Geeked on Golf

A Celebration of the People & Places that Make Golf the Greatest Game


Transforming the Derrick – Jeff Mingay & George Waters

If you read my previous interview with Jeff Mingay, you know that he is a student of the game and its playing fields, and you also know that he is actively putting lessons learned to work in the field.  I thoroughly enjoyed the interview with Jeff, and I continue to learn from him as he shares on Twitter.  Therefore, I made a point of following up with Jeff regarding his renovation of the Derrick Club.  He graciously agreed to give me even more time to discuss the project.

If that weren’t enough, we also managed to wrangle George Waters to participate in the discussion.  George pitched in on the shaping of the Derrick Club, and by all accounts, their collaboration was a smash hit with the membership.  Quick side note, if you do not own George’s book Sand and Golf: How Terrain Shapes the Game, I cannot recommend it enough.  George knows his stuff, and he is one of the genuine good guys in the game.

And now, on to the transformation of the Derrick Club…

The first hole, under construction.

The first hole, under construction.


Have you worked on projects together before?

Jeff Mingay:  Yes, George has worked with me on restoration and renovation projects at the Victoria Golf Club, in British Columbia, and at Seattle’s Overlake Golf and Country Club in recent years. As well as the Derrick Club redo.

What do you respect about each other?

George Waters:  I respect a lot about Jeff and have learned a great deal working with him over the years.  I think his commitment to designing and building quality golf courses is second to none.  He puts a tremendous amount of his personal time and effort into a project and is heavily involved from the big picture planning to the very small details.  In addition to being an excellent architect he is also a very accomplished shaper and he crafted the majority of the green complexes at the Derrick Club himself.  There aren’t too many architects these days that are prepared to put that kind of personal effort into a project.  Jeff is also his own toughest critic, a quality I really admire.  In fact, I think one of my best contributions to the Derrick project was helping Jeff know when he had gotten the most out of a hole or feature.

JM:  George is very knowledgeable about golf and course architecture.  He traveled the world to see and play the best courses, and has worked with many of the most accomplished living architects on some very well-received projects.  He knows history and design theory, but most importantly the practical aspects of implementing design ideas on the ground successfully.  He’s very creative too, and meticulous in all aspects of his work.  I also respect and appreciate that George is not afraid to speak up when he thinks an idea I have could be better or he doesn’t completely agree with what I’m planning to do.  I know that candid input made my work at the Derrick much better.  In many cases, the best architecture is done collaboratively, especially when people are like-minded.  George and I are like-minded.

What got you excited about the project at The Derrick Club?

JM:  Immediately, it was obvious that a lot of work was required to fix the Derrick.  The old course had a lot of fundamental problems that needed correcting.  It didn’t function very well at all in terms of drainage and properly catering to the enjoyment of golfers of all abilities.  If the club desired to have the best course possible on that property, they needed a comprehensive rebuild of the course.  At the end of the day, that’s what happened.  And, in an era when not many new courses are being built, that opportunity to essentially build a brand new course at the Derrick was very exciting.

GW:  I loved the idea of doing a golf course in a very traditional style on a relatively flat piece of ground.  People often see flat ground as boring when it comes to golf, but many of my favorite courses overseas and in North America occupy very gentle terrain.  I was excited to demonstrate how interesting golf course design on gentle terrain could be.

In a project like this, how much weight do playability and functionality considerations carry respectively?

GW:  Before we started, the Derrick Club had serious playability issues – the course felt cramped and awkward.  It was difficult, but in many of the wrong ways.  By opening the course up and striving to make it interesting as well as challenging, we really broadened the course’s appeal.  Now players are challenged by angles and placement, rather than trees, ponds, and rough.

JM:  Those are the two factors that drove the entire project at the Derrick, and sold the idea of building a new course to a large majority of club members.  Again, the property needed to be comprehensively drained to improve its function, and many architectural improvements relative to making the course more enjoyable for golfers of all abilities was essential.  Without these two necessities pushing our ideas for the place, this project would not have happened.

Was enhancing the sustainability of the facility a goal of the project, and if so, was that goal met?

JM:  Relative to drainage, yes.  The old course was becoming unsustainable because it drained so poorly.  The grass on the greens was a problem as well.  Bent grass greens are essential in Edmonton’s climate.  Poa annua just doesn’t handle cold, snow and ice well at all.  In fact, before the new course was built, Darryl Maxwell, the Derrick’s golf course superintendent, had the largest bent grass nurseries I’ve seen anywhere in my travels.  He had to be prepared for each spring.  There were always large swaths of the old Poa annua greens that suffered winter kill and needed replacing.  The new bent grass greens have eliminated this annual rite of spring!  Darryl and I are also in the process of determining where we can eliminate some currently maintained turf areas throughout the course without negatively affecting play.  Replacing some of that maintained grass with fescue and native grass would not only enhance the look of the course in a natural fashion but hopefully cut down on maintenance requirements, too.

What changes did you make to the routing of the course?  Why were those changes necessary?

JM:  The routing of the course and sequence of play was changed dramatically.  I used 12 of the existing corridors of play in the new routing.  The other six corridors are new – they didn’t exist before – which was necessary.  One problem with the old course was that all of the par-4s measured 380 yards.  All four par-3s played 210 yards from the back markers.  There wasn’t enough variety in the length and directions the holes played.  On the new course, the short holes run the gamut, measuring 140 yards to 220 yards.  The fourth is a 300-yard par-4.  The 12th, 14th and 15th can play longer than 450 yards as par-4s.  There are only two par-5s.  The new routing created a lot more variety.  The new sequence of play makes more sense as well. Many of the transitions between holes on the old course were awkward. With only two exceptions, tees are right next to the greens on the new course.  In fact, George and I laughed when the new course was criticized by a few Derrick members who thought some of our tees were too close to the previous greens…we took that as a compliment!

GW:  As we started finishing areas it was very hard to imagine that the course had been routed the way it was.  The existing course felt tight and awkward from both a play and experiential standpoint.  The new course very quickly started to feel wide and comfortable.  People kept commenting on how big the property now seemed and they were right, there was a lot of wasted space prior to the renovation and Jeff did a great job taking full advantage of the site.

What was your approach to the bunkering? Were there specific sources of inspiration upon which you drew?

GW:  The first couple of bunkers I shaped were a little overdone – I was trying too hard.  The next pair I did were bold but very simple in their shapes, you saw a bit of sand but most of the visual appeal was in the grassed down face.  Jeff and I both liked the simpler shapes better, we went back and edited the first ones and then carried on with a more traditional style.  We wanted to focus on creating interesting and different bunker arrangements because we knew that was our best chance of making the holes memorable on flattish ground.  We also both believe very strongly in placing bunkers in a wide variety of locations, even if on paper a bunker seemed “out of play”.  Jeff and I have both spent a lot of time on classic courses and for the most part you find bunkers all over the place because traditional architects understood that golfers hit the ball everywhere and weather conditions change.  Placing bunkers in a wide range of locations makes the course interesting for golfers of all abilities in all conditions, and helps make the holes different and memorable.

JM:  In the planning stages, I knew I wanted to give the course a look that was distinctive to the Edmonton area, and the province of Alberta.  I also had some pretty good ideas about where I thought the bunkers should be located for strategic and aesthetic purposes, among others.  George and I were on-site a lot throughout the entire project, both shaping.  We lived together in Edmonton, too.  This gave us plenty of time for discussion that resulted in quite a bit of alteration to my original plans as the course developed.  There are only a couple classic courses from the pre-World War II era in western Canada.  George and I both grew up in the east, on classic courses, and felt that the best way to give the Derrick Club a distinctive course was to draw inspiration from what we know back home.  We talked about the bunkers at classic New York area courses by Donald Ross, Devereux Emmet, A.W. Tillinghast – places like Garden City and St. George’s on Long Island, near where George grew up.  George shaped all of the bunkers and did a great job giving them simple shapes for the most part, but bold character at the same time.  The bold grass down, flat bottom look nicely reflects some of Ross’s, Emmet’s and Tillinghast’s stuff nicely.

What was your approach to tree management?

JM:  In order to work a new and improved routing onto the property, and truly enhance the enjoyment of the course for all golfers, nearly 2,000 trees were removed during the project.  One of the best compliments I’ve received above the new course from a number of long-time members is that they never realized the property was so expansive and that the opportunities we took advantage of in routing the new course existed.  The old course was very cluttered and constricted.  Many of the trees that were removed were in poor health or were less desirable specimens that cluttered the property and hid the nicest trees out there.  The result of 2,000 trees going is that the property is much more attractive now.  The most impressive and healthiest trees shine, there are a bunch of beautiful long views across the course, and there’s adequate room to enjoy golf and keep healthy turf.  I’m in the process of creating a long-range tree management plan for the club now.  This will include some new plantings, and spell out how the course should look and feel relative to trees and other vegetation into the future.

How would you describe the new greens at The Derrick?

JM:  I’ve also been complimented by quite a few members of the Derrick for “not doing anything crazy with the greens”.  It’s a relatively subtle property, so I didn’t want the greens and the contouring of the putting surfaces to stand out in contrast to the native character of the ground.  At the beginning of the project, George and I talked a lot about greens.  He rightfully reminded me on several occasions that a lot of the classic courses we admired feature seemingly subtle greens with small intricacies that create interesting and adequately challenging putting and recovery play from around the greens.  This is the theme I kept in mind while shaping the greens.  The word around the club is that the new greens are quite challenging to putt mainly because the subtleties are difficult to read.  And I think they fit the terrain very nicely, aesthetically.  The variety of sizes and shapes and angles enhances the variety of the holes, too.  At the par-5 eleventh, for example, the green is only about 3,500 square feet.  The long par-4 15th hole has a green that’s about 10,000 square feet in size.  So, there’s quite a bit of variety.


The approach to the 4th, featuring the beautiful new bunkering.

Did you run into challenges with the membership before, during, or after the project, and how did you overcome those challenges?

JM:  Selling the project was challenging.  The best superintendents are often their own worst enemies.  This is a compliment, because they’re so good at masking all of the deficiencies of a course that need to be fixed functionally.  By the time members tee off, there’s no sign of any deficiencies!  Darryl Maxwell did a great job of creating a list of deficiencies that the old course had, hole by hole.  This info was shared with the membership as part of the Master Plan, and through a series of Town Hall meetings, and presentations over a period of months.  Essentially, all of the architectural ideas in my plan were sold as directly related to eliminating and correcting deficiencies of the course.  This was the truth, and a great strategy that eventually sold the project to a large majority of the membership.  Again, it was the necessity of fixing functional and playability issues throughout the property that drove the project, and allowed us to also get creative with the design of a new course.  Once the project started, the club smartly limited member involvement.  They stuck to the belief that the membership voted “yes” on the plan that was presented, and that we should be able to implement our design without interference.  Darryl Maxwell was the project supervisor and we dealt with a construction committee made up of two Board members.  It was really well done on the club’s part.

GW:  The Derrick Club project might have been one of the easiest I’ve ever worked on from a membership relations standpoint.  On most projects I’ll get at least a few members who come out to let me know that we’re ruining the golf course and the whole thing will be a complete disaster.  That never happened once at the Derrick Club.  I think Jeff and the club did a great job of communicating the goals and the reasons for the project and I also think that even casual observers could see that we were making very real improvements to the course.  I think the sudden expansiveness of the property really resonated with people in a positive way.  Even if they weren’t always sure about what they saw architecturally, I think people could feel that the course was getting better.

How did the renovation impact ongoing maintenance needs and costs?

JM:  I think it will probably be a wash.  In other words, I don’t think the new course will be any more expensive to maintain than the old one.  But the focuses have changed.  For example, the necessities of pumping water from low areas and bunkers following heavy rains, and re-turfing Poa greens after a harsh winter, are gone.  The new grass faced bunkers proved to be a challenge during a hot, dry summer this year though.  They’re already looking at installing mist heads on some of the most troublesome bunkers, with southern exposure, to keep the turf on those bold grass faces healthy.  There’s more fairway area to mow, water, and treat on the new course, too; but with fewer trees, there are also fewer maintenance challenges relative to shade, roots, leaf pick up, etc.

What makes you proudest about the new Derrick?

GW:  I’m proud that we were able to very successfully apply the principles of classic architecture and really got the most out of the property.  I think we also did a great job of demonstrating restraint throughout the process.  We didn’t go overboard anywhere even though we certainly utilized some unusual design features.  The best examples of golf course architecture on gentle terrain typically work with the subtlety of the ground rather than fight against it.  We put a lot of effort into following that example and the result is a course that looks, feels, and plays like a classic course even though it is brand new.  I’m very proud of that.

JM:  The fact that we genuinely improved the function of the course, particularly relative to drainage.  During the planning stages, I would show up at the Derrick in the spring time and there would be pumps running every day, trying desperately to get water off the property following the snow melt.  This spring, the entire property, without an exception, was bone dry.  It’s effectively drained.  I’ve also received many compliments about how “fun” the new course is to play, from golfers of all abilities.  There are very few opportunities to lose a ball at the new Derrick, but no one’s complaining that it’s “too easy” either.  The course seems to be adequately challenging better golfers and at the same time it’s allowing everyone else to have fun too. And, with the new routing and sequence of play, members are getting around comfortably in three hours and 45 minutes, regularly.  These are all positives that we sold to the membership and delivered on.  I’m proud of that.


As Jeff mentioned above, the routing and order of the holes changed significantly in the renovation.  A bold move that clearly paid off.  (click on any image to enlarge)

DERRICK MASTER PLAN_Artistic Plan copy

The par-3 2nd was previously the 3rd hole on the old course.

The par-4 12th was previously the short par-5 1st on the old course.

The par-4 13th was previously the 6th hole on the old course.

The par-3 16th did not exist before the renovation.

The finisher was previously the 9th on the old course.

Additional Geeked On Golf Interviews:



Copyright 2015 – Jason Way, GeekedOnGolf


Upholding Golf’s Ideals – An Interview with Architect Jeff Mingay

“Difficult golf courses are simple to make. Narrow fairways bordered by rough, and corridors of play constricted by trees is all it takes. The problem is such courses inevitably become a chore to play. Sheer difficulty is not the measure of quality golf course design. In fact, as golf course architects, we’re not trying to design difficult courses at all. We’re trying to build interesting ones, which golfers want to return to, time and time again.”

JeffMingay-RodWhitmanOne could easily imagine the above quote coming from a Golden Era architect – MacKenzie, Macdonald or Ross.  Instead, it is Canadian golf course architect Jeff Mingay who not only used those words, but is applying them in the field day after day.

Thinker, traveler, student, writer, historian, enthusiast, commentator, and most of all builder – each of these descriptors apply to Jeff, which is why he is so interesting.  He is a must follow on Twitter (@jeff_mingay) for golf geeks, especially those who want to better understand the game’s fields of play.  Jeff was kind enough to take time out of his busy schedule of work and travel to share his thoughts – many thanks to him.


How did you get into the business?

Rod Whitman.  After I pestered him for a bit, it was Rod who let me come to work for him, with very little experience, back in about 2000.  He was starting construction of Blackhawk Golf Club at the time.  Over a couple summers there, in Edmonton, I learned how to operate bulldozers, excavators and other equipment, thanks to the opportunity Rod gave me.  But, most important, I started to learn how to effectively implement design ideas, on the ground, at Blackhawk.  That’s where it all started for me.  I helped Rod finish that job then moved on to supervise the construction of Sagebrush, in British Columbia, for him.  From there it was on to Cabot Links, in Nova Scotia, with a few other smaller jobs mixed in over about a decade hanging around with Rod, and guys like Dave Axland, before I started moving on to my own projects, beginning in 2009 and ’10.

Who has influenced you the most in your work, both within and outside of golf?

Well, Rod’s definitely been a big influence in many ways.  I have great respect for his understanding of golf, his creativity and abilities to put his ideas on the ground very effectively.  To this day, I’ll often think about what Rod’s opinion of what I’m designing or building might be … which I think is good thing.  It keeps me on my toes!  I’d have to say Donald Ross, too.  I was fortunate to grow-up playing and learning the game at Essex Golf and Country Club, in Windsor, Ontario.  Essex was designed by Mr. Ross during the late 1920s.  Just hanging around that great old course as much as I have over the years definitely shaped my views on what a golf course should be.  I’m really interested in building architecture, too.  Some of the thoughts, philosophies, and experiences of my favorite building architects are very applicable to golf architecture.  In certain ways, Frank Lloyd Wright’s been an influence.

Why is it important to study the history of golf and golf courses?

I think golf architects today are more fortunate than our predecessors because we have so much to look back on and learn from … a century of what’s already been done, what’s worked well and what hasn’t.  If you don’t understand this history, you’re not going to have a chance to be the best.  It’s really as simple as that in my mind.

Describe your process for a design project.

I prefer designing on-site rather than working from maps, and making a lot of drawings.  I find I’m more creative when I’m walking a property to figure out initial concepts, and when I’m shaping golf course features myself … the way I learned from Rod.  Obviously I’ll have the basic concepts set in mind when we start building, but most of the details are worked out during the shaping and construction process as things evolve in the field and new opportunities present themselves.  It’s inevitable that certain ideas I’ve thought about in Toronto aren’t going to translate exactly right onto a site in Edmonton or Victoria or Seattle, which is why I insist on being on-site a lot during all of my projects.  The day I’m not shaping anymore, I’ll need to re-question my ambitions.

Is there a particular element of a golf hole that you like working on the most?

The green.  After the routing, the design of the putting surface and its surrounds is the most important element in golf architecture.  The green means most to the playing interest of any hole.  When designed properly, the green dictates everything, including the strategy of a hole.  Really great greens make a course interesting and adequately challenging for better golfers, and at the same time allow for width, which is essential to the enjoyment of everyone else.  The Old Course, and the original designs of Augusta National and Pinehurst are great examples.  On those great courses, it’s really important to drive the ball into the correct spots relative to the day’s pin position, otherwise getting close to the hole becomes very difficult.  While it’s tough to get close to the hole, it’s not difficult to get on the green.  This is that ideal balance between presenting interest and an adequate challenge to better golfers and enjoyment for everyone else, simultaneously.  It’s got everything to do with the green.

What should every Green Committee member study/learn before undertaking course improvement initiatives?

That they’re going to be in the way of progress unless they come into the process of developing an improvement plan with an open-mind!  Really, the committee needs to decide on a golf architect with consensus and then let him do his work without interference.  This might sound biased to some, but there really are too many poor examples of golf courses designed by committee to suggest otherwise.  Don’t get me wrong, I want and appreciate input from committee members, they know the course.  But, if you don’t let the architect make the final call, things don’t end up being cohesive and the course in question has no chance to truly reach its full potential.

What are the primary challenges you consistently face in trying to deliver results that are up to your standards?

See above!  I’d have to say interference from committees and Boards.  Budget constraints, too.  I mean, economy in golf architecture is very important but it’s frustrating when important elements of an improvement plan are pulled just to keep a project under a specific number.  It’s a reality that presents challenges relative to delivering the highest standard.


Jeff at York Downs – Photo courtesy of Frank Mastroianni, Canadian Golf Magazine

How do you know when you have hit the sweet spot in your work?

I recently re-read parts of John Low’s 1903 book, Concerning Golf.  He was first guy to codify a set of architectural principles in that book.  One of his principles talks about how the great holes teeter on the Heretical Precipice.  I love that term.  Heresy is an opinion that’s profoundly at odds with what’s generally accepted.  So, in other words, Mr. Low’s saying that the best holes are those that are just about unacceptable, polarizing.  Polarizing holes and polarizing golf courses are usually the most interesting, so I feel that sweet spot when holes I’ve designed or restored create a love/hate thing from golfers.

You travel extensively to see and play courses – why is that important to you?

Studying design theory in the old architecture books is one thing.  It’s as important … well, more important, to visit the great courses of the world to get a sense of scale, locations, relationships between holes, relationships between the golf course and the clubhouse, etc.  Having a real sense of the look and feel of the best courses, and understanding how everything involved fits together in the best fashion, is very important.  You can’t get that sense from a book or photos.  I also enjoy talking with the golf course superintendents who take care of those places, to learn more about what they do, what challenges they may face with certain features or situations, etc.  At the end of the day, it’s the superintendent who makes the architect look good, without exception.

What course would you love to get your hands on for a renovation project?

A few years ago, I would have said A.V. Macan’s Fircrest in Tacoma, Washington.  But I’m fortunate to be working on a restorative-based plan there, now.  Another Macan design at Shaughnessy, in Vancouver, would be fun to restore, too.  It was one of Mr. Macan’s last courses, and biggest projects, over a career spanning six decades. He did his first course at Royal Colwood, in Victoria, British Columbia, in 1913.  Remarkably, Shaughnessy was finished about 1960, four years before he died.  Mr. Macan was a very interesting, very thoughtful guy who put a wealth of knowledge into what he called “the course I want to be remembered by”, at Shaughnessy.  His notes on Shaughnessy are fascinating, and the thought he put into some of the micro elements of that design is very admirable.  Sadly, not much of his work is left there, today.  And, it’s unlikely the course will ever be restored.  Shaughnessy’s on leased land, and the story is that lease will not be renewed in the near future.

What do you love most about practicing your craft?

Definitely being involved with the shaping and construction work.  Staying on the equipment keeps me fresh, alert, and more creative I think.  I love being involved with the guys who are most important to the realization of my ideas.   It’s extremely satisfying to have a long day on-site, with all of the guys, then have few beers afterward, talking about what we’re trying to do, and what happened that day.  This type of comradery is very important to a successful result.  I never want to be, and never will be, the guy who flies in for a few hours in a nice golf shirt, tells everyone what to do then leaves for a few weeks.  That’s not why I came to do what I’m fortunate to do.  Again, the day I’m not intimately involved with the construction process is the day I’ll need to re-question my ambitions.

What one word would you use to describe the courses you design, and why?

I’d like to use the word distinctive.  The only common characteristic shared by the world’s best courses is distinctiveness.  The uniqueness of the best courses is one of golf’s great attractions.  So, I try to do something genuinely different on every project that’s either inspired by inherent site characteristics, the design pedigree of an existing course, or a clients’ needs and desires … or a combination of these types of factors.

If you could only play one course for the rest of your life, what would it be, and why?

It sounds cliche, but probably the Old Course at St. Andrews.  The Old Course is wide enough, the greens there are big enough, the ground is usually firm enough, and there’s enough interesting contour and variance of wind on that site that the Old Course really plays like a different course, day to day, more often than any other in the world that I’m aware of.  This type of variety is ideal.  Too many other courses are relatively tight and have comparatively small greens, and are located in areas where there’s not much wind, so they more often play the same, rather than different, every day.  A course that’s many courses in one depending where the pins are located on any given day, and which direction and how fast the wind’s blowing is the ideal.

What are the top 3 courses next on your list to play for the first time?

I can’t believe I haven’t played Oakmont yet.  I’ve admired that great old course from afar, forever.  I also need to get to Royal Melbourne.  That’s a huge missing link in my architectural education.  And, having been involved with Cabot Links, I’m really looking forward to getting back to Cape Breton some time this year to see and play Cabot Cliffs.  I’m a bit familiar with that site, and the course looks stunning in photos.  What else would you expect from Coore and Crenshaw and company though, right?

When you are not playing golf or building golf courses, what are you doing?

Hmmm … admittedly, I do need a few more hobbies!  I’m a big music fan.  I’m always listening to music, trying to find new music, and going to see shows when I’m at home, or when I run into the right bands during my travels.  Baseball, too.  In the summer, I love going to baseball games, especially at ballparks I haven’t seen.

Any interesting or challenging projects in process or on the horizon for you?

We’ve just started restorative-based projects at two classic A.V. Macan designs in the Seattle area that I’ve been thinking about, and dreaming about putting back together for a long time.  I’m pretty excited about these projects, at Fircrest and Inglewood Golf Clubs.  We completed five holes at Fircrest back in November last year and will be starting at Inglewood in a few weeks.  These are really interesting, unique and trailblazing designs by Mr. Macan, dating back to the early 1920s, that not only set a standard for golf architecture in the Pacific Northwest but are still relevant today.  It’s humbling to have these opportunities to showcase what Mr. Macan did for golf and course architecture, particularly in the Northwest.  This type of work also helps with my continuing education in golf architecture, which is an added benefit.

Additional Geeked On Golf Interviews:



Copyright 2015 – Jason Way, GeekedOnGolf


Golf Course Architecture & History – A Video Archive

It is exciting to see increased discussion of golf course architecture on Golf Channel and other televised golf coverage, with Matt Ginella and Geoff Shackelford leading the way.  Perhaps some day, we will see the GCA show I argued for in this previous post – The Art of Course.

In the meantime, this video link archive has been created to be a resource for all those who want in-depth exploration of golf courses, architecture and history.  Many thanks to my collaborator Kyle Truax (on Twitter @TheTruArchitect) for his extensive contributions to this archive.  Check back regularly for updates, and see below for Kyle’s own video series TruAxioms.

A few words about the format and structure of the archive: Wherever possible, a YouTube playlist has been created for each subject, and can be played right from this page.  Links to videos from sources other than YouTube have also been provided, with hyperlinks in the video titles.

With proliferation of GCA-related videos, the original single page format was getting to be a bit unruly.  I split the archive into three parts, in addition to this index page, which will still include the video links for the current year’s Major Championship venues.


This page features course-specific videos.  A great resource for course research.


This page features architect interviews, presentations, etc. that are not course specific to a single course.  See the Architect videos here…


This page features the Golf Channel architecture features, as well as videos from other commentators and architecture enthusiasts.  See the Commentators videos here…

If you have any clips to add, please feel free to tweet them me at @JasonWay1493 or leave them here in the comments.  Enjoy!


AugustaMastersLogo.pngTHE MASTERS – Augusta National GC

  • Hole Flyovers and photo gallery from

HOLE 1 – Par 4 – Tea Olive                                        HOLE 10 – Par 4 – Camellia

HOLE 2 – Par 5 – Pink Dogwood                              HOLE 11 – Par 4 – White Dogwood

HOLE 3 – Par 4 – Flowering Peach                          HOLE 12 – Par 3 – Golden Bell

HOLE 4 – Par 3 – Flowering Crab Apple                 HOLE 13 – Par 5 – Azalea

HOLE 5 – Par 4 – Magnolia                                       HOLE 14 – Par 4 – Chinese Fir

HOLE 6 – Par 3 – Juniper                                          HOLE 15 – Par 5 – Firethorn

HOLE 7 – Par 4 – Pampas                                         HOLE 16 – Par 3 – Redbud

HOLE 8 – Par 5 – Yellow Jasmine                            HOLE 17 – Par 4 – Nandina

HOLE 9 – Par 4 – Carolina Cherry                          HOLE 18 – Par 4 – Holly


ShinnecockHillsLogo.jpgTHE U.S. OPEN – Shinnecock Hills GC

(Host: 2018, 2004, 1995, 1986, 1896)


THE OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP – Carnoustie Golf Links

(Host: 2018, 2007, 1999, 1975, 1968, 1953, 1937, 1931)






Copyright 2017 – Jason Way, GeekedOnGolf