News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is This A Stupid Statement?
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2006, 08:27:22 PM »
oh Jordan!.... briefly I thought that you, one of the few who I felt might be able to chant the Galorian Burritoid Mantras, might maybe comprehendo, but... now no...tis a pity :'(
« Last Edit: February 13, 2006, 08:35:34 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Is This A Stupid Statement?
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2006, 09:17:32 PM »
It was Jack Nicklaus who first expressed his preference for downhill holes many years ago, because he likes to see all the hazards from the tee and see the green surface from the landing area.  It's possible to do if you make a bunch of uphill walks between green and tee.  

I think that sentiment results in a lack of variety on a course, so my routings wander up and down hills.  But, frequently our courses are criticized because they involve too many uphill approach shots.  A couple of times (Black Forest and Tumble Creek) we have cheated by locating the finishing green well below the clubhouse ... but then again George Thomas cheated at Riviera and Bel Air, too.

Coore and Crenshaw tend to solve the problem by building a lot of "up and over" tee shots so you can see the green well for the approach ... Stonewall has a bunch of those, too, but more by necessity than by choice.

Still, I don't think you will find many courses (new or old) which have more uphill holes than downhill holes.

PS to Tom Paul:  Pine Valley does have a share of uphill approaches, yet on the earliest courses (the links) there were hardly any -- there were some blind approaches, but fairways and greens were generally on the level.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is This A Stupid Statement?
« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2006, 09:39:02 PM »
TomD.....seems to me that on the the earlier links courses, par threes were the uphill exceptions.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2006, 03:53:27 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is This A Stupid Statement?
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2006, 12:10:37 AM »
Yes, especially given that the statement implies that there would be few if any downhill shots either, since the two basically have to even out before I get back to my car in the parking lot, which is where I started! ::)


No, they'll just build the course on a ski slope and have you park at the bottom.  You take the lift up to the top for the #1 tee and every hole is a drop shot ::)
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Mark_F

Re:Is This A Stupid Statement?
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2006, 02:35:37 AM »
Jeff,

I would have thought the majority should have no say in it.  Because the majority don't want quirk, uniqueness or fun, either.  Just a flat fairway and a receptive green.

Similar to George, I'm a bit partial to the unknown, the mystery.  Because it is different, and provides variety.  Because it can, and perhaps generally does, provide a fearsome slope behind a green, thus providing very touchy short game requirements.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is This A Stupid Statement?
« Reply #30 on: February 14, 2006, 08:59:47 AM »
Mark,
 
The majority opinion have a say in what, exactly?  As a GCA (or my owners) knowing that most golfers want to see where they are going, whether intrinsically or because JN said it, we tend to design mostly downhill holes.  If we don't, a la Tehama, we figure we will get critiqued, a la Whitten.

I think the majority, if it exists, are those golfers playing for score, and not just to experience something different, as many here would do.  Can't blame them, esp. if they play for money - theirs or someone elses!

Of course, uphill holes are occaisionally necessary and there are a few ways to do it -

They Olympic Club displays all methods - generally slides down the hill and uses the par 3's to take up grade quickly, and also uses 17 and 18 to gently slide up hill, but leaves 18 well below the clubhouse (Riviera does this too). The par 3's are well defined with bunkers surrounding and small greens, so there isn't much mystery.  The lpar 5 17 is a good type of hole to use uphill, since it artificially lengthens the hole.  I guess the same could be said of the 18th as a short 4.

Generally speaking, since greens usually have front to back contour of 2% or so, holes can go uphill that grade and still have a visible putting surface, providing hazards are to the sides. (I know the only time I tend to use bunker left/bunker right is to mark uphill greens)  I know the Olympic holes go uphill faster than that, but seem to recall you can tell where the pin is from the tee.  I wonder if to some degree, that steep 18th green was tipped to the front more for vision?

OT - do you classify the typical Ross hole with tee at, say elevation 200, landing area at 150 and green at 175 as downhill?  The beauty of most of those holes was that you could see the flag location while on the tee.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back