Building a Course for a Canadian Open

Mike, Luc, Les on 9th tees

I’ve had a while to think about this now and it’s far easier to design a really good course if you don’t have any plans to host any sort of professional event.

I think we’ve been very smart to design a course that has such versatility relying on firmness, pin position and the absence of rough around greens. There has a been a lot of thought put into how to defend without a reliance on excessive length, but their ability to hit it ridiculously long occasionally creeps into the architectural conversation/decision making particularly concerning landing areas.

16th from just short of the landing
 

Mike and I have put our heart and soul into making this a really interesting place to play first and foremost. My prime focus will always be the membership. I want them to have fun. I want them to embrace all the options, the decisions and the opportunity to attack the course in a number of directions. I want them occasionally perplexed by which way to play a hole.

It was interesting to hear Les Claytor from the PGA Tour say, after a second day walking the course with me, I think I understand your quirky holes a little bit better. I like them a lot more the second time through. Awesome. Perfect. I always thought great golf had an element of discovery and a learning curve. I always thought a course to be weak if everything is obvious and clear on first play.

Over the back at 16

I’ll confess my biggest concern has always been “will they get it” rather, rather than is it good. The punchbowl green is the greatest example. Some see the hole as super fun and sporty, others find it a little weird, and I’m good with both.

We ended up making a few modifications and tightened up the grassing lines in the landing areas just a bit to make sure the professionals didn’t have a free run. Again I’ll count on the set-up and keeping the rough low and in check as a critical factor in making sure this course is fun.