| BY DESIGN
The
Challenge of
the
Championship Award-winning architect Paul Jansen takes a look at so-called “championship” layouts and how course set-ups vary from tournament to day-to-day play.
C
Alex Jenkins; AFP
Fanling (above right) is a world away from the more modern championship courses of today, like the Jack Nicklaus-designed Lake Malaren (below right), which hosts next month’s BMW Masters in Shanghai 40
HK GOLFER・OCT 2014
an you design a “championship” golf course? It is not uncommon for a client to ask this of a golf architect. But what does this mean and how do you design and set-up a course that is able to test the best golfers on the planet yet still be fun for the members and general public? From a design perspective the obvious answer would be the way the architect positions the tee areas. In addition the architect will need to consider the green complex and be sure to design it in such a way that it has a good variety of pin locations – the ideal being that there are enough pin areas to test the very best golfers to go with some easier pin locations for standard day-to-day play. Length is also seen as important mostly given how far these guys and girls hit the ball today. To go further, I can’t think of a championship golf course with a par of less than 70 – although 70 seems to be relatively common – so I guess this also counts. But the key is variety – in every way. This will ensure the golf experience remains playable for each level. But there is much more to think about than just this. What of safety? Is there enough separation between the holes to allow spectator movement? Are there any bottleneck areas that will prevent ease of movement? On the odd occasion a golf course occupying a relatively small parcel of land – like Kingston Heath in Australia – has
hosted a large event, but this is a rarity as many of today’s tournament hosting golf courses cover large expanses. A comprehensive practice facility is also seen as important although some of the older golf courses – those that have hosted events – have make shift facilities like secondary fairways or land off the golf course used for practice. Note that many of the golf courses built pre-World War II had limited practice areas – back then golfers would practice out on the golf course. This is not the case anymore as todays designers put a high emphasis on practice and the science that goes into its design. The organisers will also want to be sure that there is ease of access. How far from the nearest airport is the golf course and is there enough accommodation in the area to host the golfers and general public? Also, is there an area on the golf course to locate a tented village for refreshments and telecommunications? What of the course setup? What speed should the greens run? How wide should the fairways be? What about the height of the rough? What is deemed a bunker and what is not? In theory (but not always in practice) the green speed should be relative to the severity of the green contour. The more contoured the green the slower you want the green speed. At any event green speeds are faster for tournament play than regular play. This means that the grass is cut lower during tournament play, which in turn adds more stress to that grass. Over long HKGOLFER.COM
periods, and where frequent play is common, having fast green speeds is not advisable. Even over shortened periods – as seen at the US Open at Shinnecock Hills in 2004, for example – fast greens speeds can compromise the integrity of the grass in a matter of hours. During tournament play the general thinking is to reduce the fairway width (sometimes as little as 15-20 yards at the landing areas) to place the onus on accuracy. In this case grassing lines are reconfigured making some golf features benign – a point in case being at last year’s US Open at Merion where numerous bunkers were as much as 15 yards in the rough. My personal preference is to see wider fairways in tournament and general play but that it’s important the strategy determines you favour one side of the fairway. I have always held the view that the wider the fairway the more golf terrain you can show off and the more strategic you can make the test … not to mention the more playable the golf course becomes. Having said that I still view rough as an important golf feature and it’s not uncommon to find it at ankle height during tournament play. If in this kind of rough even the best golfers will find it almost impossible to predict what the ball is going to do upon landing. This is no bad thing in that it promotes the need to survey the fairway and green surrounds to see how they can use the slopes to positively propel their ball towards the target. They are no longer focused on a small target; rather they are “forced” to look at the big picture and in doing so start to harvest some creative thought. Of course if the golf course were set-up to be narrow and dominated by high rough every single day then I bet a round would take 10 hours and the level of frustration would exceed 10, so this situation HKGOLFER.COM
At the end of the day if the architect strives to create a golf experience loaded with variety then there is no doubt that that golf course will be championed by the very best and the rest. is not really feasible. The ideal is that you don’t have to drastically change the dayto day-course set-up to make it fun and challenging for the best golfers during tournament play … there’s the trick I really don’t like the words “championship golf course”. It’s almost as if you are bracketing the fact that the only thing the golf course is good for is hosting a tournament. At the end of the day if the architect strives to create a golf experience loaded with variety then there is no doubt that that golf course will be championed by the very best and the rest. On a side note I believe we should strive - during tournament play and general play - to have the ground play hard and fast – much like you see at the Open Championship each year. I am conscious this may not always be possible but a course that plays firm will be much more interesting and certainly more testing than a course set up to play soft and receptive. Paul Jansen is the principal architect for Jansen Golf Design. To learn more visit jansengolfdesign.com
HK GOLFER・OCT 2014
41