Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The Tour’s New Strokes Gained Stats: What do they mean and how can you use them?



What is Strokes Gained anyway?

Don’t feel stupid if you have to ask this question. I deal with many people who make their living in the golf business and do not really understand this concept – and forget about the TV commentators. Simply stated, Strokes Gained is the best thing to happen to golf analysis since the game was invented. It renders the one-dimensional, traditional golf statistics virtually obsolete as it provides an accurate assessment of every player’s relative skill in each of the four categories of the game.

Strokes Gained evaluates each shot by comparing it to a standard derived from a computer model of performance. The starting position of the shot and its distance from the hole have a value as do the end position and distance. The values are based upon statistical analysis of all of the PGA Tour rounds since the advent of Shotlink data in 2004. The values for every possible distance and position represent the average # of strokes to hole out from each position.

Here’s how the Strokes Gained (or Lost) are calculated:

  • Start value – (End value + # strokes need to get there)

Here’s a quick example:

  • Start: 8-foot putt opportunity. End: Holed (1-putt)
  • Start value: 1.50 – (End value: 0.0 – 1.0 to get there) = .5 Strokes Gained
  • The player gained/saved half a shot. A 2-Putt would have lost half a shot

A bit more background

The PGA Tour launched Strokes Gained Putting in 2011. A second feature, Strokes Gained Tee-to-Green, was added in 2014. This was applauded by most as the long game “analysis,” when in fact it was simply everything else but putting, no analysis at all. If a player enjoyed Strokes Gained Putting of +1.00 but scored at exactly the level of the field, his Strokes Gained Tee-to-Green would be -1.00, simple subtraction.

The new stats and what they mean

In late May 2016, the Tour added three new Strokes Gained (SG) analysis pieces:

  1. SG Off-the-Tee: Considers all drives on par-4 and par-5 holes. Say goodbye to the most useless stat in golf: Fairways Hit. This new off-the-tee stat includes not only fairways hit or missed and the relative distances accomplished, but more importantly, the relative severity of the misses, or what I refer to as driving errors. Including these misses is critical. I have analyzed more than a few events in which the top-5 finishers hit fewer fairways than the field, but their overall driving was heads and shoulders better. Clearly, a new performance yardstick was sorely needed.
  2. SG Approach-the-Green: Considers any approach shot that starts more than 30 yards from the edge of the green. This number also reflects distance and accuracy of the good shots as well as the misses.
  3. SG Around-the-Green: Considers all shots starting from within 30 yards of the edge of the green, the Tour’s measure of the short game. It includes all positions: fairway, rough, and sand. This stat is driven by proximity to the hole of the shots (how close they are hit), but also includes the not-so-rare mistakes, or shots that miss the green. Unfortunately, these often costly missed short game shots have never counted or been visible in any of the 653 stats that the Tour publishes. At least now they are being counted.

Add the SG Putting stat to these three and we now have the entire Strokes Gained puzzle. It provides much more clarity into each player’s true strengths and weaknesses, and they all have them!

How can you apply Strokes Gained to your game?

Unfortunately, without a detailed performance model, one cannot implement the system. However, with the growing popularity of Strokes Gained, a number of applications have been introduced. If you Google “Strokes Gained Websites” you will see quite a few options. I, of course, recommend mine,, as I have been doing it longer than anyone and have a better understanding of the process and 250.000+ rounds of comparative “Target data.” This unique database helps players at every level clearly identify the nature of their strengths and weaknesses.

If you are looking for insight into your game where you do not have to buy anything, please see my recent GolfWRX article: How to track some of the most important stats in golf.

Your Reaction?
  • 35
  • LEGIT11
  • WOW5
  • LOL1
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP5
  • OB1
  • SHANK27

In 1989, Peter Sanders founded Golf Research Associates, LP, creating what is now referred to as Strokes Gained Analysis. His goal was to design and market a new standard of statistically based performance analysis programs using proprietary computer models. A departure from “traditional stats,” the program provided analysis with answers, supported by comparative data. In 2006, the company’s website,, was launched. It provides interactive, Strokes Gained analysis for individual golfers and more than 150 instructors and coaches that use the program to build and monitor their player groups. Peter has written, or contributed to, more than 60 articles in major golf publications including Golf Digest, Golf Magazine and Golf for Women. From 2007 through 2013, Peter was an exclusive contributor and Professional Advisor to Golf Digest and Peter also works with PGA Tour players and their coaches to interpret the often confusing ShotLink data. Zach Johnson has been a client for nearly five years. More recently, Peter has teamed up with Smylie Kaufman’s swing coach, Tony Ruggiero, to help guide Smylie’s fast-rising career.



  1. Scott Carlson

    Jun 30, 2016 at 8:59 pm

    This is great stuff, Peter. This is very similar to metrics used by financial professionals/analysts to compare the performance of securities to others within the same industry. Peer analysis allows the investor to gain an understanding into the unique competitive advantages a company has against its competitors. Now, this may be one individual financial or operational category that far exceeds peer performance (e.g. return on equity) or a comprehensive set of metrics that provide consistent outperformance (e.g. market share growth to earnings growth to debt/equity ratio). Also, in a similar fashioin, MLB scouts have used sabermetrics with great success to determine WAR (wins above replacement) to get more useful and objective performance measures of prospects and current players.

    To the other commenters that seem to have a very basic understanding of mathematics…you don’t buy a company’s stock because you like a their products or they have lots of revenue, rather, you buy their stock because they show a consistent and unique competitive advantage over time relative to their peers. This is the same situation…relative performance analysis!

    I work in junior golf (AJGA) and getting this information to college golf coaches would be HUGE in helping them with their perpetually tightening recruiting budgets…all the way from large D1 programs down to NAIA schools. I understand the tracking will be a significant barrier, but ShotByShot may help (post-round). Offering this analysis to our 6,500+ members would be an enormous benefit in helping them improve their games and/or earn that prized scholarship.

    Another thing that would be cool is to perform a regression analysis to the existing Tour data to determine correlation patterns/trends to the basic stats (like SG Off the Tee to Total Driving and Fairway Hit %) and then apply those patterns/trends to historical data over time to see how a player fares to some of golf’s greatest legends. Surely the basic data exists back to the early to mid 20th century!

    Awesome work!!!

    • Peter

      Jul 5, 2016 at 3:29 pm

      Thanks for your very supportive comment. As to our SG analysis being of help to AJGA and/or college golf programs, most of our 150+ coaches that use our program with their players have active junior programs. Juniors have become such a large part of our business that we added 9-hole data entry and analysis early this year. In addition, we work with several college teams but could always like to see the word get out to more.
      If you have any ideas on how we might collaborate, please contact me at [email protected].

  2. Patricknorm

    Jun 22, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    I like when logic gives you data. In this case the numbers don’t lie. For a pro though it’s abundantly clear that your ability to outdrive everyone, hit a shorter iron into the green ( which should be more accurate) and then have shorter putts, you should shoot lower scores.
    Tiger Woods, at his peak was a superb driver of the ball, a better iron player, which meant he holed more putts. The same went for Jack Nicklaus.
    Last weekend Dustin Johnson was fantastic off the tee, excellent on his irons, and a good enough putter to stay in contention and eventually win. In today’s game a consistent 330 drive is necessary to get the ball rolling ( metaphorically) in golf. If your relatively accurate it compensates the player by letting him a shorter iron out of the rough towards the green.
    Good article. Instinctively I know when my approach shots can’t be chipped in off the green I’m really scrambling for par. And conversely if I’m 50 feet from the pin on the green, it’s no guarantee I’ll make par. Nice to be able to quantify this data.

  3. Captain Wedge

    Jun 22, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    In general yeah, you know what parts of your game are weak. But do you know “how many strokes” that part of your game is costing you? Doubt it…

  4. Tony

    Jun 22, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    All comments here, other than the unsupported “useless endeavor” opinion, point to ‘strokes gained’ as a very useful endeavor. I’m down!

    • Captain Wedge

      Jun 22, 2016 at 3:06 pm

      Your comments show how little you know. It’s measured against other non-professionals based on how many rounds they have statistical data for.

    • Peter

      Jun 23, 2016 at 10:42 am measures your Strokes Gained against the averages from the thousands of rounds posted by those in your “Target” Handicap group. Briefly, if a player is a 20 handicap, it does not good to be compared to a 5 handicap or the PGA Tour. We have target ranges from +6 to +4 all the way up to 25 to 29 handicaps.

  5. mikee

    Jun 21, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    All said and done, the approach shot or should I say, the quality of the approach shot (distance from the pin) is the most important shot in the game. Most of the rest of the stats are relatively meaningless for us amateurs

    • Captain Wedge

      Jun 22, 2016 at 2:32 pm

      I don’t think they are meaningless. I used to track all my one-dimensional stats (Fairways, GIRs, and Putts). Now those are meaningless bc at the end of the day they told me nothing about my final score as there were no trends to them. Strokes Gained actually pinpoints where your game was strong vs. where it cost you strokes. I’d like to see these stats on my own game. My only issue is having to track and document EVERY shot. Not really something I want to do when I want to relax and play a round of golf. Maybe I’ll try it on a few rounds here and there.

      • Peter

        Jun 23, 2016 at 10:50 am

        Captain Wedge, thanks for your support. I have purposely streamlined the data requirements of because I too did not want a lot of work when I was enjoying a round or competing. Try it, you will see it is extremely easy once you understand the system and the apps make it even easier.

    • Peter

      Jun 23, 2016 at 10:47 am

      Not so mikee! I have found that from Tour players up to 20+ handicaps, we are all snowflakes and find our unique way to shoot our number. While there may be trends and certain parts of the game occupy a larger piece of the pie, everyone has distinct Strengths and Weaknesses. The challenge is to discover what and why they are so that they can be properly addressed.

  6. ooffa

    Jun 21, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Easy to understand. But ultimately a useless endeavor. Hey, I putted badly today I better practice, serves the same purpose.

    • Peter

      Jun 21, 2016 at 2:06 pm

      But how do you know when you putted badly? # of putts? Strokes Gained is accurate. If relying on # of putts, one should also balance their checkbook based upon the # of checks written without regard to the $ amounts.

      • James

        Jun 21, 2016 at 4:35 pm

        To build on your point, ‘I putted badly’ is a complete subjective. I might say I’ve putted badly, but if in fact I putted to my average, then practicing my putting is pointless, because it was probably my irons that let me down

        • Steve

          Jun 21, 2016 at 8:01 pm

          To argue against your point – If you think you “putted badly” but actually putted to your average, your average probably isn’t very good… In that case, putting practice is still very necessary…

    • Shark

      Jun 21, 2016 at 9:34 pm

      You may think you putted ‘badly’ based on number of putts, but actually putted from a greater distance due to decreased accuracy of iron shots. A larger improvement may be gained from practicing iron accuracy, thus leaving shorter putts.

      • J Zilla

        Jun 22, 2016 at 4:37 pm

        Yeah. I vaguely remember some story about Tiger early in his career complaining to Butch about his putting woes at the time. Tiger started toward to the practice green but Butch stopped him and handed him an iron. “Putting’s not your problem, your approach shots are.” (Or something to that effect)

        • Peter

          Jun 23, 2016 at 10:58 am

          My golf professional used my original program years ago while trying to qualify for the senior tour. He completed my scorecards for all rounds and mailed them to me. When he came home we met to go thru his analysis. I started by asking for his assessment of his Strengths and weaknesses. He said: “I hit the ball as well as anyone out there and my short game is strong but I am a terrible putter.” I then shared my Strokes Lost/Saved (Strokes Gained) analysis that showed that he was actually a very good putter but while he was a long driver, he made too many driving errors, missed too many GIR’s and put too much pressure on his short game and putting.
          The game is a roller coaster. Without a way of routinely recording performance, it is very difficult to know where one may need the most work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

Club fitting isn’t magic



I talk with golfers all the time about the benefits of having properly fit clubs and how they can help improve your game. But recently I have encountered some players who have actually come away from a club fitting disappointed in the final results, and it had me asking some questions, the most important being

“What were your expectations going in?”

As much as club fitting has made its way into the mainstream, the biggest misconception is that once you get a set of clubs that have been custom fit, you’ll suddenly start hitting more greens and hitting it 30 yards farther—when in reality that’s just not the case.

It’s not that those things can’t occur, but there is still a direct correlation between swing dynamics and skill level with what is possible in a club fitting because, after all, it’s physics, not magic.

Every time I drop change, I think of Gob and I giggle - GIF on Imgur

It’s all about creating the potential for better

In the modern “Amazon” world, we all want things NOW! With club fitting, there is still a lot of opportunities to quickly see improvements that come from reduced dispersion and more consistent results. For a driver that means limiting a miss to one direction, while hopefully increasing distance through optimization.

Now speaking of optimization the chart below, which was developed by Ping, it’s a scientific breakdown of launch, spin, and distance optimization based on ball speed. This means that at 150 mph, the farthest you are going to hit the ball under standard conditions is around 270 yards total. To put that into perspective, to reach 150 mph ball speed you need to be just over 100 mph in clubhead speed.

Why you shouldn't chase high launch, low spin in 2020 | Today's Golfer

If you are going into a driver fitting, and you are already seeing results within these ranges, don’t expect to magically pick up 25 yards out of thin air. Instead, you should have much more focused goals like the examples below

  • Seeing much tighter downrange dispersion. On the course, this will result in hitting more fairways, which should lead to hitting more greens, ultimately resulting in better scoring.
  • Reducing a big miss. A big advantage with newer drivers isn’t that they are way longer off the middle of the face—that’s just not true. It’s that away from the “sweet spot,” you will see a tighter variance in the launch and spin because of ever-improving MOI and driver adjustability. If you have one or two big driver misses in a round of golf that leads to a double bogey or worse and you can bring that number down to just one or even zero, you will see shots add up a lot slower on your scorecard.

At the end of the day, golf clubs are inanimate objects, just like a bike or even a car. Just because you have invested in making sure you have the best of the best equipment doesn’t mean that you don’t need to work on your game to see improvement.

New shoes won’t make you faster, but they can prevent injury and allow for more training—the end result you become a faster runner. Much the same way you can buy the most expensive and best-fit road bike in the world, but it’s not going to mean you are ready for the Tour de France.

Properly fit golf clubs give you the best opportunity to make better swings and the potential to be a better player—but it’s still up to you to utilize that potential.

This topic and a deeper discussion can be found in the most recent episode of the GolfWRX “On Spec” podcast with the conversation starting at 34:45


Your Reaction?
  • 8
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP1
  • OB1
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

Golf's Perfect Imperfections

Golf’s Perfect Imperfections: Ball position do’s and don’ts for every club, including the putter



From rolling the ball with the putter to catching the ball in the way up of the plus 10 degrees of angle of attack with the driver and everything in between including ball positions for fades and draws, high and low—there’s something here for everyone.

Your Reaction?
  • 0
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP1
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

Gil Hanse talks new Les Bordes project, what makes a good golf course, and much more



professional photo

Gil Hanse is regarded as one of the finest “minimalist” golf course architects of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. He’s been entrusted with restoring of the most revered and respected course designs in the game, including Oakland Hills (Donald Ross), Baltusrol (A.W. Tillinghast), and Fishers Island (Seth Raynor). And his original designs have drawn wonderful reviews, including for Streamsong Black, Rio Olympic Course in Brazil, and an 18-hole layout for the Crail Golfing Society in Fife, Scotland.

Hanse and his longtime partner and course shaper, Jim Wagner, enjoy the luxury of picking and choosing which projects they undertake, such is the demand for his services. One of them selected is the New Course at Les Bordes Golf Club in France’s Loire Valley, 90 minutes from Paris. It is scheduled to open in July 2021, and it will join the existing New Course (Robert von Hagge design). Together with the Wild Piglet, a 10-hole short course, and the Himalayas putting course, both which Hanse designed, Les Bordes is regarded at one Continental Europe’s finest golf clubs.

golf course aerial view

The Gil Hanse-designed New Course at Les Bordes Golf Club is surrounded by the Sologne Forest in France’s famed Loire Valley.

Dan Shepherd: Where do you see Les Bordes sitting on the golf world stage as a facility?

Gil Hanse: I think that, with the two 18-hole golf courses and the amenities that are already in place and the ones that are coming, I can’t see how Les Bordes won’t be considered one of the finest golfing destinations in Europe or in the world. You have all the cultural attractions around you, you’ve got the food and the wine, the quality of the amenities. It will be an idyllic place to spend time even if you weren’t playing golf, and then to have these two golf courses so different and varied in their challenges and their presentation really runs the full gamut. I don’t know where else in the world you could find that sort of variety.

DS: Can you pick out a couple of holes on the New Course that you especially like and tell us a bit about them?

GH: The 15th hole, a short-par four, would be one of them. There’s a lot of character and interest, when we were working on it we talked through the philosophy and then Jim Wagner shaped and executed it wonderfully and added some tremendous character to it. On the front nine, I’ve always liked the sixth hole, just the way it flows through the landscape and the different breaks. Trying to be reminiscent a little bit of Tom Simpson with segmented fairways and the way the green lays so simply on the ground.

DS: What makes the landscape at Les Bordes so special? And what makes this golf estate unique.

GH: The diversity of the plant materials is really something we have never encountered, with the broom and the bracken and the variety of trees throughout the property and the fescue grasses. Now they’ve also introduced heather so I think that there are all these great textures there that the golf course just seems to sit amongst. That’s what makes it unique, I can’t think of another golf landscape that looks and feels like the New Course at Les Bordes. There are so many different facets to heathland courses, which you can see in the courses just north of Paris like Morfontaine and Chantilly and the course much closer to where we live in Pine Valley, and I think there are all these different elements here that will create a unique experience at Les Bordes.

DS: How is it possible to build two completely different golf courses on the same estate?

GH: I think it was two different philosophies as to how Robert von Hagge did the Old Course and we approached the New Course. From that perspective, a significant amount of time passed between the creation of both golf courses, and I think that lent itself to, stylistically, different courses that appear differently, because one feels more manufactured and one feels more natural. Neither one is right or wrong, they are just different and one golf course extracts a very harsh penalty for poorly played shots and the other is a little bit more forgiving. I think that is what’s going to make Les Bordes one of the most wonderful golf destinations in the world, you have two distinctly different golf courses from two different eras but the quality of both of them is equivalent in how they were created and how they are presented.

golf course sand bunkers

The Old Course at Les Bordes was designed by Robert von Hagge, and it offers a diverse yet complementary counterpoint to the New Course that will debut in July 2021.

DS: When and how was this project initiated?

GH: The first time I went there was in June 2018. The owner and I had some mutual friends and the conversation came up that the owners were hoping to build a new golf course. The owner had said that he was really hoping to work with us on it, and that fact that we had mutual friends made that conversation easy to get initiated. Once I came to look at the property I was immediately sold on the potential of the ground, and then the hospitality that I was shown while I was there was amazing. Being able to stay on property and the wine and the food; I was treated very well.

DS: What course would you compare the New Course at Les Bordes with?

GH: I can’t think of a direct comparison. There are elements of a number of golf courses including a lot of the great heathland courses around London and several heathland courses around Paris. I think that Jim Wagner and I are always influenced by Pine Valley, which is very near to us here at home, and I think that some of the scale of National Golf Links is apparent out there. If you roll all of those into one, I think that’s a pretty good recipe.

DS: What was it that attracted you about the site at Les Bordes?

GH: The sand and the vegetation, and the reputation of the place. Obviously, we’ve heard of Les Bordes here, so the quality of the site itself and the commitment of the ownership as well, which is a big thing. When we’re considering the criteria of a project, Jim Wagner and I always ask ourselves “Do we have the potential to do something exceptional,” and I think that, while the topography at Les Bordes is not the most outstanding we’ve ever worked with, it still has enough character to it, and the vegetation and the soil gave us the opportunity to do something exceptional. Secondly, we ask ourselves “are we going to have fun doing it” and working with the ownership at Les Bordes, and if you can’t have fun in that part of the world and enjoy yourself then I think there’s something wrong with you. So I think the combination of all those really added up to that being a very attractive project for us. We’ve never built anything in Continental Europe and we wanted to make sure that our first project there was going to be something special, and Les Bordes gave us that opportunity.

DS: What can we expect from the New Course?

GH: You can expect fun golf in a natural, perfect setting. We were given the opportunity from the ownership to build some interesting golf holes; stylistically, it was fun for all of us to focus on Tom Simpson and some of his beautiful creations and some of his inspired designs, not that we copied him stylistically or design-wise but we were certainly influenced by him and that was a treat for us.

DS: It’s been reported you took inspiration from Tom Simpson, what elements of his work were most relevant here and how have you blended those with your own concepts?

GH: The scale of his bunkering was something that we really paid attention to, with clusters or rows of bunkers and that was interesting. From our perspective, it was just the way that they blended into the landscape that was amazing. Some of the green complexes that he built were fairly eccentric and so we felt that we could create a few on the golf course like that, but then he also built some greens that were simple in their presentation yet complex in their subtlety, and a lot of those things fed into what we did at Les Bordes. I know going forward, if the landscape is a good fit, we would certainly do more things in the style of Tom Simpson.

DS: How challenging was it for you to create a new course near the one (the Old Course) that’s considered one of the best in Continental Europe?

GH: I don’t think that we found it to be a challenge or challenging, we found it to be inspirational. It’s always nice when you come to a project and the level of quality is established through the existing golf course and the existing facilities, all of which are to a really high standard. We were excited and challenged in our creativity and what we were trying to do and hopeful that, when all is settled, Les Bordes has two golf courses that are very highly regarded, but I would be lying if I didn’t hope that ours was a little more highly regarded.

DS: Do you feel you succeeded in your goal and why?

GH: I do. I think that every golf architect when they are given a site hopes that the best that they can do is to maximize the characteristics of the site, and I feel that we have done that with the New Course. I feel that we have provided a great variety in the two different nines; we have captured the best of the topography on site; we have worked to enhance some of those areas through added elevation; and we have worked to create a very interesting and playable test of golf. I’m confident that, with all the work that we’ve done there, we have maximized the potential of the property and, as a golf architect when you walk away, that’s all that you can hope for.

DS: Tell me about the Wild Piglet.

GH: One of the things that golf is doing a better job on right now, and Les Bordes is certainly offering that with The Himalayas putting green and The Wild Piglet, is just fun. Fun and access, and providing an easy entry point to the game. You can go out and laugh at yourself, have a good time and not worry about losing golf balls or have the pressures of playing a full-size golf course. Our attempt there was to create a very fun and playable experience, but also one where a good player could go out there and be tested with shots. In order to succeed on The Wild Piglet, you’ve got to hit some really good shots, but you’ve also got the opportunity to just go out there and bang it around and have fun. One of the things that Jim Wagner and I worked with the team on was, basically, giving everybody their own golf hole or holes, and just letting everybody have a crack at it. It was fun and I think that if you go into your own little incubator, independent of everybody around you, it gives you the opportunity to be as creative as you want. Then, ultimately, Jim and I would take a look but I don’zt think that we’ve edited things very much. You have some individual expressions out there that, when put together, comprises 10 really fun, unique golf holes.

DS: What are the characteristics of a golf course that make you want to play it again and again? What makes it recognizable?

GH: I think that it’s fun and that there are interesting shots. It’s the ability to go out one time and then think, “OK, next time I play it I’m going to try this differently” or that you get put into a different circumstance each and every round, but that the design and the creativity within the design allows you to approach the problem solving differently each time. I think there’s that sense of the playability of the course and then there’s just the beauty of it and the presentation. I think that golf courses that have a sense of place and that feel like they belong where they’re sitting is also something that makes me want to continue to play it. I think that adds to the character and the quality of it so the way it looks, the way it feels as you walk through the landscape, and then, certainly, the way it plays and challenges you to be creative are courses that I want to keep playing over and over.

DS: How would you describe your style as a course architect? What are the general trends? And which architect has inspired you the most?

GH: We don’t have a style! I hope that we respond to each and every site, and that a golf course we have built at Les Bordes does not look like a golf course that we have built in southern Georgia at Ohoopee or Southern California at Rustic Canyon. I hope that every course we’ve built has a sense of place and a sense of belonging which will then, ultimately, provide unique opportunities. Through our methodology of being on-site so much, if we can capitalize on these opportunities, then each golf course should feel unique. I think our courses have some similarities in that we like wider playing corridors and interesting green complexes, and I think our bunkers are particularly attractive, but they do still blend into the native landscape and hopefully our courses change style to style depending on the site that we’re given.

DS: What does a course architect have as a weapon, apart from the overall length, to make a golf course really challenging for professionals?

GH: The greatest defense is firm conditions, and the opportunity to build a golf course in a place where the ball will bounce in the fairway and the greens. Professional golfers work so hard at their game and hone their craft so well so that they have a predictable outcome every time they hit a golf ball. They know when they hit their seven-iron what the outcome will be, but if the conditions are firm and they’re not sure if the ball’s going to bounce twice and check or not going to check at all, that’s the best defense, and that relies on the conditions on-site and obviously Mother Nature for a tournament. But I think from an architect’s perspective, the only other challenges we can provide are mental ones where golfers maybe feel a little bit uneasy about the shot that’s in front of them because they can’t quite see everything or they can’t quite determine the best way to play the hole is. Those are the type of courses that require study, and I think those are the best examples of golf architecture.

DS: What are the qualities of a good golf course?

GH: I think that a good golf course should have a sense of place, a sense of belonging, it doesn’t feel that it’s been transported from somewhere else and feels like it belongs on a property, and that it is one that has a variety of ways to play it, interest in the features that have been created or that have been found in the landscape, and it has to be fun. It’s a balance between fun and interest versus difficulty, and we want to provide ways for golfers to navigate around a golf course based on their own skill level and if a golf course gives you that opportunity to map or think your way through it, then I think that’s the best an architect can do.

DS: How much did/do you know about golf courses in France and what do you make of the architecture you have seen?

GH: I think of the countries where I have seen golf in continental Europe, France has by far the best, most superior golf-course design. You can put Morfontaine and Chantilly and some of the other courses around Paris up against some of the best courses in the world, not just in Europe, and so I think that when you have a few anchor courses that provide those opportunities, and then you have some newer courses that have been built that aspire to do really good things, and I think they do, I feel like France has a really good golfing baseline. That allowed us to build in a country that already had expectations for quality golf, and we’re hopeful that what we’ve created adds to that.

Your Reaction?
  • 12
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading