. The course was as provocative and attractive as I expected, but it was also very understated and very playable. All three of us were very impressed with the flow of the course. It fit the land. It seemed to hug the natural features and it embraced its surroundings instead of competing with them. It seemed to dance among the Cypress on this coastline forever.







The 12th fairway shows the sweep of the fairway and how well the course fits into the site


The other part of the course we all enjoyed was how he created the strategies. He used the natural looking bunkers to create wonderful horizontal sweeps in the fairway which enticed you into a game of risk and reward all day. He used bold bunkering and green contours to reward you for careful placement. He wound the course back and forth to bring the strong winds into the game, but gave you room and optional routes to deal with the inherent difficulties. Simply a well conceived and wel thought out piece of architecture.

The Shore course is a must play for a young designer like myself. Mike left so many wonderful and simple lessons on how to use that site to get the most out of it – and he did. It makes a wonderful testimonial to the artist that was lost with his tragic passing.

(I can't wait to see Tobacco Road in two weeks)

The Central Bunker

The famous 16th at St. Andrew's.





A bunker placed in the centre of a landing area may be an immensely controversial choice, but it is a technique that should be used more. Let’s study some great examples to understand why.
The principal’s nose on the 16th at St. Andrew’s may be the first and earliest example of a central bunker. The weakest players are well short of this hazard and don’t give it much thought; in fact many just take dead aim right at it. The average player will usually bail well to the left to avoid the cluster and reduce the risk, whereas the best players must challenge the hazard to achieve the ideal approach to the green. The green is definitely best approached from right of the cluster, which also involves flirting with the out of bounds. The bunker makes this a hole full of decision making and creates an unusual and excellent example of risk and reward from the tee.





The 4th at Woking.






The 4th at Woking was originally a very mundane hole until Paton placed two bunkers right in the middle of the fairway at the 230 yard mark. Golfers could play short of the hazards and face a tricky approach shot over a difficult greenside bunker, or they could take the aggressive approach of driving between the bunkers and the out of bounds, but be left with a straightforward little pitch to the green. The idea was so bold that it was met with a huge uproar in the club, but it was so clever that Tom Simpson was inspired by this great hole.




The Shoe bunker is in the centre of the picture







There are lots of other great examples to learn from such as Braid’s Bunker on the 2nd at Carnoustie, probably the most intimidating example of all of them. The 5th at Friar’s Head, a drivable par four where the bunker is 290 yards from the tee right in line with the green. The Shoe Bunker on the 2nd at Pacific Dunes, where a player has to decide whether to try skirt it or fly it. The long par five13th at Rustic Canyon has a central bunker with lots of room left or right, but somehow many end up stymied in the little central bunker.

I think the reason this is not used very often is the “F” word, fairness. Most players feel that they should always be rewarded for a straight drive and this seems to contradict with their beliefs. What they fail to realize is that the central bunker is placed primarily for decision making. Most players feel that it is there god given right to hit driver all day. Although this doesn’t take the driver out of their hands - they often choose another club because of the risks associated with flirting with the hazard - and they label this a weakness of the hole. The only weakness was in their courage. If we still played match play instead of stroke play, this hole type of hole would be more popular, but once again fairness influences architecture because we perfer stoke play. Admittedly this hazard must be used sparingly to work well, but with careful placement, this is an idea has produced some classic holes.

Too Many High End Public Courses - a day at the golf show

Copper Creek's success spawned a series of $150 green fee courses, but many overlooked its key ingredient, location.



I went down to the golf show at the Convention Centre in Toronto yesterday. The golf show is about selling equipment and promoting places to play. As an architect, I do not go down there to promote myself or look for work; it’s more of a chance to see good friends and hangout with a lot of people from the golf industry.
Three interesting things came up during the day.

The NGCOA is promoting Take a Kid to the Course Week from July 3rd to July 9th. Any paying adult can take a child, under the age of 16 to one of 500 participating golf courses, and the child can play for free. This also includes clinics, rentals, tournaments and a prize draw. I commend the National Golf Course Owners Association of Canada for doing something to promote the game. I, for one, will be participating to support the program.

The second thing that came up in conversation was the possibility of having the Canadian government recognize Stanley Thompson as a person of national significance. This would have a far reaching implication on preservation of his work.

Finally, the talk of the show was the number of high end courses around the greater Toronto area. There are definitely too many already, and more coming into the market. Many new ones are built in markets where the local population will not support the green fee. All the Niagara courses are competing for the “assumed” Casino traffic (and the Buffalo region which is in a horrible economic slump), yet the spin off golfers from the Casinos were not there to support the Legends complex in the first place. I’m not sure where they will attract the players from, since all are built on flat sites which traditionally don’t attract players from outside the community. A Hamilton area course wants a 150 dollar green fee from a community that is quite blue collar and a region that offers a lot of good options at less than half the price. If the parking lot is often nearly empty, that is not a good business model. Even more perplexing is a course in Bellville charging a very high green fee when you have courses like Timber Ridge near by offering excellent value. People will drive for a better value. I personally can not figure where these courses got their financial model from, beyond copying the existing high end courses of Toronto. How could they possibly assume they could export it to other smaller communities, with out some adjustment for local economics?

There is a market, and there is a price point that will work in each community. You must start with that price point and figure out what you can build first. If you can afford the land, the build and the amenities, you will have a business that will work. If the course is exceptional, then you will draw from further away and get a better return. But if the course was expensive to build, and is considered only average, you will have trouble carrying your costs. Even people with exceptionally deep pockets will only pay for so long before they have to walk away. They didn’t get their money in the first place from this style of investing.

It will be interesting to watch the year unfold. I was around for the last similar cycle and this high end public course build out matches the private course bloom of the late 80’s. Clublink was born from that period, will Clublink or a new entity be an accumulator once again. The smart money went to the sidelines a few years ago saying that it could just acquire these courses with a little patience. It will be interesting to see if that is the case.

Target Bunkers - are basicly useless

Walter Travis opinioned that “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 the end is not attained, the existing hazard fails to fill its functions.”

Donald Ross stated that “Hazards and bunkers are placed so as to force a man to use judgment and to exercise mental control in making the correct recovery."

It is clear that these men see the placement of hazards as the key to testing the abilities of the player and to add interest to the game. There is no mention of alignment or definition.

So how did we end up with target bunkers, since it certainly offers no strategic value and only penalizes the most wayward of player?

Robert Trent Jones began the practice of bunkering the inside and outside of a dogleg to require absolute precision of driving. Architects in turn were drawn to the definition that this created and set about using it within their own design philosophy. Architects adapted this to their own personal style, which was usually based on a more playable model than Jones. As the bunkers were moved further away from the landing zone we ended up with bunkers that were out of play and could be aimed at. Hence the target bunker was born. Players got used to this luxury and architects began to routinely add in the bunkers because of their popularity.

Is the target bunker good for architecture?

I would argue that they are not. I think this has lead to a style of architecture that has gone beyond providing challenge, interest and options - instead it has evolved to offering clearly laid out tasks defined by the hazards. The target bunkers are their to make direction and placement absolutely clear from the tee. There should be more mystery and discovery to finding the correct line on a hole. The bunkers on the inside of the hole are the ones that define the challenge and create the coveted risk and reward scenarios. The only real use for a target bunker is to provide a line when there is no other feature available for a player to focus on – with trees, long grass and landforms - this is a rare event on a modern course. Target bunkers are an unnecessary addition to the game that cost too much to build and too much maintain.

I believe architects should use fewer bunkers much more effectively. They can accomplish their strategic intent and still get the definition they crave with more careful placement in the field.

Stanley Thompson's Best 18

7th at Capilano








Stanley Thompson is being honoured by the RCGA this spring and it got me thinking about what are his best holes. I thought it best that we use his writings to determine what he felt was required for the best 18 holes and then go out and find the best examples of these holes.

“Every shot in the game should be planned and the holes should be so arranged that each one is different from the following one. There should be three or four short holes - five is perhaps one too many, as the remaining holes are apt to be unbalanced. They should be interspersed - not, however, near the beginning or the end. In the former case they tend to congest the course, while in the latter the player who happens to be down is discriminated against. There should be six or seven good two-shotters, with alternate tees for the lengthening or shortening of the holes as the ground is hard or soft or the direction of the wind, to preserve their values. The rest should be apportioned between pitch and iron shots. Beware of three-shotters, unless there is some special natural feature demanding them. The starting holes should be comparatively easy, so as not to congest the course; the finishing ones should be long and difficult, for they are often the deciding ones in a match and no one should win a game on an easy hole. The fewer the blind holes the better. The bunkers around the greens should always be visible when within striking distance. A wider margin will naturally be given for a brassie shot than a mashie, but in no case should the bunkers be unfair. One should be able to get out with one shot without Herculean effort. “ Stanley Thompson

The short par three – 15th at Jasper Park (The Bad Baby)
It looks so easy, till you play it, because the size of the green makes missing the green devastating.

The mid length par three – 8th at Banff Springs (Devil’s Cauldron)
Set on a glacial lake, hard up against the mountain, it's simply the finest single hole in Canada.

The long par three – 15th at Catarqui
This tough uphill par three was made an even greater test when Thompson created a 3' rise in front of the green, so that only the best shot was rewarded.

The very long par three – 8th at Uplands
Don't miss left, right, long or short because your dead, at 225 yards, the toughest great par three he ever built.

The short drivable par four – 4th at Highland Links
The green sits such a short distance from the tee on a tiny plateau, it just entices you to do the wrong thing....go for the green.

The drive and pitch par four – 11th at Thornhill Golf Club
This is the hole that gave Byron Nelson fits when he won the last of his historic 11 straight victories in 1940. The hole rewards precision rather than brawn, because of the way the hole and the green runs away from play.

The drive and mid iron par four - 12th at St. George’s
Stanley used the most intimidating bunkers he ever created to make you play the hole the way he wanted you to.

A comparatively easy starter – 1st at Banff Springs (original routing)
A nice wide open opener with a beautiful view and no bunkers invites the player onto Banff

A good two-shotter par four – 13th at Highland Links
Stanley's use of the incredible knob in front of the green has created a situation where the ground maybe the only prudent option for an approach.

A good two-shotter par four – 14th at St. George’s
The second shot to a green squeezed between the hillside and the creek makes this the hardest single shot a s St. George's






2nd green at Highland GL







A good two-shotter par four – 2nd at Highland Links
Arguable the best par four Thompson built. The risk and reward from the tee and the wonderful elevated approach into a green framed by the sea, pale in comparison to the a spectacular green contours that set this one off by itself.

A good two-shotter par four – 7th at Capilano
A very difficult drive skirting by one of Thompson’s greatest bunkers sets you up for a difficult approach to a small plateau green. Missing left looks like the best option but Thompson has fooled you, there is no recovery from the hollow left of the green.

A good two-shotter par four – 2nd at St. George’s
A difficult tee shot that requires taking an aggressive line for position, followed by a tough long iron into a deep but narrow green. Only the two best find this green in regulation.

A long difficult finisher – 18th at Jasper Park
Alister Mackenzie described the hole as one of the finest in golf.

The short par five – 8h at St. Thomas
The tee shot involves risking the tight fairway bunkering to find the slot in the fairway. The approach is to a plateau green that invites the gamble, but heavily penalizes any miss with an impossible recovery.

The mid length par five – 15th at Highland Links
The most interesting fairway contours in golf, they make the hole great. Add in a clever diagonal bunkering scheme and a view to the ocean; add it up and you have the best par five in Canada.

The strong par five – 18th at Capilano
A testing uphill tee shot between lots of bunkers, and then the choice of trying to play aggressively to the small upper fairway, or safe to the lower fairway. The pitch from below is semi-blind and full of danger, the upper pitch is wide open and without trouble. A classic risk reward second shot makes this hole special.

The unreachable par five “because of the land” – 7th at Highland Links
“Killer” is so hard that I know few that have even made par. A tight tee shot, followed by a second shot skirting bunkers, followed by a delicate pitch to a severely sloping green, all from rumpled stances. A great test of anyone’s ability.

Rustic Canyon – a great model for future public courses

A look at the course from the air, notice the width and use of central hazards.



Rustic Canyon in Moorpark California is a golf course so good that it draws people from around the country to come and seek it out. Many would assume that a course this popular must be a big budget course done by a large firm. The course was in fact built by a small team of dedicated young architects for a very modest budget.

What makes it so good?

The course echoes the strategies and spirit of St. Andrew’s better than almost any other course designed in recent times. The green’s are very complex and involve strict placement off the tee to ensure access to pin positions. The turf beyond the greens is kept intentionally short to make the ground game the game of choice. This brings in an element of chance and luck rarely seen on other modern courses. The bunkering is present, but like St. Andrew’s, the player feels they have lots of room to play safe away from most bunkering. The fairways are wide, with an immense amount of options, but often the most dangerous route is the one that opens up the green. Gil Hanse, Jim Wagner and Geoff Shackelford have managed to bring the spirit of Scottish golf into a California Canyon.




A great setting that follows the natural contour in the Canyon





Why is it such a good model?

The golf course design follows the land, with little shaping beyond the tees, bunkers and green sites. This means they were able to build it for a modest budget, and the course only needs a modest green fee to make a return. Since the course is well designed, it is popular with all types of players. From a beginner to scratch handicap, each player is given a different test to fit the limits of their skill. Because it is so well liked, the course is busy, which guarantees the course will generate income for the community or ownership.

There is a lot to learn from Rustic Canyon.

Questions and Answers with Geoff Shackelford about Rustic Canyon

I asked Geoff Shackelford to answer a few questions on how it was done. I wanted to post the comments as I got them – I thought you could learn and understand more with the complete set of questions unedited.




I.A.: What was your goal with the project?

GS: Well my personal goal was to learn everything I could about a project from start to finish and Gil Hanse was kind enough to let me get my feet wet.

I.A.: Do you think that Rustic Canyon best illustrates the future for golf development?

GS: For the most part yes. There are elements of the project that are not necessary (wall to wall cart paths), that could save a lot of money for someone. And the operation is by no means a model. The place survives in spite of the operation actually, which says a lot about the conditioning, environment and hopefully the design.

I.A.: What design ideas do you think are most important to making this model work

GS: Width, width and more width. That instilled the fun. And sandy soil. That helps on the construction end (saving money on drainage) and on the maintenance end, not to mention makes for fun golf if the course is setup properly.

I.A.: What would you like to have done differently?

GS: More smaller bunkers. We built a few little pits, a couple of blind ones and they get so much attention even though the odds of hitting in them are slim. They tantalize good players but rarely upset the average joe's thinking. I love that, and it's great from a playability standpoint. Heightens strategy,but reduces the number of penalties for the majority of players.

I.A.: What was your target green fee?

GS: 30 to 60 dollars.

I.A.: What was the target budget to make the model work?

GS: In an area with nine million people within 45 or so minutes of the course, there was room to spend a bit more and still make it because golf is year-round here. The golf course budget was $4 million, and we came in at $3 million, and it should have been less but the cart paths and the construction supervisor wasted hundreds of thousands.

I.A.: Could you explain the financial model for other regions to copy?

GS: I'm not the one to ask about models, all I can say it, find sandy soil and an architect that is sensible and you'll do fine.

I.A.: Was the width to help speed of play or for creating options?

GS: Both. But I can't see how the course would have been narrower in any scenario, say as an upscale daily fee or a private course. It was just what felt right for the land, and it's the type of golf Gil and Jim and I like.

I.A.: The greens are magnificent was that the plan from day one?

GS: Well of course the plan was to make them magnificent, but how they actually come out is a mystery. Gil did most of them and create the shell in remarkably little time (#13 was a day and a half...my favorite). That said, a lot of thought and discussion and debate went into the concepts behind them. I don't know how Gil feels, but I believe the best ones out there are those where we really talked about the idea behind the hole and figured out the concept going in, so that when he got on the bulldozer, things just clicked. Of course, then there's #10, where I, a total hack on the bulldozer, just started making a hole that Gil refined into the green we have today. There was a concept there, but still, there was some fortune there too that it worked out.

I.A.: There are very few bunkers, was that due to the natural areas, playability or maintenance, or none of…?

GS: Looking back I wish we had even fewer. Mostly because the land was so good and there were so many natural hazards, that we chose to emphasize those features. As I said early, maybe more small pits would have added some fun and intrigue, but overall we really haven't wanted to do much to refine the strategy behind the holes.

I.A.: Any other thoughts about the project?

GS: Well it was great fun and eye opening for me in so many ways. Environmentally, we had a lot of issues to deal with and came out okay. I believe that stemmed from working to avoid the sensitive areas and being honest about what we were doing. I think a lot of projects get into trouble by trying to force holes into areas they just shouldn't go either because of impact on wildlife or because wetlands were really meant to be just that, places for water to go.

But ultimately the success of the place all goes back to fun. The operation is dreadful, but the super holds his end together and the golfers ultimately don't care that the carts are dirty or the place has no bathrooms on the course (well, that is embarrassing). The fun of playing the course keeps it attractive to most golfers and that's neat to see.