Restoration - Part 3 – Is everything by a famous architect worthy of restoration?

The 3rd at St. George's - the most out of character green on a great course that I know.

Tom Doak – known for his excellent restoration work – said that not everything should be restored. There are cynics that suggest the restoration movement is just a “fad” and will eventually come to the logical end called “progress.” Others argue that this so called “progress” was previously known as “modernization” and it was the source of so much architectural malpractice that it drove clubs to restoration since the work of the older architects was so clearly better than the renovations of the newer architects.

I think when you area dealing with the work of one of the greatest architects of history – you have an obligation to try and preserve most of their work for future generations to learn from and for the members to enjoy. I think a good restoration begins with preserving what obviously already works very well and identifying the features to the club so they won’t be lost by future generations. The next stage is to point out what is not working as well as it should and figure out if there are any easy ways to make it work without major change – such as a new tee or an additional bunker. Finally the last stage is to look through the holes that time and equipment has rendered obsolete and figure out if there is a way to make change and still preserve pieces to keep the spirit of the holes. The last alternative is to take those architectural elements and recreate them in a new location.

But what if the course was designed by one of the greats but really doesn’t have much in the way of great architecture to work from? What if an associate built the course? What if the project was a routing plan built by the members? What if it’s a great course with one awful hole?

If there is truly little there, you preserve what you can and set out to renovate the course to the style of the architect – that way the work should blend in with the original features that remain. If an associate worked on it – if it’s good you work with it since it doesn’t matter who designed good work – if it’s bad you make change based around the famous architects work making sure you still blend in with what will remain. In most cases features like bunkers are all done at once to keep things consistant and to allow for a broader change if necessary. If the architect did a routing plan but the features lack the artistry – you simple step in and try to make the course appear like it was done by the original architect by interpreting the drawings. If it’s a great course with an awful hole – you fix the hole. You try to work with the original intent and just remove the part of the hole that fails to work – like a green or poorly placed bunker scheme.

Occasionally you find yourself looking at a course that provides little or no inspiration – if they want a restoration – you pass on the work (and yes I’ve done that before). If they understand you need to make change - then you pick a style based around an architect, an era, or a technique that is appropriate for the course and the club.

Tom Doak is right after all – there are courses by famous architects that should not be preserved.

Tough to choose pictures since most clubs would be upset with being included. St. George's is aware of how good a course they have and how much the 3rd holds them back from being by far the best in Canada. If the 2010 Canadian Open goes there - very likely - that green will be rebuilt.

Restoration - Part 2 - Plans, Images or Built Form?

I thought I would continue to look at restoration this week and delve further into the world of grey.

One of the greatest debates - coming mainly from the restoration of Donald Ross courses – is whether to restore to his plans. This is applicable to other architects too, but the main proponents to using drawings work a lot with Ross courses. Donald – or his associates – was well known to put together very detailed grading plans with clear instruction into the intent of what he was trying to build at each green site. He left us many copies of complete greens drawings in places like the Tuft’s archives and now architects have embraced that resource to help with restoration efforts.

Some architects argue that these are the best resource that an architect can have since the intentions and directions are all there for you to use in restoring the hole. Other architects counter that every architect makes field adjustments on site and we should have far more respect for the final built form than what is represented on those drawings. Their argument is that drawings are always the starting place for all work, but the real craft comes with direction – and change – made in the field.

Ron Whitten recently chastised the architects who stick “too purely” to drawings with their restoration efforts. He has pointed out that Ross himself rebuilt a number of his courses to keep up with the changes in technology and that Ross was a believer in renovation even with his own work. Whitten’s argument is pure restoration is the equivalent of an architect putting their head in the sand and ignoring the changes taking place around them. He feels that historical renovation is appropriate but should be “sympathetically” – which means keeping the character, strategy and style but not necessarily preserving the actual features.

Like all great arguments – there is no right or wrong – only a strong opinion from either side. So where do I sit?

I believe built form and opening day photos takes precedence over working drawings. If you’re going to restore – then it must be what was actually built. If you’re going to make alterations to deal with the changes in the game then it usually becomes more appropriate to sympathetically renovate. I find in very general terms I tend to do both. I like to keep most of the holes intact and look mainly for new tees so that I’m not altering the architecture just returning the old intended landing area. I prefer to leave all short holes well alone since they usually feature the wildest and most interesting architecture. If you lengthen those holes – often down the road the green becomes a candidate for a rebuild to bring in fairness. I generally try to pick my spots from where I try to gain length or improve holes that seem to lack some of the charm that others have – if I can do this using lost features or strategies than I’m more inclined to make change. If change involves new ideas – I tend to steer the club to accepting a shorter quirkier course and try to council the club against alterations. That’s where I sit on this debate.

To fully understand how grey an area this is: I am introducing some new short grass areas at Cherry Hill Club (by Walter Travis) but everything is based upon – wait for it – the working drawings! I have no photos from the early years but I do have his working drawings and enough other examples that support the idea. All in all – there is no actual answer to this debate – only opinion – and even that changes through different circumstances.

To Part 3

Restoration - part 1 - shades of grey

I deal with a lot of renovation work – and as time has progressed – more and more of the work is restorative in nature. I’m grateful to be in this position and have made a lot of effort to learn about each of the courses I work with and about their respective architects. The one thing I find about this line of work is that it is occasionally very humbling since you can never assume that you know enough and must keep searching for more clarity on each architect – knowing that nothing will ever be completely black or white.




1939 St. George's aerial






A few courses such as Cataraqui and St. George’s turned out to be very well documented and the courses were pretty accurate restorations – but most have limited information leaving me with shades of grey to deal with in order to do my job. This is where you combine all the clues you have – from photos through to aerials – with some of your experience with that particular architect. You occasionally end up in the position of having to make an educated guess. You rely on what is still intact and combine that with what you know about the architect and try to make any renovations match the work and strategies f the existing course – this is called a sympathetic renovation.

Often while the desire was for a restoration – so you restore what you can and then fill in the remaining blanks the best you can through experience. As a close friend said about his work on a Thompson course recently – and he did a great job – how can I call it restorative when I didn’t know what was originally there. That’s the reality of some of the work you get involved with.

The Thompson Plan for Kawarth Golf & Country Club

The only part of this job that can become frustrating is when a crucial piece shows up right after you finish the work - like the Thompson plan did at Kawartha Golf & Country Club. The other side of the this is when fortune gives you what you need right before you start – Craig Moore from the Cutten Club located an old aerial from which I revised the Master Plan and tender to insure it was more accurate.

Today I was at Cherry Hill Club looking at an old Master Plan – I have more than five years of additional insight into Travis and I knew a few areas could use a tweak to be more accurate and interesting. After meeting with the club, I slogged my way through the rain to review the greens and reassess the grassing lines. I knew so much more about his work and understood a few of the features that left had previously left me perplexed – it was the perfect opportunity to bring a little more accuracy to the plan.




The Working drawings for Travis's Cherry Hill Club







I wish it were all black and white, but its not, it’s almost shades of grey. I find it’s the way that you handle those shades of grey that separate the work from being inappropriate or hard to distinguish from the original work.

To Part 2

10 More things I don't like

10 more that I choose not to write about but also would make my list are:

1. forced carries - the are tremendously unfair when presented to a below average player or when the wind is in your face and the carry is long.
2. irrigated fescue – (my biggest pet peeve) might as well be a lateral water hazard, although it becomes worse since it slows play with looking for balls.
3. internal out of bounds – mainly done to make a practice range safe but occasionally has been added as a cruel compliment to a hole – any hazard without recovery should be liberally used.
4. goalpost architecture (hazards that line up across from each other) – anything that pinches rather than inviting a player to either flirt or fly reduces the game to execution (zzzzzzzzzzzz)
5. doglegs greater than 45 degrees. – creates an situation where the average player must always play safe, the good player usually is forced into playing a lay-up, but also often creates a hole where the longest player can take such a short route that the hole no longer makes sense (Crooked Stick and Daly).
6. a course with no short par fours (350 or less) – it’s dull to play and creates a lack of variety
7. a par five over 600 yards – this is never done to create an interesting hole since a 600 yard plus piece of great terrain is almost non-existent – its done as a yardage grab – the holes are long and dull as plain toast.
8. three (or more) tiered greens – the only thing with that many steps should be the approach to the clubhouse.
9. tees with contour – it simply hurts my eyes and wastes useable tee surface
10. bunkers that are meaningless because they are flat – they have no influence on the game whatsoever and they still must be maintained

What would you add and why?

10 Things I Don’t Like - #10 Wide Greens with Front Bunkers

I thought it would be a more interesting choice than the obvious ones I also considered.

A good players rarely come up short or long – they have fairly reasonable distance control and will usually club themselves with-in 10 yards if there is no wind or elevation to deal with. On the other side of the coin – they tend to miss more to the left or right – particularly when they are required to work a ball on a recovery shot.

A weaker player tends to miss most often in front of the green because they have either miss-hit or misjudged the approach shot. The will miss left or right and occasionally long through swing faults – but the vast majority of shots will be short. When in trouble they will often play back to safety before trying to take on a shot to the green

A strong player is rarely intimidated by a carry unless the carry is either long or on a diagonal. The have more issues dealing with a narrow target or a green that slopes to the side than trying to find the courage to make a carry over a front bunker. In fact a fronting bunker often makes the shot clearer and easier to execute since the carry clearly defines the shot they need to hit.

The weaker player hates a carry because this is not a strong suit of weaker player’s game and also the idea of a carry adds pressure to the situation. When you throw in the complications of limited trajectories and limited abilities to carry the ball and you can easily see why this penalizes the weaker player.

There is no question in my mind that the very old fashioned approach of flanking a green with bunkers and leaving the front wide open is the best way to defend a green site. It opens up a clear and fair approach to the weaker player, while telling the good player not to leak the ball left or right on their approach. It also gives both level of player the option to bounce in the approach if they so desire.

10 other things

10 Things I Don’t Like - #9 Squeezing the Landing Areas

Pine Valley's 4th

One of the greatest surprises I ever had came from playing Pine Valley – I went there expecting to be tortured by an impossibly hard course where every miss was trouble. The misses were indeed deep trouble – but the fairways were surprisingly generous leaving the player the opportunity to challenge the course. I found Pine valley to still be one of the stiffest tests I have ever faced – but eminently fair since the fairways were wide.



The European Club's 3rd













I’ve played courses such as Royal Portrush where the landings are very narrow and bordered by deep thick fescue. One the 9th hole I had an unplayable lie 2 feet off the 25 yard wide fairway – I don’t see the need for such a set up. I found at Portrush that each miss was a disaster of epic proportions that day – yet there was no room left for the average player or to deal with the regular strong winds. I really liked Portrush its well designed – but I found the set up got so tight that it presented no options and did not provide me with the charm and pleasure I found at other Harry Colt courses I played.


Royal Portrush's 8th












I went to visit Marine Drive in BC a few years back and was flabbergasted by the narrowness of the fairway corridors. Each hole was walled with trees so narrow that even a slightly pushed or pulled tee shot was certain to find wood. What was even more mind-blowing was the new planting of trees inside those tree lines on a couple of holes. It was a test of golf with very few options.


Marine Drive's 15th - a wider corridow than 10!











I recently played a Gary Player course in Florida where the landing areas were all completely flanked by ponds on one side (16 shots in one round!) always with bunkers and trees framing the other. I’m sure Gary could squeeze a tee shot through the 30 yard corridor but the rest of us can’t. Why would anyone play there twice?

It doesn’t matter how you create the squeeze in the landings – it removes all the options for the player and turns the game into execution. There is no test of courage or decision making – it is a test of execution under pressure. Even the best courses can become victims of a stiff set up and lose some of their charm.


Merion's 14th - note the bunkers away from the fairway











On the same trip to Pine Valley I played Merion for the first time. I loved Merion for all the skill in routing and bunker placement but was stunned that the fairways were very narrow and the rough so thick and high.
It always struck me that Merion was tricked up through the course set-up when it didn’t need to be. I felt the narrow fairways took away the opportunity or desire to try and gain position or challenge the bunkers – there was too much penalty for a miss. I would like to play the course in the spring before the rough grows up to see what the difference makes.

To Part 10

10 Things I Don’t Like - #8 Area Drains in the Fairways

One of the consistent things that I enjoy on older courses is the natural flow of the land uninterrupted by man-made contours. I’ll even take flat fairway over ones that have been artificially shaped to have roll. The modern idea seems to be that fairways must be receptive to be fair and rolling to be interesting. Architects now shape the fairways to achieve both and have turned to fairway area drains in order to make it work.

The new fairways are not only contrived but often feature a “moon like” appearance where the area drains have been used. The placement is so uniform and predictable that the shaping around the basins often upstages even great bunkering. I look at a great course like Tobacco Road where the wildness of the bunkering stands out – yet quite often the fairways come across as too contrived due to the extensive use of area drains in the landing areas. Even a create mind like Mike Strantz can’t overcome the definitive bowl shape that catches your eye and interrupts the natural flow of the land. Once you start using them – there can no longer be anything natural about the fairways. The more you use the less natural the look.
















The main reason they are used is to catch water and get it underground as soon as possible so that play will not be interrupted through rain. The only problem with this idea is the low areas around the basins tend to remain wet – and since that is where most balls tend to collect the results are less than satisfying as a player. Throw in ice problems in the north and agronomic problems with wet turf and you wonder why they are so prevalent. If the fairway can be drained off to either side it always removes water far more effectively.

Some builder’s and superintendent’s want them since they catch water quickly to avoid washouts during grow in but there are so many alternatives from wood mulch to just plain old sod that turning to basins should remain a last resort. I personally like to make a conscious effort to route holes so that water can fall off the sides and avoid the problems in the first place. Holes with containment mounds are often forced to use them.
















They need to be treated as a necessary evil rather than an important tool – then golf courses will be much better for the change in attitude.

To Part 9

10 Things I Don't Like - #7 Island Greens

Golf Digest once had a worst golfer tournament where they took the four worst “avid” golfers and had them play 18 holes against each other at the TPC at Sawgrass. Three of them ran out of balls except one brilliant guy who putt “around” the 17th hole and “across” the causeway to preserve his last ball and so that he could finish – and win.

The 17th at the TPC at Sawgrass may be one of the greatest holes in golf due to the tournament and the influence it has on the outcome, but it is also one of the worst concepts ever to be copied by architects. Admittedly this idea actually goes back to Herbert Strong at Ponte Vedra Golf Club and Pete’s version was not the first – but the 17th at Sawgrass is the ultimate version of the idea. As a one off, the 17th is an exceptional hole and ideal for the tournament format it serves. It teaches us a lot about nerves, psychology and finally shows us a way into the players head; and not just for that hole, but the entire round. Think about how much the impact would be reduced if the hole were the 3rd or 4th.




















Now let’s look at the island green as a concept. The concept has no recovery unless the island is expanded beyond the green perimeter – although even that is still semantics to me. I’ve played a couple of these and when the wind howls it becomes ridiculous. Every shot is either hit or miss the island – not long on options is it? Think about this, the approach shot is a forced carry. The approach shot has no safe play or alternative route to reach the green surface by skirting around trouble. A player could easily find themselves in a position where they can not finish the hole and potentially the round! All the great holes that I have shown you over this year have at least the opportunity to recover – this is one of the few exceptions in architecture (architorture?). My personal belief is that recovery is a key component of the game. There is a fine line between extremely difficult and unfair – and this crosses “my” line.


















I can feel for those guys at the TPC. I played in an event last spring that involved an island green on a private course in North Carolina. It was best two scores of four players – after the round we found out every group had two players that did not complete the hole. How could that possibly be fun on a daily basis for the average player? As much as I enjoyed the 17th at TPC, and I did find the green, the thought of playing it daily is dreadful. I watched my playing partner hit 6 shots before giving up. It works well as a resort experience, given the circumstance of the annual TPC Championship – but not as a hole concept.

To Part 8

10 Things I Don't Like - #6 Trees Directly in Play

A good example of willows blocking the ideal line at Taconic

We can all think of memorable holes where a majestic Oak or Maple sets the corner of a dogleg. As a golf course architect I have spent a great deal of time looking for these specimens to design a hole around them. Muskoka Bay was cleared to establish nearly 100 specimen trees just inside the tree line of the holes. Yes, the rumour that I hate trees is in fact untrue.

We are awed by the scale of those trees and the importance that they have for those holes. It’s exciting to play a tee that flirts with the trees in order to gain an advantage on the hole. The basis of Parkland Golf is as much the setting of golf in tress as it is the need to work the ball around a well placed one during the round. As Tillinghast stated the trees can have strategic value “as long as it does not interfere with the sound play of the game.”

The problem I run into time and time again in my work with existing courses is that too many trees are playing too large a role in the way holes are played. The majority of these trees are not encroaching at the edges but instead acting as sentinels blocking the path. For a large tree to be used architecturally it should be isolated. This means that no other trees are inside the drip line which allows alternative shots to get around the tree or recovery from underneath. The hole must have enough width between trees so that a player can play to the other side to avoid the specimen tree altogether.

This tree will only get bigger and bigger

When you think about the tree as a golf courses hazard, it represents the only vertical hazard in the game. Even a perfectly struck shot can be knocked down by the branching and redirected into deeper trouble. Only a hazard that can be flown should be used in the direct line of the hole. Where committees make the most mistakes is when they place a tree that in the short term can be flown or avoided. They forget with growth that their small tee will eventually block all play and remove all the options on the hole.

The most offensive of all trees is the one in the fairway. There is nothing more frustrating than seeing a situation where a player can hit their very best into the centre of the fairway only to be either knocked down by the tree or stymied on their next shot. Often it’s both. There is not one great central tree in golf – each is as ridiculous and inexcusable as the least one. Their only value is the firewood that they will be eventually cut into.



While a strong player can often get by - the average player is punished on a regular basis

Trees should be used only to frame the hole and reinforce the strategy. They tend to remove all the options on a hole when they are too close to the line of play. When options are they key to creating interest – trees should be the last choice for creating the strategy of the hole.

To part 7

10 Things I Don’t Like - #5 The Overuse of Ponds as a Hazard

I had the chance to look at someone else’s Master Plan for a new golf course the other day. It was typical of most modern courses that I have seen built in recent years, where every time the architect was faced with limited natural features he simply added ponds to create interest. I counted water “directly” in play at eight green sites. The architect had four holes with water in play from tee to green and two of those were par fives that doglegged around a large pond.

The reliance on water as a primary hazard began with the Trent Jones era – and became a staple of modern design. That was the era where “Championship” courses became the vogue and the use of the water hazard became the key intimidating defense that golf architects turned to protect par. Since most sites did not offer natural bodies of water, the architects simply added ponds to place it where it was most effective.

















Well this was all and good when the player had enough skill and control to avoid most of the water and this created a lot of excitement for people watching tournament golf. The problem came when the “average” player was faced with the same challenge. You see they are afraid of water and don’t have the control to avoid the hazard on a regular basis. The intimidation is much greater than a bunker or rough since there is absolutely no recovery from a pond. A ball in the water represents two lost shots. In contrast a bunker may represent no lost shots if a perfect recovery is made. Water’s judgment of the shot is absolute and final and to add insult to injury, in many cases the player is forced to repeat the shot often ending up repeating the performance until they have to pick up.
















I’m not total against the inclusion of water or even a pond – and I do like streams, burns, rivers and and lakes - but I don’t like the continuous use of ponds to bring water in play throughout the round. I also question the need to constantly bring water hard up against water the green when the hazard can be varied like the placement of bunkers. Water certainly has its place – but if the architect continually places water in play, he frustrates the average player by the relentless nature of the challenge. If the course is too challenging – golfers will stray away and support another area facility.

I looked at the proposal again and thought I’ve seen enough of those holes already. They all tend to look and play exactly alike. I kept thinking why so much water – and wondered who would want to play it on a regular basis.

To Part 6

10 Things I Don’t Like - #4 The Predictable Finishing Hole

I can’t think of anything more predictably than having the final hole dogleg around a large pond or having a pond up tight against the final green. When you start to go through all the new courses that you know – check out how many times the architect has turned to this technique. Throw in the fact that most of them are either back breaking long par four to provide a “championship” finish or a shorter par five “so that a tournament can be decided by one heroic shot” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz















It’s time that golf got more thought in the finishing hole. Look at the 18th at Olympic, a short uphill par four with a decidedly tricky approach shot. That was still a great finish despite the fact that it had no water or no length. Winged Foot’s 18th, while long, is protected by a very aggressive shoulder of the green with no bunkers – let alone water. Southern Hills was a wonderful uphill approach to a very tough green – yet so many of our courses revolve around a man made water feature to bring in the “drama” of water at the close.

















What ever happened to the notion of a hole that we could attack at the end of the round? I love Troon’s 18th where a birdie is definitely in the cards but the hole is still full of danger if you become too aggressive. Think about all the links courses and the finishing holes. Very few have water except the occasional burn – streams don’t bother me as much as ponds do. Almost all the finishers outside of “Car-nasty” are quite playable with many being downright easy.

So coming back to North America – why the hell has the long par four or short par five become the defacto finisher. I get TPC – because of the tournament – but 99.9% of all other courses built won’t even see a significant amateur event let along the pros. Look at Weston’s finisher that requires a bounce in approach, look at Toronto Golf’s that is largely misunderstood but a great little hole. St. Georges, Hamilton, Westmount, Jasper, Banff (the real one), Capilano, Highlands. It’s time to break this silly notion and design better finishing holes.

Before you point out Pebble Beach is the best closer in golf – which I agree – that one is all natural. I’m talking about a created situation that I’ve seen way too many times.

To Part 5

10 Things I Don’t Like – #3 - Two Bunker styles

I like the courses that I used as examples - I'm not trying to criticize them - only to illustrate what I won't do. After all, others may really like what they see.

Playing a course is like a journey down a meandering path. It may be full of deviations and amazing surprises, certain sections that are more difficult, others are more comfortable, but there are also many consistencies like the width of the path or the setting of the walk. In nature there is as much variety as there is repetition – and since great architecture comes from reflecting what we see in nature – golf architecture must have some repetition and consistency too.

In golf architecture most would select variety as the key component to creating superior golf courses, but you also need consistency to link it all together. The variety is usually found in the hole design or playing experience whereas the consistency is in the style or aesthetics of the course.

On most great courses, the bunkering is what links the course together. It is particularly useful when there is a transition from one setting to a completely different one on the golf course. The key to the success of a course like Cypress Point is the linking of the dunes to the forest to the ocean side through the bunkering.















I have gone to see a couple of really good courses recently where the bunker work was done in multiple styles. I found that despite some great holes and some really good bunkers, the architecture felt disjointed. Eagles Nest is a really well designed layout – probably my favourite by Doug - but the use of traditional pot bunkers in combination with expanses of sand rather than complimenting each other conflicts. I would like the course more if the one choice was made simplifying the look of the course.

Another interesting layout I went to see was Dakota Dunes - a nice course by Wayne - where I was taken by the natural blowout bunkers that he routed holes around. What I did not understand was where he added new bunkers and built them to be circular pot bunkers which run in such stark contrast to the natural blow outs. You can add an element that contrasts the land but you can't do that when the other one compliments the site - it doesn't work when used in combination.

















Cypress Point manages to flow through three unique habitats as one consistent golf course – all because of the bunkering Mackenzie built.

I think its very important to point out that I probably have created an example of this too. This is Ballantrae where the project required "waste" bunkers to collect all run-off and have the water infiltrate naturally into the sand sub-soil as part of the approvals. The rest of the bunkering is more formal creating a contrast in styles.

To Part 4

10 Things I Don’t Like - #2 Target Bunkers

The ideal bunker is one that you have to either fly or skirt it in order to gain a clear advantage on the hole. When you stand on the tee or in the fairway, you should be conflicted between the advantage that you could gain and the penalty that hitting in will produce. When you hit by or over you should get a thrill and when you hit in you should be terribly disappointed. It should be a bunker that once you’ve hit into it – you will steer clear for a while before you once again begin to flirt with it – up until the point where you hit it in again. This should be a continuous dance between the course and the player.

A target bunker is a point in the distance where a bunker indicates an ideal line but offers little or no strategic value. Many architects bunker the outside of holes in order to make the player more comfortable since the ideal line is so clearly defined – and player like that. Ever wondered why so many tour pro courses have so many bunkers.

Think about this – an architectural feature with no strategic value – something used to make the player more comfortable. I’ve already indicated that the ideal bunker should make a player “uncomfortable because of the decision and consequence. This is how an architect achieves not only strategy – but interest too.













The target bunker came with modern golf – Trent squeezed the landings for challenge – and the next generation of architects pulled the bunkers apart for playability. They liked the definition that bunkers on the inside and outside of the hole created – so they left the outside bunkers for definition. Since most are out of play intentionally, they are simply eye candy or targets. Think about this – there is no need to defend the outside of a dogleg since the hole plays longer from playing to the outside. The inside route needs is defending to complicate the desire of a player to take the shortest route. While there are a few exceptions to their use – in general – they are unnecessary. Throw in the cost to build and maintain them and you wonder why we have so many.

To Part 3

10 Things I Don't Like - #1 Containment Mounding

This the K Club - look at the mound on the right side and how much it stands out from the land around it.


The following series will be about the 10 architectural features or techniques that I don’t like. The intent is not to put down the other architects that use these techniques because it’s a matter of taste. I have spent a lot of time talking about holes I admire and techniques that I would use in my new design work – what I want to do with this series is further clarify my style and technique by explaining what I won’t do.

The architectural feature that makes me “throw up” the most is the containment mound.

The containment mound is an artificial hillock that sticks up from the surrounding grade with no relation to the land around it. It is commonly employed to create separation between holes and to supply definition to a landing area or green site. They tend to be used in groups and quite often down the entire sides of holes so that the entire hole feels like your playing in a “valley”. Modern architecture can largely be defined through the extensive use of this technique.

So what’s wrong with them you ask?

Any course where they are used extensively tends to be very artificial in appearance. Trust me – no amount of fescue can hide these bad boys – they always scream “I’m man-made.” Alister Mackenzie explained to all of us how important it was to create new features that look like existing features so that they blend into the surroundings. Architecture is at its best when the beginning of what was created is not clear from what the architect left alone. The containment mound never blends – in fact it “blocks” out the land or trees beyond making a natural tie into the surrounding landscape impossible. It tells the player that the only thing that is important – is inside the high points. Imagine that at a place like Cypress Point!



See how the mounds block out the trees












But they help me aim my shot.

We come from an era where everything is over defined. If you have a carry bunker on a corner – it says make the carry and gain an advantage. Then why place containment mounds on the outside when the one single bunker defines the hole. It’s the addiction to definition that has made the containment mound far too common. With grass being different colours and different heights – it provides us with clear contrasts and definition of what is long grass, what is rough, what is fairway and what is green. Add a few splashes of sand for emphasis and everything is easy to understand. The reason the feature has become so common is that every time an architect runs into marginal land they feel there must be a limit to the hole when the reality is it can simply blend out to the surrounding landscape.

The technical problem with containment mound is as they tend to flank holes they also collect the water into the centre of the fairway. Often they create wet areas on fairways and lead to poor fairway turf. The common technique to deal with this is to use an extensive and expensive system of catch basins and sub-surface drainage. This is particularly a shame when there was often enough natural grade to remove the water across the fairway removing the need for catch basins and leaving the fairways firm. Not to mention the wasted earthmoving and topsoil stripping used to create them.

They are expensive to create and a blight on the landscape.

To Part 2

Four Bunker Lips that Won’t Erode

This is the answer to the question Henry E asked a few times in recent comments on the blog. I wanted to answer this one with a full blog since the answer is not short. In the Banff blog I mentioned that the soil is too light and too stony to have an exposed soil lip. This is a problem at a lot of courses, yet common practice is to have a soil edge to create a clean sharp line. The problem of course is that the soil lips break down and contaminate the sand and the erosion is the main cause of lost bunker lines. That’s why I try to almost always encourage clubs to go with a living grass lip.















There are four techniques to accomplish this. The first method comes right from the origins of golf – the revetted face. You don’t have to use this technique up the entire face. You can create your bunker with typical flowing lines or steep slopes leading in and still create a small shelf right where the sand meets the soil. In that location you add three to four rolls of sod stacked on top of each other and then pull the soil over the top till it has a low 6” revetted edge. You now have a living 6” lip on your bunker.

















Method number two, used at St. George’s in the bunker restoration was to shape the bunker with all the faces and noses, then hand trim out a flat ledge where the sand meets the turf. On the ledge we placed a topsoil filled burlap bag. This created a bunker edge that rounded down into a vertical lip. The bunker lip now has far more organic than the rest of the soil which helps with water retention and establishes must deeper rooting. The shape of the bag created a natural round shape and a vertical interface with the bunker. The sod was simply stapled into the bag to ensure the form stayed together. The burlap bag roots and disappears in only a few months.

















The next method is to hand shape the entire edge – this was done at Weston when I did the bunker renovation. This is accomplished if the natural soil is tight enough to hold together. If not a clay topsoil is used to provide a stable enough material to build a bunker lip. The bunker is shaped by mini-excavator and then the bunker face is topsoiled and machine packed. The bunker lines are then cut out by hand – by me – and the excess topsoil is removed. The bunker edges are hand shaved until they are round enough to be sod. The grass is pinned over the soil and into the bunker to ensure stability and avoid erosion. The sod is trimmed out after rooting leaving a vertical sod lip.

















The next method is called undercutting. This is done to an existing bunker and involves hand cutting the sod on the face and pulling it back and up the slope. With a shovel you remove around 6” of the soil from behind the bunker lip – usually into a bucket or gator depending how easily you can access the bunker face – until you have a pocket behind the original edge. You then fold the sod back down in tamping it into the face leaving a vertical face of living sod. This sod has an established root system and needs little time to firm up and because of the established grass mixture is usually resilient to droughty periods.

Henry – you have your answer – but I also feel like I shared some things that I didn’t want to.

Sasktoon 8th

7th at Saskatoon

6th at Saskatoon

Top 50 in Ontario – Part 2 – My List and what didn’t make The List

I have an early flight Tuesday - so here is the post now - although I likely will post something that evening about where I am and what I'm doing.

Turns out after I identified my top 40 with all potential conflicts of interest (clubs I've worked with) I was dropped from the panel.

Here is my List

1. St. George’s
2. Hamilton
3. Toronto
4. Westmount
5. Devil’s Paintbrush

6. National
7. St. Thomas
8. Eagle’s Nest
9. Catarqui
10. Scarboro
11. Lookout Point
12. Bigwin Island
13. Oviinbyrd
14. Weston
15. Summit
16. Rosedale
17. Essex
18. Burlington
Burlington is a great Stanley Thompson gem that lays out great hole after great hole until you get to the 17th where you wonder if you crossed the road to the wrong golf course. The long par fours like the 1st, 13th and 15th are standouts and the green sites are consistently interesting. The routing is a clever use of a small piece of land where Stanley used some of the best fill pad green sites to make it extra tough on the approaches.
19. Osprey Valley (Heathlands)
20. Highlands CC
Highlands is the gem that nobody knows. The George Cumming / Stanley Thompson design makes excellent use of a really interesting piece of terrain right in the heart of London. The long fours are memorable particularly with the small targets surrounded by bunkers. The threes are varied and interesting and the fives are all exciting with plenty of character. Not one weak moment on this course yet nobody pays attention.
21. Brantford
22. King Valley
23. Red Tail
24. Beacon Hall
25. Angus Glen South
26 Maple Downs
This may have to do more to do with access than anything else. Maple Downs is a great (largely) Jewish club with a small family based membership. It also occupies a wonderfully hilly piece of ground that leads to some really wonderful holes – with a few like the 10th and 13th being wonderful despite being quite unconventional. There are many standouts from the 3rd, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th and 17th – so much great golf.
27 Glen Abbey
28 Kawartha
Imagine playing an intact Thompson course with bunkering every bit as good as St. George’s, but with a bit more room to enjoy your game. Go to Kawartha, this is ‘The” hidden gem in Canada with wonderful terrain, really tough par threes, lots of short fours and all the fives are reachable and exciting holes to play. This is a great example of Thompson’s traditional approach of mixing fun and difficulty in even measure.
29 Lake Joseph
In certain moments, I would call this the best that Muskoka golf has to offer, and in others instances there are holes that truly make you question the routing. I think at times Tom took a few more risks than normal and many of those moments work well, other times it doesn’t, but I’d still rather play there than Rocky Crest any day.
30 London Hunt
31 Georgian Bay
32 Osprey Valley (Pine Barrens)
33. Ottawa Hunt
OK so some of the greens are over the top – 5 have already been rebuilt back since Lorne’s article criticizing the course during the Women’s Canadian Open, but underneath all that is a great rolling property with beautiful undulating fairways and lots of interesting shots. I think the course has been dismissed because of the criticism in the past – and yes a few greens are still too much – but otherwise this is still a course worth seeing.
34. Deerhurst Highlands
35. Thornhill
Another course with so many great holes, and yet never gets the attention it deserves. Find a better and more varied run of holes than the 9 through 13. The 17th was always a weak point but Cam Tyers did a wonderful job making changes and the rest of the courses is pretty strong. There are average holes, but none are bad, which can’t be said of many far higher ranked courses on the list. I prefer the course to many of the modern courses that draw far more attention.
36. Rocky Crest
37. Greystone
38. Cherry Hill (worked at)
39. Bond Head (south)
I must admit I go back and forth on this course. I love sections of it like the 2nd and 4th and struggle with other areas like the opener and finishing holes on the front nine. The back nine opens well but a few holes are a bit much like the 15th which has no options around the green. Largely strong, but a little overshaped for my taste.
40. Mad River
Great set of greens, many interesting holes like the 2nd and 6th while others like the 4th hold back the design. I always wondered about the routing on the back nine and whether that was the ideal way to deal with the property. Many great holes out there but others like the finisher leave you a little under whelmed.

Top 50 in Ontario – Part 1 – My Thoughts on the List

I thought I was on the panel and did provide my own top 40 out of the 125 or so courses that I have played in Ontario. I didn’t see my name on the list of panelist top 5 picks – I was late and may have been left out for that reason – so I thought I would provide comments on the list and finally my own list. There are some on the current list I have not played, but they are all new courses with lots of support and play from the rest of the panel.

I thought I would limit my comments to the course that I think either draw too much attention or get too little love. I’ve added my comments of why I think the way I do.

The entire list and series of articles are here: http://www.golfontario.ca/sitepages/?cid=58

The list is as follows:
1. St. George’s G&CC
Of note: There was a nice compliment on St. George's section of the Top 50 courses: "Without doubt the best example of Stanley Thompson’s timeless genius. Ian Andrew’s restoration renewed the luster to this, the crown jewel of Ontario golf." Rest of piece on St. George’s is here: http://golfontario.ca/sitepages/?cid=265
2. Hamilton G&CC
3. The National Golf Club of Canada
Top 10 – This is the most one dimensional golf course on the list. You have very few options and very few opportunities to play alternative shots. Its Canada’s best examination of execution – that doesn’t mean it’s the best course.
4. Beacon Hall
Top 25 – Never got the support for this course. There are many great holes like the 16th but just as many head scratcher’s like the 6th. The holes from 4 through to 8 are pretty average for a course considered in the top 5. The greens have never caught my fancy with the bumps being very artificial. I’m still convinced the support comes more from the exclusivity than the design.
5. Westmount G&CC
6. Bigwin Island
7. Coppinwood GC
8. Eagles Nest GC9. Muskoka Bay Club
10. Redtail GC
Top 25 – The ranking reflects more about the experience overall than the course. The tightness off the tee, the small undulating greens and the forced carries add up to an average course. There is so much to like in the low profile approach to design with some truly magnificent holes, but others like “Peace” are so forced by tightness that it is a let down on what should be a high point in the round.
11. Devil’s Paintbrush
Top 5 – Best course designed in modern era. The mixture of available shots, the variety of holes and the truly unique style of the course makes it a personal favourite in Ontario. Even where Dana Fry went over the top it still couldn’t diminish the variety and fun found on the course.
12. The Ridge at Manitou
13. Devil’s Pulpit
Top 50 – The Disneyland of golf courses with far too many ideas and too many styles on one course. The use of mounding goes against the very core of my personal beliefs in what a course should look and play like. Devil’s Pulpit feels like Dana used ever idea he had ever seen and mixed into one course with a disjointed effect.
14. Toronto GC
Top 5 – I have always held the opinion that Toronto Golf may be far too subtle for most people to get. Repeated playing teaches you that the course rewards working the ball. You can play this course on the ground or take in on in the air, but that is up to you. The par fours are almost as good a collection as St. George’s (Canada’s best collection) and provide outstanding variety –even the 18th – which most people consider a weak point due to length.
15. London Hunt and CC
16. Rocky Crest GC
Top 50 – The setting is great and the way Tom dealt with the rock is very well done. The golf course underneath is far less interesting than Lake Joseph or Oviinbyrd which are far better courses.
17. Taboo
Top 50 – Too many decidedly average holes to be great, although the use of rock at times is quite impressive.
18. Brantford G&CC,
19. Magna GC
20. Glen Abbey GC
21. Osprey Valley Resorts (Heathlands course)
Top 10 – My favourite course to play designed by Doug, the ground game a round the greens is always fun and the greens are really great (in my humble opinion).
22. Mississaugua G&CC
Top 50 – A very disjointed course with an awful stretch of holes in the valley built to deal with the flooding. I hope that Doug’s rebuilding of 18 greens can bring the course together but I also fear that losing a few of my favourite greens will be a let down too.
23. The Georgian Bay Club
24. Weston G&CC
25. Essex G&CC
26. Heron Point Golf Links
27. Copper Creek GC
28. Scarboro G&CC, Scarborough
Top 10 – I can’t for the life of me figure out why this course doesn’t get more support. The use of land, great green sites and terrific set of par threes should easily vault this in the top 10. Is it the series of short fours and then a drive over the road at the end that ruins people’s perceptions of the rest of a great course?
29. King Valley GC
30. St. Thomas G&CC
Top 10 – The work by Thompson is good, the work by Robbie Robinson may be his best. The course is a terrific run through some wildly undulating terrain, with many great par fours throughout.
31. Deer Ridge GC
32. Rosedale GC
33. Wildfire GC
34. Deerhurst Highlands
35. Oakdale G&CC
36. Angus Glen GC (South)
37. Whitewater GC
38. Seguin Valley G&CC
39. Summit G&CC
Top 15 – I like the club a lot more than others do, many great holes on one of the best properties in Ontario.
40. Mad River GC
41. National Pines GC
42. Lookout Point CC
Top 15 – This is a course where you must adapt for the terrain. You need to bounce the ball in, play for cross-slope and adjust for changes of elevation. This makes this a course that you must learn to play well. Likely ignored due to location more than design.
43. The Raven GC at Lora Bay
44. Crimson Ridge GC
45. Galt CC
46. Granite
47. Greystone GC
48. Cherry Hill
49. Osprey Valley Resorts (Wasteland course)
50. Cataraqui G&CC
Top 10 – Other than the course is a little short, there is little to knock on this gem. The par three’s are collectively outstanding with the 2nd and 15th being two of the very best in the province. The course has a bit of a quiet section on the later part of the front nine but otherwise features an outstanding collection of holes.

Tomorrow my list and some comments on the NINE courses I list that did not make the list.
The blog may be late since I fly tomorrow.