Narrow entrances to the greens = wrong.

An ultra-wide entrance to the green at Overlake's 12th hole, restored.

I visited a fairly well-known golf club recently and was shocked by the narrowness of the entrances to the greens at almost every hole. Even where there's an absence of greenside bunkers, arbitrary mow lines pinch the entrances to these greens, creating skinny necks of fairway leading into the putting surfaces.

There are several problems with narrow entrances. First, they aggravate weaker golfers who tend to play shots along the ground and, in turn, benefit from a legitimate chance to bounce the ball onto the greens. Low handicappers play golf more through the air than ever these days. They're unaffected by narrow entrances. This set-up contradicts the ideal in golf architecture, which is to present adequate challenge to better golfers while at the same time allowing less skilled players to enjoy the game.

Another issue with narrow entrances is purely aesthetic. Where there are no reasons for the fairway to become arbitrarily narrow leading into the greens (ie greenside bunkers), so many holes simply look chintzy because the scale of the fairway cut is wrong. (You don't see skinny necks of fairway leading into the greens at St. Andrews, Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, Augusta National and all of those other great courses long recognized as the world's best.)

At Overlake Golf and Country Club's 12th hole, we quadrupled the width of the entrance to the green. Before we arrived in Seattle, this 200-yard + par-three featured a ridiculously skinny neck of fairway running into the putting surface. By increasing the width of the entrance, the look of the green site from the tees now matches its setting. Most important, the hole is now more accommodating to higher handicap golfers without having compromised the interest and challenge presented to better players.

In fact, I could argue Overlake's 12th is a bit more challenging in some ways since we made this adjustment...

We also filled in a bunker right of the green and replaced it with short grass. Most golfers don't think of it this way, but short grass surrounding greens can be a much more effective and interesting hazard than rough and sand. Mown slopes take balls further from the hole, and present golfers with a decision on what type of shot to play. The right side of the green at Overlake's 12th probably looks like the "best miss", but the ground in this area tilts right to left. Getting up and down from a fairway lie right of the green can actually be more challenging than a bunker shot from the left side some days.

What's interesting, too, is: Higher handicap golfers tend to simply putt from short grass areas around greens - a fairly easy way to at least get the ball onto the putting surface. Better players, on the other hand, tend to be more challenged by the dilemma of deciding whether to chip, pitch or putt from a tight lie - whether right, left or short of the green. When not entirely confident in the option chosen, poor execution often results.

As a general rule of thumb, fairway entrances to the greens should be mown to match the width of the putting surface. Those skinny necks of fairway that arbitraily become narrow leading into the greens look silly and make the game more frustrating for the wrong players.

News on our work at Victoria Golf Club.

Golf Course Architecture magazine's posted a short news story on our work at Victoria Golf Club. Click here to read.

Interview with Jeff Mingay at BuffaloGolfer.com.

Ron Montesano posts an interview with yours truly at BuffaloGolfer.com. Click here to check it out.

The clubhouse, and other details.

The clubhouse at Chechessee Creek Club, from the home green.

I love building architecture nearly as much as golf architecture. On my bookshelf, right next to all of the golf classics, are On Architecture, a wonderful collection of Ada Louise Huxtable's essays on building architecture; Preserving the World's Great Cities by Anthony M. Tung; and, of course, a number of books on the life and works of Frank Lloyd Wright.

As I mentioned more than a month ago now, in the first post at this blog, the overall brilliance of The Toronto Golf Club stems from more than its revolutionary Harry Colt-designed course. There's also the entrance drive, which elegantly winds through the course, providing golfers with a glimpse of what they've come to enjoy; and the wonderful clubhouse architecture, which adds tremendously to what would be one of Canada's great courses anyway.

Great golf course archtiecture is most important, of course. But it's many of the other important details, including the overall land plan of a golf development, the clubhouse architecture and course accessories that create truly distinct, unforgettable golfing experiences. Take those classic clubhouse designs at places like Toronto, Winged Foot, and Shinnecock Hills for example. Incredible. There's also stuff like those green pails filled with water on the tees at Roaring Gap, in lieu of the modern ball washer. Tee markers made from indigenous materials, like the drift wood markers at Victoria Golf Club, too. And, of course, Merion's famous wicker baskets atop traditional flagsticks. 

Which reminds me of the locker room showers at Merion. Fantastic. Those showers have been maintained but, presumably, not replaced since the famous East course there was opened for play in 1912. At Merion, you still pull a chain hanging from the shower stall ceiling then watch it rise until the water stops falling. Unforgettable.

Many of the great golf clubs throughout the world simply don't fix what ain't broke. They leave well enough alone. At Pine Valley, which perenially ranks as the world's #1 course, members' lockers haven't changed since the early days of the club, established during the pre-World War I era. Lockers there, at Pine Valley, still feature doors made of simple wood frames covered with chicken wire. At the world's #1 course? Yep. If interested, you can see the contents of every one of those lockers, including the Pine Valley member listed as "007" on the club's roster - Sean Connery.

Only a handful of golf clubs developed in the modern era exude comparable charm, and present similarly unforgettable golfing experiences (unfortunately). Chechessee Creek Club, with its wonderfully understated course, designed by Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw, is one. If you didn't know better, you'd think this South Carolina low country golf institution was vintage. As a result, Chechessse Creek Club is an incredibly unforgettable place. 

More golf clubs - old and new - should strive to make golfing experiences more different, more distinct, more unique, and less the same as so many others. Otherwise, what's the attraction? Golfers will play anywhere if it's all the same.

Strategy.

The 17th hole at Sagebrush, with 18 in the background.

Golf holes are played tee to green, but many of the best holes on this planet were designed in reverse. In other words, the design of the putting greens and their surrounds dictate playing strategies and, in turn, the placement of fairway hazards.

Take the 17th hole at Sagebrush for example. A high tee at this hole presents golfers with full view of the green at the end of an ultra-wide fairway featuring bunkers left and right. From this high tee, golfers can clearly identify the location of the flagstick. Sagebrush's penultimate hole features a rather large green built upon what is basically inherent topography. Very little earthwork was required to create this green, but a few significant tweaks were made during the shaping process to create enhanced strategy off the tee.

A sand bunker guards the green at front right, where there's a shelf of putting surface that falls off sharply behind. A pronounced knob, which existed prior to golf course construction and is now mown at fairway height, similarly protects the left side of the green. When holes are cut on the extreme right and left portions of the 17th green at Sagebrush, the smart play off the tee is to drive down the opposite margin of the fairway. Down the middle is safe, as usual, but not ideal. Because of the contour, slope and orientation of the putting surface and surrounding hazards, approaching a right pin from the right side of the fairway is comparatively awkward; and vice versa. And, because the right and left margins of this fairway are often the ideal place to be off the tee at this hole, sand hazards were installed along the fairway margins.

This type of green design is, simply, golf course architecture 101; not brain surgery. Again, the design of the green site - putting surface and surrounds - dictates playing strategies, which, in turn, dictate the placement of fairway hazards.

I've been working on a number of plans to improve existing courses, with aim to enhance playing interest. But at a few such courses we're not rebuilding existing greens. More often than not, unfortunately, the design of many of these existing greens don't make much strategic sense relative to the placement of fairway hazards. In other words, no matter where the hole is cut on these surfaces, approaching these greens from anywhere in the fairway at the holes in question is a relatively similar proposition. Fairway bunkers and other hazards can be placed anywhere in such cases; in a purely penal sense. But, if we're trying to think about golf architecture in a more intelligent fashion, and improve these courses in a comparatively sophisticated, strategic manner, a very, very important question begs: If the design of the green surface doesn't dictate playing strategies, where should the fairway hazards be located?

And, of course, what can be done to the green surrounds - without alteration of the putting surface - to enhance playing strategies and make sense of fairway hazard placement?

The top of my to-see list, at the moment.

St. George's, New York (couresty of Geo. Waters)

As mentioned in a previous post here, traveling to see and play the world's best courses is a must for every aspiring, and working golf architect. I'm very fortunate; of the top-10 courses in the world (according to GOLF magazine), I'm only missing visits to Royal County Down and Royal Melbourne.

Gaining understanding of how the world's best courses look, play and feel, and how those layouts relate to their surroundings (etc.) is invaluable; and often inspiring.

Here are three seemingly fascinating courses I plan to visit soon, with hope to gain inspiration for specific upcoming projects:

St. George's Golf and Country Club

Setauket, New York

Not the famed Stanley Thompson layout in Toronto, but Devereux Emmet's intimate 1917 design on Long Island. Emmet was a pioneer golf architect who laid-out many revolutionary courses during the pre-1920s era. Today most Emmet courses have either been redesigned or are often considered too short and quirky for "modern standards". Emmet's original design appears to be very well-preserved at St. George's; and, the engineered look of many features is distinctly attractive. Moreover, plenty of open space presents stunning long views across a property beautifully decorated by swaths of lovely native grasses.

Boston Golf Club

Hingham, Massachusetts

The artistry of Gil Hanse (and his partner Jim Wagner) is consistently remarkable. Rustic Canyon and Castle Stuart have been talked about quite a bit in recent years. Lesser known Hanse designs, like French Creek and South Fork Country Club, look pretty cool too. Boston Golf Club, which opened for play in 2005, is one of Hanse's latest creations. I've heard pictures are worth a thousand words, so check out photos of the course at the club's web site, here. Boston Golf Club appears to be a stunningly beautiful celebration of the New England landscape.

Essex County Club

Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts

Essex County Club was established in 1893, but its current course is dated 1917. Its design is attributed to Donald Ross, who went on to layout some 400 courses across North America. Ross cut his teeth at designing and building golf courses at Essex Co. While serving as the club's golf professional and greenkeeper between 1909 to '13, he apparently tinkered with the course incessantly. Like Boston Golf Club, Essex Co. celebrates the beautiful nature of New England brilliantly. And, like Emmet's work at St. George's, the "built look" of many features at Essex Co. is uniquely appealing.

Ran Morrissett's posted an excellent profile of Essex Co. Club, here, at Golf Club Atlas.

"The course Augusta wants to be..."

Alister Mackenzie.

It's a bit depressing for me to admit that I've yet to visit Australia's Royal Melbourne Golf Club, which hosts the Presidents Cup this weekend. I've studied the genius of Alister Mackenzie's 1926 design - in great detail - from afar though.

There are actually two courses at Royal Melbourne, the West and East. The design of the West is attributed to Mackenzie, with assistance from Australian Alex Russell and greenkeeper Mick Morcom, who handled the construction. Russell and Morcom built the East course following Mackenzie's departure. This week, during the Presidents Cup, a Composite course, compromising 12 holes from the West and six from the East, will be used.

The terrain at Royal Melbourne is said to be ideal for golf - rolling and bumpy but not too hilly, with sandy, well-drained soils and beautiful native vegetation decorating holes without interfering with play. Mackenzie's and Russell's layouts make the most of the property's incredible natural attributes. The Composite course isn't long by 2011 standards. And there are no features at Royal Melbourne that instigate controversy. Yet its design is so complex.

In his infamous book, The Confidential Guide to Golf Courses, Tom Doak writes: "Royal Melbourne, I think, is the course Augusta wants to be: wide enough for anybody, but brilliantly routed to make use of the topography and bunkered to reward bold play and bold decisions."

Mackenzie designed Royal Melbourne more than five years prior to arriving at Augusta to layout Bobby Jones' dream course. But he applied the same principles to both properties. Whereas Augusta has been significantly altered since Mackenzie's time, Royal Melbourne's basically stayed the same. The course's blatant width (there's nearly an absence of rough) caters to golfers of all abilities and, at the same time, subtle complexities created by contour, angles, well-placed bunkers, and a notoriously firm, fast-running playing surface adequately challenge the world's best players. This is the ideal in golf course architecture.

I'll be more than 16,000 kilometers from Melbourne, Australia this weekend, but I'll be tuned into the Presidents Cup. Not because I care much about the competition, it's just not too often that we get to look at Royal Melbourne for four days straight.

***Update: Who designed Royal Melbourne's West course?

After reading this blog post, Lorne Rubenstein was thoughtful enough to send me the following segment of an article on Alex Russell written by contemporary Australian golf architect, Neil Crafter:

Russell was asked by his club in 1924 to provide a plan for a remodelled 18 holes at Royal Melbourne and this indicates that the Club must have been well aware of his interest in golf course design. What is clear, is that he copied the approach used by Colt of first drawing a contour plan and then producing a three dimensional model of the planned course in plasticine, skills he would have learnt as a civil engineer and a Major in the Royal Garrison Artillery. This model was on display at the Club for some time and his modelling work commented upon by the press of the day as being “distinctly brainy. The one he constructed for his proposed lay-out for the new Royal Melbourne course was very well done, and received unstinting praise from Dr. Mackenzie.”

Therefore, the perception that prior to Dr. Mackenzie's visit, Alex Russell was an "empty vessel" as far as golf course design was concerned and that he learnt all his skills from MacKenzie, is contrary to recorded opinion of the time. While there is no doubt that Russell would have learnt a great deal from the Doctor, there is abundant evidence that Russell was widely read and educated in the principles of golf course design prior to MacKenzie's arrival. He had studied the great links and inland courses of the British Isles and his amateur career had led him to play all the leading courses throughout Australia. It should also be remembered that at the time of Mackenzie’s 1926 visit, Russell was only 34 years of age.

The Doctor’s visit, along with the publishing that year of Hunter’s book “The Links”, stimulated an awakening of interest in golf design in Australia, as this account from the Melbourne “Herald” newspaper of November 3rd 1926 explains under the heading of “Pants for Pine Valley”:

“These days, with Dr. Mackenzie here, practically all our prominent golfers are discussing golf courses, golf holes and golf architecture generally. Everywhere one goes, someone is sketching what he considers an ideal hole, and explaining just what the Doctor does to bring about his golfing transformations. Robert Hunter’s great book, with its exquisite illustrations of greens and holes and bunkers and such like, has been bought up so ravenously that it is now impossible to procure a copy, and groups poring over it may be seen in every club house. Alex Russell, the former open champion, has been so intrigued by some of the illustrations, particularly some showing views of Pine Valley course in the U.S.A., that he will not now be happy until he plays over some of the courses.”

Russell’s design for Royal Melbourne was highly praised by Mackenzie in his letter of recommendation of Russell:

"He has made a study of Golf Course Architecture for some years, and on my arrival here I was most favourably impressed with his suggested design for the new Royal Melb. Golf Course as it showed far more originality and ability than the design of any other golf course I have seen since my arrival."

In that same letter of November 1926, Mackenzie announced that he had taken in Alex Russell as a partner to carry on his works after he left Australia. Further, he emphasises that Russell:

“…has been continually associated with me while I have been advising golf clubs, and he has not only drawn a number of my plans but has made many valuable suggestions.”

Very interesting, indeed.

Crafter seems to prove that a routing plan for the West course, by Russell, was complete by the time Mackenzie arrived in Melbourne; and that Mackenzie praised his plan. Question is, did the Good Doctor subsequently tweak Russell's layout significantly enough for the West course to be accurately considered a Mackenzie-design? Or was Mackenzie's input limited to contouring, bunker placement, etc.?

(This is not intended to diminish Mackenzie's significant influence on golf in Australia and course architecture in that country, but) if so, Russell is in fact the principal designer of both the West and East courses at Royal Melbourne.