elevation and architecture

[archie struthers]

I have an interesting disaffection for elevation change on individual holes, although I do appreciate vistas and looks across the golf course. Whenever I have to hit a shot from the top of a hill, I always think this would be a better spot for some snow and a sled, or ski's for those so inclined.

I would venture it is much easier to focus on an uphill shot, and to get perspective on where you are trying to hit it. At Sand Hills I greatly preferred the uphill tee shots to the downhill ones. Just wondering if I am alone in this preference?  

[RJ_Daley]

Archie, and interesting disaffection you have there.

It makes me wonder if certain architects have the same disaffection and that is what makes for such passionate criticizm or defense of their work.  Archie, how do you feel about the Rees Jones style of 'reeses pieces' containment mounds where the fairway itself is only modestly rippled at about 4-6ft and giving various up hill and downhill and sidehill lies, but without the treks over 20-30 ft elevation hill or ridge crests?  Anotherwords, in golf course architecture, do you prefer the dozer manufactured multiple ripple effect to achieve the LZ lie variety on graded down land more than the Sand Hills effect of land drapped over broader hills and hummocks trending up elevation or down or both within the particular hole corridor?  

As for me, I don't think you could have a better example of elevation within hole corridors than the opening 2 holes at Sand Hills.  An attention getting tee ball on 1 slightly downhill into a deceptively long across the native ravine-like area to the 1rst LZ, then gradually up elevation to the green.  Yet, rumples and ripples of nooks and crannies along the way.  Then #2 up elevation to a fairway that is semi blind to the LZ and continued uphill to the green that saddles on a crest of a sand hill.

Somehow, I think that in the many picture examples of Jones work, he doesn't like that sort of elevation change in his individual hole corridors and has what appears to me as a propensity to grade the fairways rippled but relatively flat with the elevation in the periphery.  That is what gives it a monotonous and artificial look to me.  I prefer the use of the elevation through and within the fairway also like I have seen Ross utilize on diagonals traversing a ridge.

[wsmorrison]

Archie,
Tom Paul and I have some Flynn drawings of a course that NLE (9 holes built and the back 9 cleared) at Eagles Mere, PA that had the first hole drop some 110' and the 9th and 18th running in the opposite direction from the 1st that rose some 90' each!  We are going to hike through the dense woods that exists now in early spring with an avid member.  The course folded this course after the depression but still has an old-style 18 that Flynn sympathetically designed 12 holes to add to the existing 6.  Throughout this hilly site there is an enormous variation in elevation.  It will be interesting to go out there and see what this course could have been like.  Does anyone know of that kind of elevation changes on single holes on other courses?
Regards,
Wayne

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

Nicklaus seemed to favor the downhill shot, especially on Par 3's, but I'm with you, I prefer an uphill shot like the ones encountered at # 2, # 6, # 11 & # 18 at Seminole and # 8 at NGLA.  Something about the uphill shot seems to convey a need to hit a more precise shot lest gravity work against you, whereas many a mis-hit down hill shot is the beneficiary of gravity.  

Don't uphill shots also require you to keep you head down more, avoiding the natural temptation to peek at the ball as it climbs toward its target ?

I think uphill targets are more prone to be influenced by the wind, making them even more challenging.

I like the "storming the fortress" aspect of uphill shots, downhill shots seem like coasters to me.

[Jim_H]

I--for one--do not like severe elevation change in course architecture.  And I brought up this thought on a post several months ago, where I asked if any really good course could have elevation change of 150 feet or more.  As I recall, most respondents agreed that with a few exceptions great elevation change was a negative.  I remember reading a few years ago an article on what makes a great golf course--and the first criterion mentioned was starting with "a piece of gently rolling land."  I thought that was a great observation.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Archie,

I played County Sligo/Rosses Point this summer and it hard to find a more severe elevation change than the 5th hole which is called "Jump" for obvious reasons. The picture does not do it justice, but basically you tee off a cliff to the lower section of the course. As a Par 5 481 from the back tees it is rather easy.


Then 17 and 18, you climb back up the cliff. 17 is a famous hole, which plays as a Par 4



18 (not shown) was a blind uphill tee shot with a white stone as a marker. In this case, I liked all three holes, but in general, I probably prefer the downhill shot.

[Bob_Huntley]

Severely steeped uphill par threes are an abomination and should be excluded from golf course designs. If you want to check out a couple of stinkers, see the third and seventh holes at Tehama.

[archie]

RJ

In response to your query

In no way was I maligning the quality of the holes at Sand Hills, rather I most appreciated the holes with either uphill tee shots or a rolling feel, the second shot at #10 stands out in my mind.

Interestingly enough, Pine Valley, one of my favorite golf courses and obviously one of the best tests of golf on the planet, has some of my least favorite architectural traits. Its emphasis on the aerial game, forced carries et al would never be something I would espouse as classic architecture, indeed it is target golf to the max, yet the way Crump tied it all together speaks to his spectacular achievement at PV. It even has a great downhiller(#14) amongst the dart boards.
 
With all this in mind I like Pat Mucci's storming the fortress mentality, particularly if it is a gentle rise on the tee shot. I have never really enjoyed golf in the mountains, as dramatic elevation changes are better to be viewed than played.

As to Rees' work, I have no opinion!

[wsmorrison]

The uphill 225 yard par 3 15th at Philadelphia Country Club is an awesome hole.  The 7th at Lehigh is a great downhill par 3 and the par 5 11th has a long downhill second shot into a great green site just beyond a creek.  Depending upon the balance and variety of holes, I think sharply uphill and downhill holes are valuable to providing specific shot demands.  For pro-caliber golfers, they are forced to think more rather than dialing in a distance...that is a good thing.  The rise faced by the second shot on #9 at Shinnecock is a dramatic one and a great demand.  For sheer fun, the 18th tee shot at Gullane #1 from a steeply elevated tee is a great thrill.  Seems like the ball hangs in the air forever and time stands still.

[redanman]

Greatly prefer the uphill shot.  Nicklaus made the downhill shot with "visibility" a cliche.

At Lehigh #8 and #14 were both made uphill tee shots and #4 an uphill second, all quality uphill shots which Flynn et. al did a fine job with generally (excepting #9 Philmont North!  )Lehigh also has a downhill tee shot on #4 except for Matt Ward for whom it is basically a level shot.

[Tony Ristola]

Judgement has been replaced by the mathematcal precision of yardage guides and lasers measuring devices.  I use lasers in casual play and yardage guides when competing.  One aspect of a downhill tee shot to a par-3 (not too severe) I like is the fact a yardage guide is of little use.  Thus, downhill holes take a little while to figure out, create doubt, can make players uncomfortable because they're not 100% sure of the shot.  It requires the use of judgement and feel, a lost element on full shots at the highest levels of the game played on inland courses today. In moderation, like anything...I tend to like them.

[cary lichtenstein]

I love both uphill and downhill including both on some holes. They make for great vistas, add math to your calculation, require to hit your shots more precisely, add drama. I agree when they are overdone they can be just as bad.

[Jim Sweeney]

SOme of the great opening holes in golf are severely downhill- Pittsburgh Field Club, Riviera, Shinnecock. But all those course then play along rolling but not mountainous terrain, then grenerally play back up to the clubhouse in the last few holes (except PFC and its elevator to the 18th tee.)

Would anyone argue that PV 5th is not a great, long, uphill par 3?

But too much in one round makes me seasick. For all the wonderful scenery at a place like Paa-Ko Ridge in New Mexico, the constant up and down gets to be a little much.

[archie s]

Man, it's freezing here in the mid-atlantic, no golf, even crazies are on the shelf for almost three weeks, let's hope for a thaw.

As to my topic, the 5th at Pine Valley to me would not qualify as severely uphill to me. In fact two of the holes previously mentioned in the thread, #14 at PV and #7 at Lehigh are both excellent holes. However, endless trudges, or worse cart rides to the top of a hill or ridge to hit the tee shot is way overdone, and a gentle rise or fall is aesthetically more pleasing to my eye!