PDA

View Full Version : So, what makes a good/great golf course??



goughy
12th April 2006, 05:48 AM
I may be asking for trouble posting this question, so remember the responses will most likely be very opinionated and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to respect it.

I have little to no knowledge on the subject of course design. In fact, the only thing I know or have heard on the subject is that a good course should have 6 difficult, 6 moderate and 6 easier holes; the easier holes to allow a breather at times etc etc. Other than that they need some tees, some greens and hopefully something inbetween.

Fishy eluded in the hijacked lakelands thread just how few golf courses I have played, considering that on and off I've been playing for 20 years. These are the courses I've played in my life - Mt Coolum (once), Middle Ridge (Toowoomba GC), City GC, Gailes, Redcliffe (once), Horton Park, Chinchilla (once), Clifton(once), Borneo Barracks, Nudgee North (once) and South, Jindalee, Indooroopilly (once). Not a long list. And the only coursesI can say I didn't enjoy were Mt Coolum, but I don't think that was the golf. I'm not a big fan of 9 holes courses as I like to 18 greens for my $20bucks.

Strangley enough City GC is where the vast majority of my golf is played and I still love playing it. It may not seem a difficult course, It may not seem exciting (tons of holes do go straight back and forth from each other), but the hilly nature of much of it does present some interesting problems which I am only just now understanding the relevance of. Many of the courses I've played do have flatish landing zones off the tee. City presents many side hill lies off the tee requiring at times an awkward stance, having to account for a drawn of faded second shot, and also taking a portion of the fairway out of play off the tee depending on your shot shape. To me that tightens up the course.

The other thing I've found strange about it is that it's par is 71 and it's ACR is 71, while Toowoomba GC's par is 72 but it's acr is one shot easier at 71. All I feel that can account for this is the sloping of city's course.

And remember, this is a revelation that has only hit me in the last few weeks. Normally I just go out, hit the ball and hope for the best without too much thought. But lately I've been wondering about these things.

I do generally enjoy eny course I set foot on, but you have to remember how seldom I get the chance so I don't see the point in complaining about anything when I do get out.

So, keep it clean and simple, and lets see if you can enlighten me to what you think makes a good golf course.

AndyP
12th April 2006, 06:32 AM
Variety of holes, not necessary different pars, risk/reward options, so the courses makes you think, and nice cart girls. I like it if it is a great looking course too.

Moe Norman
12th April 2006, 06:44 AM
A good start is Doaks Confidential Guide, which includes a formula on how the courses are rated.

Grunt
12th April 2006, 06:59 AM
Is that a book Thommo? Would love to rate my home course with it. THen take it to manangement to show what they can do to improve it.

Webster
12th April 2006, 07:08 AM
A good start is Doaks Confidential Guide, which includes a formula on how the courses are rated.
Thommo a far better guide is Doaks "Anatomy of a Golf Course" which provides, in simple terms, the philosophy behind individual hole and course design.

BrisVegas
12th April 2006, 07:11 AM
Agreed Jack, "Anatomy of a Golf Course" is a good grounding.

3oneday
12th April 2006, 07:18 AM
Any course that is greater than Par 70, IMO.

Pete

Grunt
12th April 2006, 07:22 AM
Why does par have so much to do with it?
I know my course would be a by far greater course if the owner swallowed the "has to be par 70" thoughts and made it 69 by turning one of the group of short par 5's into a par 4. It rates 69 now and could quite possibly rate higher with one hole being made that little more difficult.

3oneday
12th April 2006, 07:35 AM
Why does par have so much to do with it? check the IMO bit :p

69 or 70 is fine, most others (like Bardwell valley for eg) that are less than that are in my opinion a bit cramped and forgettable.

I haven't played that many courses, but from my experiences I would much rather prefer something of par 70 or greater.

Pete

peter_rs
12th April 2006, 07:36 AM
The other thing I've found strange about it is that it's par is 71 and it's ACR is 71, while Toowoomba GC's par is 72 but it's acr is one shot easier at 71. All I feel that can account for this is the sloping of city's course.

I would say its more related to the fact holes 1 & 8 play as short par 5s. On my day I can get to both in 2. I have had as little as 9 iron in on 1(OK I missed long, but not the point) and 6 iron on 8 (pin high, 1m away, missed the putt ;)). Lower markers consider both of these holes long par 4's and that accounts for the ACR 1 under par. Not for ladies the par is 73 / Acr 73 because they don't have the length.

I have played City a few times and never found bad side hill lies.

Also How long ago did you play Mt Coolum? It was a 18 hole course 4 years ago when I played It has a interesting mix which is testing 6xpar 4's, 6x par 5's and 6x par 3's I found it hard to get a rythum with 5,3,5,3,5,3,5 run on the back.

Grunt
12th April 2006, 07:44 AM
Ok thanks Pete.

Well my opinion of a good golf course does not really have anything to do with the par.
It more depends on the way the holes have options for where to place tee shots both for the agressive and also for the higher handicapper too, how the weather may influence the course on different days, of course the views from particular course's helps too. Most of all I think if it challenges my game (before you say it I know most course's I play do)it is on my like list.
I don't think I have any bad course's in a list as to me all course's are good only some are in a different league. Remember if it were not for the poor golf courses the good ones would not be able to lift the bar.

Andrew
12th April 2006, 09:37 AM
Goughy,

What makes a great course & what makes a good course are two totally different things.

As far as design goes, most of the ‘great’ courses offer many options for many different levels of golfer. Difficulty doesn’t really come into it. They also offer a subtly that allows the course to grow in wonder over many years.

What is important for me:
- A course that is designed on strategic values with diagonal hazard lines.
- Suitable topography for the design.
- Well placed green sites.
- Use of a variety of hazards, not just bunkers & water.
- Deception.

connico
12th April 2006, 10:20 AM
I havnt played many course outside of sydney, but a few things i have noticed about courses that i enjoy.

Punishment and Reward on every hole.
Variaty of holes of different length.
Imagination required on each hole.
The ablity of each hole to be played in a number of ways, thus no coersion to play one style of golf. Ie driver, iron.
Use of the land as hazards, not just man made hazards.

Not all courses have great views, but i think a course should be pleasing to the eye as well as to the golf.

Jarro
12th April 2006, 03:30 PM
i think every course should have a short risk/reward par 4 ..... something you can have a lash at if you're feeling confident and hitting it well on the day.

Bruce
12th April 2006, 04:27 PM
I'm a mug golfer so what I want is:
-to be tested fairly. Rewarded or penalised as appropriate to my shots.
-variety. I should be able to play the odd short iron into a green without having to belt the ball over 250m. Some uphill and some downhill etc. Pretty standard stuff.
-bailout options where appropriate.
-maintenance according to its' means

Bonus points for nice views/surrounds, a nice place to have a beer after the round and/or maintenance above its' means.

Minus points for blind tee shots and other penalties for not having intimate knowledge of the course like a hidden pot on what looks like the ideal line.

But what do I know.

goughy
12th April 2006, 06:30 PM
I would say its more related to the fact holes 1 & 8 play as short par 5s. On my day I can get to both in 2. I have had as little as 9 iron in on 1(OK I missed long, but not the point) and 6 iron on 8 (pin high, 1m away, missed the putt ;)). Lower markers consider both of these holes long par 4's and that accounts for the ACR 1 under par. Not for ladies the par is 73 / Acr 73 because they don't have the length.

I have played City a few times and never found bad side hill lies.

Also How long ago did you play Mt Coolum? It was a 18 hole course 4 years ago when I played It has a interesting mix which is testing 6xpar 4's, 6x par 5's and 6x par 3's I found it hard to get a rythum with 5,3,5,3,5,3,5 run on the back.

Bad side hill lies wasn't the best way to put it. Especially on the back nine if you find the fairway you can often be left with having to allow for a fade or draw due to the ball being below or above your feet. Dosen't happen as often on the front nine but can. The result of playing holes placed sideways on a hill.

I understand where you're coming from with middle ridge. On my rare good drives on 8 I've reached the distance of the green (not the green as such) and usually back off and play short of the left bunker. The 1st hole was my first eagle finishing with a 2 mtr putt.

And all this is why I asked the question. When I play a golf course that's all I see. A golf course. I might like it or dislike it but I usually can't explain why. I've been interessted in learning more but just haven't gotten around to it. Heck, I'm only now starting to take strategy into account when playing my own course, rather than just blasting away blindly.

I now remember the strangeness of 3 of each of the pars at mt coolum. But I just didn't enjoy my day there, and haven't been in a rush to go back because.

markTHEblake
14th April 2006, 08:08 AM
ACR is determined by a whole bunch of factors based on difficulty (or lack of) which includes
- distance of hole
- number and placement of hazards and bunkers
- size of green
- contours on green
- width of fairway

but nothing mental, if a course is rated 69,and the par was changed from 70 to 69, the course rating would still be 69 - unless the distance of the Hole was changed.
nice try Grant :-)

Moe Norman
14th April 2006, 09:20 AM
Funny..back in the old days those reachable par 4's were 250m...now they need to be 280 - 300m. why?

the lie of the and should determine the layout of a course, I hate courses that feel forced.

Eg. Doak's work at Pacific Dunes. There are 4 Par 3's on the back. He wasn't pressured by convention but merely placed the holes on the land that best suited them. One of the few modern courses inside the World Top 20.

St. Andrews beach is a lesser example, only Par 70 and to me only one hole, the 16th, seems a tad forced.

BrisWesty
14th April 2006, 12:05 PM
I guess I like to see a course that doesn't just involve pulling out driver and bombing away (he says pulling driver out on 80% of par 4s & 5s [and a couple of par 3s here & there]).
If I have to think about it, but make a conscious decision to take driver, that's fine. The Par 5 17th at Caboolture is a good example. Can play from the tee using anything from driver down to 4 or 5 iron. Depends how much risk you wish to take on. Some of the long hitters at the club take driver and 5 iron into the green (by cutting the doglegs). If you mi****, wear the consequences (I took 10 on Wed).

Jarro
14th April 2006, 01:06 PM
If you mi****, wear the consequences (I took 10 on Wed).

we really do need to tone down this swear-filter :roll:

goughy
14th April 2006, 05:25 PM
mis**** mis**** mis****....

goughy
14th April 2006, 05:25 PM
mis**** mis**** mis****....

oh ****:mrgreen:

marcel
14th April 2006, 07:24 PM
St. Andrews beach is a lesser example, only Par 70 and to me only one hole, the 16th, seems a tad forced.

do you really mean #16 (par 3) ?

Andrew,
nice to see price didn't make your criteria

Andrew
14th April 2006, 08:06 PM
Andrew,
nice to see price didn't make your criteria

Never has & never will.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to knock back those free games, no matter how dirty I feel afterward.

Moe Norman
14th April 2006, 08:25 PM
Marcel,

Yes I really mean the 16th 240m Par 3.

In the GCA day there, opinions were split. Some loved it and others felt it was forced. I was in the latter. Of all the holes there it's the only one where it feels like they 'built' the hole.

marcel
15th April 2006, 08:28 PM
Marcel,

Yes I really mean the 16th 240m Par 3.

In the GCA day there, opinions were split. Some loved it and others felt it was forced. I was in the latter. Of all the holes there it's the only one where it feels like they 'built' the hole.

I've only played there once Feb 2005 but from that outing put me down on the 'loved it' side. I played it from about 170m from memory so can't comment on the back tee, thought there was good visual deception and a few different ways to play your tee shot.

Moe Norman
17th April 2006, 04:05 PM
Marcel, I played it from 3 different tees as it was sort of encouraged by Henry Cussel on the day to drop a few balls and get a good look at the course.

I quite liked the hole, but it was still one of my 'least favourite' on the course.

I feel it demands a high draw or a regular shot aimed at the right bailout. nothing really wrong with this, but the hole just felt forced. Only a brave man would start their ball left of that green.

Andrew
17th April 2006, 04:16 PM
I feel it demands a high draw .

Thommo,

Our friend, Marcel, possesses a great high draw. It's called a left handers fade.

Moe Norman
17th April 2006, 04:41 PM
thinking about the hole, it does set up well for a a left hander!

marcel
17th April 2006, 06:59 PM
I feel it demands a high draw or a regular shot aimed at the right bailout. nothing really wrong with this, but the hole just felt forced.

I'm just sorry I only got a chance to play it the once. I managed to hit the green, I did look at the bailout at the time, is it possible to hit a running shot in from there?


Only a brave man would start their ball left of that green.

Cue Andrew, enter stage left.

Andrew
17th April 2006, 07:26 PM
Cue Andrew, enter stage left.

Hey, you wait 'till October. You'll see a new me. Thin, with the ability to fade the ball.

Of course, we both know pigs will fly before that happens. All you'll probably see is a fat hooker. Mmmm, that doesn't sound good.

Moe Norman
17th April 2006, 08:36 PM
I did look at the bailout at the time, is it possible to hit a running shot in from there? yeah. the bailout isn't really a bailout at all. Depending on what tee you're on, just about anything that lands on the bailout zone will feed onto the green anyway.

Moe Norman
17th April 2006, 08:54 PM
Here is the hole in question, this picture looks likes i twas taken from the ladies tee.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e248/ozgolfpics/STAB16thteeshotpar3.jpg

Golfgirl
19th April 2006, 03:16 PM
I'm a mug golfer so what I want is:
-to be tested fairly. Rewarded or penalised as appropriate to my shots.
-variety. I should be able to play the odd short iron into a green without having to belt the ball over 250m. Some uphill and some downhill etc. Pretty standard stuff.
-bailout options where appropriate.
-maintenance according to its' means

Bonus points for nice views/surrounds, a nice place to have a beer after the round and/or maintenance above its' means.

Minus points for blind tee shots and other penalties for not having intimate knowledge of the course like a hidden pot on what looks like the ideal line.

But what do I know.

Yep - I'm with Bruce on this one.... I hate courses that are overly penal, a good course should be playable by all levels of golfers.