[Patrick_Mucci]

With respect to par 3's there seems to be a preference to elevate the tee above the green.

But, at what differentiation in elevation do the holes transition from good architecture to goofy golf ?

Disregard the vistas generated by elevated tees.
View the question solely in the context of playing the golf hole.

In addition, how difficult is club selection for the golfer the first time he plays a hole with a substantial elevation differential ?

Lastly, is the length of the hole a factor in decisions to elevate tees ?

I'd be curious to know which golfers prefer the upper tee versus the lower tee on # 10 at Pacific Dunes and WHY.
And remember, before you answer the question, couch it in the strict context of playing golf, not taking in the scenery*.

The 6th   at NGLA, good architecture.
The 12th at Roxciticus, goofy golf.

[cary lichtenstein]

Pat:

I almost always like elevated tees on par 3's. Both #3 and #17 at Lakota Canyon are excellent holes requiring you to pick the correct club and then hit it the right height.

Part of what I like in #3 is the horseshoe green and it's challenges, and #17 is the long narrow green with the back portion kind of tiny and at a major upper level.

I like the first par 3 at Banff, wonderful hole, but very hard to separate that one from the scenery.

On the other hand, I do not like the repetitveness of the par 3's at Maroon Creek or the exaggerated tee on Trump in West Palm Beach #18, although it is a par 4.

[Andy Troeger]

With respect to par 3's there seems to be a preference to elevate the tee above the green.

But, at what differentiation in elevation do the holes transition from good architecture to goofy golf ?

Disregard the vistas generated by elevated tees.
View the question solely in the context of playing the golf hole.

In addition, how difficult is club selection for the golfer the first time he plays a hole with a substantial elevation differential ?

Lastly, is the length of the hole a factor in decisions to elevate tees ?

I'd be curious to know which golfers prefer the upper tee versus the lower tee on # 10 at Pacific Dunes and WHY.
And remember, before you answer the question, couch it in the strict context of playing golf, not taking in the scenery*.

The 6th   at NGLA, good architecture.
The 12th at Roxciticus, goofy golf.

Pat,
  I've not played any elevated tees that I thought constituted "goofy golf." It does add for some difficulty in club selection, but that's part of the challenge of playing any course you haven't played before. The elevation also tends to bring the wind more into play.
  That's about as good as I can do. I don't really believe you can, or really should, separate many of these holes from the scenery. However, I think there are other design features that are much more "goofy" than elevated tees.

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
Check out a previous thread that had some pretty good discussion about super elevated tee boxes (didn't address all of your questions but you might find it interesting nonetheless):

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7938

[RJ_Daley]

It's not necessarily goofy golf if it isn't done repetively on the same course.  One dramatic par 3 from extremely high elevated tee (say 60-100ft) can be fun and require a different sort of swing from what you use off most tees.  If it is a short drop down a cliff of say 100yards and only a sand wedge or pitching wedge is used, it can also call for a little punched 8 or 9I.  We have such a cliff hole near me at Pennisula Golf Club in Door county.  One can take a full swing wedge, lofting even higher, causing a 200+ ft drop to the green below, or half-swing or punch something straight out from the tee, and let the fall take it.  The real problem with those short steep par 3s is the deep ball marks made on the greens.  

I also like something that is quite distant and coming from a very high elevated tee.  A 240 shot down 60-100 ft, with a substantial foregreen, and the green falling front to back, makes for some fun.  You can hit an iron and land substantially short of the green and try to bound it on, without bounding through.  I think the elevated tees offer many design options for green configuration and contour, either front to back or vice-versa, and how you array bunkers relative to those contours and unique characteristics of the drop shot.

But, if you have one serious drop shot par 3, that is enough.

[Tom Dunne]

The cool thing about your question regarding the 10th tee at PD, Patrick, is that it's also tied to the previous hole. The two are usually linked, are they not? (Upper green on #9 to upper tee on #10, lower green on 9 to lower tee on 10.)

It's thrilling that Pac Dunes has this flexibility in set-up in the first place. I guess I'd say I prefer the upper tee on 10 in part because I really like that uphill approach on 9, and you do get the added visual drama for the par-3 in the bargain. The wind will mess around with your shot a little more from up there, too. Maybe it's just me, but I have an easier time picturing knockdown and low shots from areas that are closer to level with my target.

[Brad Klein]

By the way, the problem with Engh's 17th at Lakota Canyon, which is identical to his 17th at Redlands Mesa, isn't the steep fall off from tee to green but the goofy back pimple of a green segement with the hole location amidst the dunes - Lahinch in the Rockies.

[cary lichtenstein]

Brad:

I like that goofy back pimple, very challenging club selection and shot. Ditto with the putt, and/or chip if you miss that section.

Cary

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cary & Brad,

How long are the holes you reference ?

And, what's the differentiation in elevation ?

[cary lichtenstein]

Pat:

The 3rd at Lakota from the back tees is 185 yards and I hit a 9 iron 135 and that is the club I use to the back pin and a wedge to the front pin.

The 17th at Lakota is longer, I need a 5 or 6 to the back and a 9 to the front, a 7 or 8 to the middle.

Club selection and execution are critically important. You can not just take an extra club because you wind up on the hill on 3 behind the hole and you can't get it close from there. My wife will attest to that.

You must pick the right club and then hit it with confidence.

Cary

[Bill Gayne]

The inverse of this thread being the seventh at Carne. The green being situated much higher than the tee. Per the Carne website, the area around the tee was originally used as a racetrack and the green as a spectating area. I wouldn't chacterize this hole as "goofy" but I thought it was the weakest hole on an elsewise very good golf course.

http://www.carnegolflinks.com/course/seventh.php

[Doug Siebert]

Like I said in a previous thread about this issue, I think that for par 3s this has really been done to death, so I really hate seeing the drop shot par 3s unless it offers something new or the routing just couldn't work any other way.

Where I do think the drop shot can be useful is to increase visibility of hazards to make a player perhaps worry a bit more when teeing off seeing that pond, gully or deep bunker clearly before him.  Having a hazard that's pretty much hidden from view is obviously a worrisome thing as well, but I figure that variety is the spice of life and some guys might be immune to what they can't see and some guys maybe are able to avoid things they can see, so by doing some of each an architect has the best chance of frustrating everyone!

Its just too easy to play into the hands of people who love the feeling of power you get from hitting shots from up on high.  I'm not going to claim I'm not immune, this local course Saddleback Ridge that I really enjoy has a ridge about 70-80' high running across the course, so some holes are playing onto that thing and some are playing down off the top of it, as one might expect.  Certainly I've hit some monsters and I love the feeling of confidence I get standing on the tee of such a hole.  But its a cop out to do it, and at least I'm compensated by the tremendous skyline par 5 16th that goes back up the ridge.

One thing that was done really well here is that the one true "drop shot" par 3 on the course (the 185 yard 14th) plays with the prevailing wind, and the ground in front of the green and the green itself run away from you.  That makes this hole much more than a typical drop shot where all you have to do is choose the right club and the high elevation pretty much guarantees you end up close.  I'm constantly amazed and frustrated by a hole that's only a hard PW or 3/4 9i for me leads to hardly any birdies and more bogeys than I care to admit to.

I keep trying to remind myself I gotta take pictures of this place and post them on GCA....talk about hidden gems no one knows about.  Granted that Iowa isn't exactly a hotbed of top courses, but this place is easily a Doak 7 in a state where that's pretty rareified air.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The question remains.

At what differential does the hole transition from good architecture to goofy golf ?

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
I really don't think there is a transition, but the only way I could see there being one would if the hole were so steep that you could not even see the green from the tee. That seemingly would be a little much.
 
I'd be curious, however, if any of those holes even exist.

This does NOT mean I don't there are bad holes with elevated tees, but there are bad flat holes and bad uphill holes too. I don't feel that the elevation is usually what makes the hole bad or goofy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Troeger,

The 5th hole at Green Brook CC has a par 3 where the front of the green can't be seen from the elevated tee.

Would a reasonable answer be:

Where the tee  can't be reached from the green ?

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, I think of the 77 yarder at Pocono Manor, very sharply downhill. I don't consider it goofy golf, but I may have a much higher tolerance for quirk or oddity than most.
If nothing else, it was always amusing to play the hole with someone who had never been there before, as it is almost impossible to realize how short a swing is really needed.  It plays like a 20-30 yard pitch if memory serves.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy Troeger,

The 5th hole at Green Brook CC has a par 3 where the front of the green can't be seen from the elevated tee.

Would a reasonable answer be:

Where the tee  can't be reached from the green ?

Pat,
I don't know that I would agree with that. There is a 250 yard par three at Gold Canyon that I thought was a good hole, but it would be impossible for most people to reach going back the other way. I tried to hit a 6-iron and came up very short, it would still have been more like a 4-iron to reach the green, which was very large. (Normal 4-iron distance for me is 200-210). I might have been able to hit driver back to the tee, but I wouldn't guarantee it.

It would be very hard to do any measurements using your suggestion. Do you mean a hole that can't be reached by a long-hitting professional, a strong amateur player, or an average golfer? Those are very different things.

Do you feel that the hole at Green Brook is goofy?

[Steve Lang]

 

take the 4th at Banff..


original lower tee on right flank of hillside (super told us about it) was easier..  visually and more relaxing..

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I have not yet seen a tee elevated on a hole to such an extent I'd call it goofy golf, and I've seen some pretty high tees---1st at Pittsburgh Field Club, 4th and 7th at Lehigh and certainly some of the tees at "The Bridge".

If you want to argue for the next five pages what the specific or dictionary meaning is of "goofy golf" I'll tell you right now I ain't interested.  

[Kyle Harris]

Some consider the 14th hole of the White Couse to be goofy golf. The tee is about 50 feet above the green and plays to about 180 yards (200 from the new back tee I haven't played yet).

From the tee, it appears as if the three forward bunkers are right next to the green and the golfer has to fly it all the way to hit the green.

However, the green slopes away from the tee, so under ideal conditions, the ball won't stop and just release to the back.

This picture from the MHC from behind the green shows how effective the elevated tee is in hiding the true nature and play of the hole.



Coincidentally, the golfer is afforded a good look at the hole while playing the sixth, and again on the adjacent tenth.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

With respect to par 3's there seems to be a preference to elevate the tee above the green.

But, at what differentiation in elevation do the holes transition from good architecture to goofy golf ?

Disregard the vistas generated by elevated tees.
View the question solely in the context of playing the golf hole.

In addition, how difficult is club selection for the golfer the first time he plays a hole with a substantial elevation differential ?

Pat,

  Bethpage-Green Course has a number of par 3 holes with marked elevation change, specifically holes #3 and #15.  
As it fits your question, Hole #15 is a fitting example.

The tees are approximately 35-50 feet above the green, and the player walks up a path to access the tees.  

  Club selection is critical here, because the green is smallish in shape, if the player wants to score.  The state has mitigated this by posting a sign adjacent to the path that gives the yardage to the hole location from the day's tee marker.  

  So to answer one question, the nature of how far the club carries with elevation change may be a question for the lesser player, but not for the better player, many of which I have seen know their carry yardages and factor in elevation to this when selecting a club.

  The absence of a penal feature such as water also mitigates club selection--if a player is a club short or long, they are not excessively penalised--their ball may just end up in a bit of fairway cut short of the green, or rough around the other three sides.  

Lastly, is the length of the hole a factor in decisions to elevate tees ?

I'm not sure in this example, you may have to ask Emmet  

I'd be curious to know which golfers prefer the upper tee versus the lower tee on # 10 at Pacific Dunes and WHY.
And remember, before you answer the question, couch it in the strict context of playing golf, not taking in the scenery*.

The 6th   at NGLA, good architecture.
The 12th at Roxciticus, goofy golf.

It seems fitting that I now "go the other way"   on the Green Course--low tee, elevated green.  Bethpage Green 3rd hole.  I'm not sure if this fits in the "goofy" category, but it certainly is quirky, befitting the original designer's penchant for quirky holes.  The green is completely blind from the tee.  

In some cases, depending on the hole location, the player cannot see the flagstick, and it becomes a "hit and hope" situation.  However, here, I think it is more a maintenance issue than a design issue.  

When Emmet first designed this hole, if in fact he did (and not Tillinghast), the course was private-as Lenox Hills CC--and thus it becomes reasonable to assume that the player had a caddie that knew the yardages from various locations on the teeing ground to various points on the green.  

Today, there is no sign that gives players yardage to the day's hole location from each set of tees, which would aid players, especially the better ones, in scoring.  I feel that a sign, similar to that on Hole 15, would help players pull clubs more accurately.  

Perhaps a longer flagstick would help as well.  

Many times do I see players underclub, and end up in the rough short of the green, or bunker just short of the green.  

[Doug Siebert]

I don't know that being unable to see the green from the tee is particularly uncommon, at least when you have a larger teebox and you are playing from the rear.  In such a situation it might not be terribly steep versus another hole that could be far steeper but if you play off the edge of the cliff, as it were, you could easily see the green.

Patrick's idea of when you can't reach the tee from the green is probably not a bad one as a rule of thumb -- just couch in terms of an average to good player being unable to hit it high enough with any club in his bag, rather than raw distance which would penalize a long par 3.  I mean, by that measure a 260 yard par 3 that drops 30 feet and plays with a strong prevailing wind which is reachable for the majority of golfers with less than a 3W would be unreachable by all but the strongest players going in the opposite direction, but I don't think anyone is going to call a 30 foot drop goofy golf.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Some consider the 14th hole of the White Couse to be goofy golf. The tee is about 50 feet above the green and plays to about 180 yards (200 from the new back tee I haven't played yet).

From the tee, it appears as if the three forward bunkers are right next to the green and the golfer has to fly it all the way to hit the green.

However, the green slopes away from the tee, so under ideal conditions, the ball won't stop and just release to the back.

This picture from the MHC from behind the green shows how effective the elevated tee is in hiding the true nature and play of the hole.


Coincidentally, the golfer is afforded a good look at the hole while playing the sixth, and again on the adjacent tenth.

Kyle,

  As we talked about, the issue here is not a problem with the architecture, it's a lack of understanding on part of the course staff in overwatering.  
  You explained to me during our round that Willie Park designed this as a hole where the player carries the bunkers with his tee shot and uses the ground contours to direct that ball forward onto the green.  
  During our round, one of our playing partners hit a dart of a tee ball right at the hole-and the ball stopped on a dime.  Great shot, but, if the course was maintained fast and firm, that ball would be down the hill somewhere behind 6 green.  

For those here who haven't seen the hole, hole #13 at Pine Needles is almost identical in design, the one difference being the left bunker at PN is parallel with the line of play and the bunker at PSU is perpendicular to the line of play.  

[Sean_A]

Pat

I have seen a few goofy drop shot par threes in my time.  The last one I played was at Gullane#3.  I think it was either #13 or #15.  About 170 yards down a very severe hill, maybe a 50-60 foot drop.  There is a steep bank behind the green so trying to fly the green on the downwind day we had was very dicey.  The safe shot is to hit a knock down lofted club about 100 yards and let the ball roll and roll and roll.  The thing is, if you try this shot the ball disappears shortly off the tee and it seems like one waits an age to see if it will reappear.  This hole is very much about luck.  It is a fun hole, but goofy for sure.  

BTW #3 is well worth a go despite a few glaring up/down holes.

Ciao

Sean

[David_Elvins]

The question remains.

At what differential does the hole transition from good architecture to goofy golf ?

I am not sure if there is an answer to this question.  One person's "goofey golf" is another person's "quirk".  Almost everything is good in some degree of moderation.  

Of concern to me is not that a few holes may be be too far down hill but that too many holes have elevated tees of any significance at all.  The prevelance of elevated tees have many associated issues.  
-In an era when we are worried about the distance that players are hitting the ball why are we creating so many elevated tees, effectively shortenning so many holes against their scorecard length.
-elevated tees encourage the aerial game at the expense of the ground game.
-They also flatten the golfing landscape, making baeutiful 3 dimensional subtleties in the elevation of the fairways and green complexes unidentifible from the tee, presenting a largely 2 dimensional view of the hole.
-They create long uphill trips from green to tee, increasing the need or convenience of the golf cart and making courses more difficlut to walk.

Whilst I recognise that a good Par 3 relies on aesthetics more than other holes, the saturation of elevated tee par 3s makes me appreciate the great Par 3s I see on flat or uphill ground so much more.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()