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.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Range architecture
« on: August 29, 2006, 07:55:07 AM »
We are designing a new range and short game area for an old Tillinghast course in the Poconos.  They never really had a proper one and an opportunity came up to put one in.  One of my philosophies with these types of areas is to try to replicate some of the shots one finds on the golf course.  This includes the target greens on the range and the types of pitch, chip, flop, and sand shots on the short game area.  

Anyone have any other thoughts about range and short game architecture?  Also, care to guess what these areas cost to build these days (excluding the land)?  Scott Witter is putting one in as well at a course in NY and we have compared some numbers.  

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2006, 08:23:36 AM »
Mark

Locally, Commonwealth and Talamore(where I live) have recently built short game practice areas. Come on down and take a look. Both are well done.

Steve
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2006, 08:46:55 AM »
The range: the most critical thing to me is to have well defined targets that can be easily seen from any spot on the range. You must also be able to see where your ball is landing. Finally, the range should aid in depth perception so the golfer can gauge his distances.

Short game area: A putting green would ideally replicate the style of the greens on the course. However, if the real greens are full of slope, the putting green should still have some flatter areas for practicing short putts (one of the best putting drills is to make 50 or 100 3-footers in a row and you need some flatter areas for this). Chipping areas and especially chipping greens are too small. They need to have ample room to practice a variety of shots. While it's nice to have the area replicate shots on the course, for a private club I think it's important to have the ability to practice all kinds of shots so you can prepare for other courses.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2006, 08:47:47 AM »
Steve,
I've seen a bunch of them over the years.  Anything unique on the two you mentioned?  Do you have any photos?  Here is a photo of our site.  Hard to see too much  



 

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2006, 08:56:36 AM »
Steve K,
I agree with your ideas, thanks for sharing.  What we did at a course in Colorado was design target greens that resemble some of the greens on the golf course.  They are also set at distances where many golfers will expect to hit their approach shots from.  For example the target green set at 100 yards is representative of the first hole greensite.  Many players are faced with that shot to start their round.  

This site in the Poconos is has some good topo (up hill) and sits in a northwest orientation.  It should be beautiful when finished.  

Maybe you can comment further on "depth perception".  If you have target greens and can see the ball land and distances are marked, what else are you suggesting?  


Scott Witter

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2006, 09:02:17 AM »
Mark:

It is always difficult to incorporate a decent practice field when the club never really had plans for one 75 years ago when they built the course.  Consequently, to build one now does have its challenges.  Our project is a redesign & reconstruction of a small practice area into something more formalized and useful in a manner of "real" practice.  I agree with your evaluation to design as many actual course scenarios into the project, but as I eluded, we have some tough limitations to fit the project between the course and some adjacent housing.  As a result, our construction costs are more because we must provide protection with tall poles and netting along the slice side.

Nevertheless, the club is quite excited about tripling the size of their tee space and having real target greens with rolling terrain and approach openings.

With busy schedules and less time to play , the practice area is becoming more of a genuine interest to members.  When they do have an hour here and there to practice they enjoy/want similar playing conditions that they will encounter when they play on the weekend.

In some respects the costs did surprise me a bit, but as noted, if you want close to actual course conditions with drainage, irrigation and at least an acre of tee space it does add up.  On the other hand, the club is investing in their future and increasing their ability to attract more younger members who enjoy practicing, and with most of the other clubs in the area with limited practice areas I believe they are investing wisely. ;)

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2006, 09:07:02 AM »
Mark

Your photo looks very similar to the Commonwealth site before tree removal/construction. I'll take some pictures soon and send them to you.

Steve
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2006, 09:15:12 AM »
Steve S,
I'd enjoy seeing some photos.  Do you have any idea on construction numbers?  Would love to compare.

Scott,
As you know from our discussion, our site is uninhibited which is nice.  We can do what we want for the most part.  If we had to work in the area of their old range (which was marginal at best) we would have been much more limited.  

Scott Witter

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2006, 09:26:07 AM »
Here is a photo from construction two weeks ago, not sure about posting pictures...but I'll give it a shot ???

th_const12A.jpg

Scott Witter

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2006, 09:28:26 AM »
Oops...guess I need a refresher course on posting pics, I have used photobucket, but quite a while ago I admit, in the past so can anyone IM me a few tips on this works again, thanks in advance ;)

Scott Witter

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2006, 09:30:14 AM »

Scott Witter

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2006, 09:31:48 AM »
I think I am getting closer ???

Scott Witter

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2006, 09:34:16 AM »
Okay, maybe the third time is the charm?


Aaron Katz

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2006, 09:34:38 AM »
Hi, this is my first post here.  I'm glad to have joined the board.

Anyways, of all the practice areas I've frequented, the one at Red Tail in Devens, Massachusetts is one of the best in terms of providing depth perception.  In particular, there is a green that, on most days, is about 160 yards from the middle hitting station.  The green is probably 1000 square feet (25 feet deep, 40 foot wide), runs more or less perpendicular to the target line (might be angled ever so slightly for a draw shot), and is almost fully fronted by a flash faced bunker with an unraised lip.  The built up the area in back of the green so that it looks like the green was benched into a hillside.  The effect is that you can clearly see if your ball carries the bunker and can easily gauge how far over the green your ball carries (the higher up on the "hill" the ball gets, the further you overshot, and you've got to hit it about 20 yards too far to completely clear the hill).  I'll try to take a picture this weekend when I probably will go out there.  It is definitely a range feature that I think should be replicated when at all possible, at least for target greens outside of 150 yards.

Also, a range in Tucson, Arizona originally had a target "fairway" for drives.  The fairway was defined at the 240 - 260 range with bunkers on either side of the fairway.  The bunkers were spaced about 25 yards apart.  The concept was duplicated on both sides of the range, so that every hitting station more of less had a practice fairway to aim for.  Unfortunately the range stopped taking care of the grass and the bunkers at that distance, but the concept would likely work in a wetter climate.

Scott Witter

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2006, 09:38:47 AM »
Sometimes a blind squirrel finds....so now the big challenge is how to put text with the photos???

Next year we are building a short game complex for the same club which will consist of three holes in a loop with shots ranging from 100 yards and in, complete with mounds, canted fairways, rough grass and plenty of fairway options and approach areas to simulate real course conditions.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2006, 09:39:19 AM »
Scott,
You finally got it!

Aaron,
Thanks for the post.  Would like to see your photos.  


Shivas,
Not sure I can recall range tees with built in slopes (that provide lies like you mention).  Do you have any photos or examples?  I've been going through some notable ranges in my head and can't think of any.  

jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2006, 09:39:30 AM »
Mark:

I have often thought that if I were ever to design a practice ground, I would include areas where you can practice hitting shots from sidehill, uphill, and downhill lies. The pracice tee at my club, like all I have ever seen, is flat. When I get on the course, I don't seem to get many level lies.

Jim Lewis
"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2006, 09:43:01 AM »
I really like the range at Deacon's Lodge in the Brainerd area.  It has tees in every direction and they left some thin pine trees in place out in the target area.  The trees provide some realistic definition when practicing tee shots as to the width of a fairway and provide great targets where in iron range.  They also contribute to the atmospere of the entire place, which is like a rustic log cabin experience in the North Woods.  

« Last Edit: August 29, 2006, 09:43:37 AM by Jason Topp »

D_Malley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2006, 09:44:15 AM »
never understood the public's demand for exact yardages on a practice range.  When i practice, and i beleive for most accomplished players, yardages on the practice range is irrevelant.  except maybe for less than full shots.  when i practice full swings i am only looking for solid contact and accuracy.  i do not try to figure out how far i hit each club on the range.  i do not know any decent player that uses a practice range for this purpose.

Scott Witter

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2006, 09:45:16 AM »
Since I am now a master  :P at posting photos...lets try another


Aaron Katz

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2006, 09:46:18 AM »
Then you'd love the range I frequent in Lexinton, Mass.  Not a level lie on the complex!  For what it's worth, the range in Tucson that I referred to tried to do an area for practicing sidehill lies -- nobody used it for some reason, so they flattened it and made it a regular hitting station if I recall correctly.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2006, 10:49:41 AM »
Mark,
   I don't know if you have seen them but Bandon Dunes and Poppy Ridge have outstanding ranges. They have target greens, but I wouldn't see any need to put any shaping into them, as most ranges have poor quality balls so you don't get a realistic idea of what's happening on impact anyway.  A range is a place to observe ball-flight, not what happens when the ball lands.
    A chipping green is mandatory. A nicely flowing green so you can have putts to work on that can break in either direction, as well as uphill and downhill. As Steve pointed out some flat area is essential for working on the short putts.
   Bonuses are having bunkers to hit shots out of onto a green that is maintained like the course. If possible place the bunker where one end can have a low end that points out towards the range so fairway bunker shots can be worked on.
   If you're really dreaming big, then try to provide an area where you can hit pitch shots up to 40-50 yards to a green where you can collect the balls with a shag bag. For that green I would probably try to do something like you see on the course. If many approaches are to elevated greens, guarded by bunkers than have that. If it is more of an open F&F course than provide a green that shots can be run in.
   What Shivas refers to is easy to accomplish for sidehill lies. At either end of the hitting area, have a nice gradual slope, that the super knows to maintain, and by going to either end of the tee area one can work on the ball being above or below their feet. Also, just outside of those slopes you can flatten out the ground again and have a 3 foot wide area that is maintained like the normal course rough for practicing fairway woods, for wayward drivers like me. :)
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2006, 10:58:21 AM »
Ed,
Good points.  I agree with you about practicing those uneven lies along the sides of the tees.  I just can't recall ever seeing a tee surface purposely set on angles for side hill lies?  I wonder if Tiger has one in his back yard  ;)


Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Range architecture
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2006, 11:05:34 AM »
Turf tees are wonderful  on a range if you have both enough space (to regrow worn out areas) and enough light to promote growth.  We like the Tour Turf or mats as they hold up well and don't kill our maintenance budgets.  

With Tour Turf or mats, you can go out and hit as soon as it stops raining; with natural turf you need to allow the practice area to dry or it will be a mudpile.

TEPaul

Re:Range architecture
« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2006, 11:06:00 AM »
Aaron Katz;

Are you any relation to Dr (Adolph Maximillian) Katz our GOLFCLUBATLAS.com in-house psychiatrist who in my opinion is a total off-the wall, good-for-nothing, wacko quack?

Tags:
Tags: