Where to Build a Golf Course

This article used with permission from my friend Melvyn Morrow. It ties in very with some of the things I have written here and the way the game of golf should go.

Good sites for golf courses - what the definition of a good site? There may be many that appear to be good sites but that IMHO is the wrong approach when selecting a location for a new golf course. The question is not is it a good site but is the land fit for purpose.

Many may wonder just what is the difference. There is a very big difference and that is in the land itself. Land fit for purpose should result in much that was seen and visible on initial inspection/survey coming into play with minor modification while good sites are ready to strip, reform, shape and mould the land to the wishes of the club/owner/designers will.

To my mind Golf Courses should reflect the game, with the original land, its surroundings sitting comfortably while being easily sustainable within the local environment. Yet we have moved so far from producing the Scottish Course Designs that made golf a worldwide sport in the first place. We for some mad reason seem to believe today, well for the last 50-60 years that it is acceptable to rape the land. To destroy the very land that initially presented itself as potentially a good site. Nevertheless land can very quickly be defined as not ‘Fit for Purpose’ proven by the high cost of land clearance, reshaping and then reforming as a golf course. Is this the product of nearly 200 years of golf course architecture; of accumulative wisdom by the designers/architects that all land required for golf must be rebuild, reshape and form to suit the wishes of a club no matter the cost or harm to the whole local environment i.e. from drainage, water tables introducing new grasses etc., etc. Not to mention the on-going financial burden placed upon the club for both the build and annual maintenance packages.

Golf courses are not just pieces of land but a key part of the game. They are meant to throw out the initial challenge to the golfer. By that I mean the course should represent the challenge both from the land with its natural penal nature with the additional cunningness and flare from the designer employing his additional use of the land to make manmade and enhance natural hazards to test the golfer. Courses are not country parks. They should not suffer from the modern total strip back to reforming as seems to be the current building methods, and most certainly not suffer long walks between Green & Tees. This does not equate with golf, its traditions or quite frankly the smooth continuity of the game. Nor does it reflect the true meaning of golf which in part must be measured by the natural harmony of walking over Natures contours while facing obstacles and challenges that ultimately promotes the skill of the golfer.

Good sites do not equate into sites Fit for Purpose – and anyway in these austere times should we not be endeavouring to tightly control budgets for both ‘Build & Maintenance’ packages.

Because we have the finances and technology is no excuse to building a golf course in an area not suitable for the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf.

For clarification, based on my since edited comment, the Royal & Ancient Game as Melvyn describes it should not be thought to mean seaside links only. He simply means that courses should be built on reasonable sites that do not require massive amounts of earth moving to build and millions of gallons of water to maintain. This is not something I disagree with.