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.


Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Real Routing Question
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2008, 06:03:14 PM »
Paul Cowley,

I don't know about the $60, but I do know they thought your piping idea was very perceptive!

Bruce Katona,

I think the clubhouse must go where it is shown, I think that is the only road.

I do no know too many details, but I do know the site had a myriad of wetlands issues and the approval process was about as long and difficult as you can imagine.


To all, Let me re-state this question:


The real question is how do you feel about the new front nine routing with three par 3’s, three par 4’s and three par 5’s?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2008, 06:13:33 PM by Bill Brightly »

Steve_Lovett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Real Routing Question
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2008, 06:47:10 PM »

Is the operational advantage/efficiency of having visual control of the 1st tee and practice range a higher priority over the travel distance between the first green and second tee?

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Real Routing Question
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2008, 07:14:18 PM »
Paul Cowley,

I don't know about the $60, but I do know they thought your piping idea was very perceptive!

Bruce Katona,

I think the clubhouse must go where it is shown, I think that is the only road.

I do no know too many details, but I do know the site had a myriad of wetlands issues and the approval process was about as long and difficult as you can imagine.


To all, Let me re-state this question:


The real question is how do you feel about the new front nine routing with three par 3’s, three par 4’s and three par 5’s?



Alright Bill....you guys really drive a hard bargain.

Lets make it $40, and I'll answer all your questions...maybe even throw in the grading plans.....and here's a teaser, just to let you know I'm serious.

Of course three 3's, 4's and 5's would be fine...and interesting .....but only if they fit the site and were not forced as part of a routing compromise.....they need to flow and not feel contrived. They have to work well going from a green to the next tee, without excessive backtracking....and if you do a good job of that the sequencing should take care of itself.

....but you still need to pipe #3. ;)
« Last Edit: January 28, 2008, 07:17:31 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Real Routing Question
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2008, 07:14:59 PM »
Bill,
As for 3 3s, 3 4s & 3 5s -

Some of those holes look pretty straight forward - I welcome the variety.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Real Routing Question
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2008, 07:36:21 PM »
To all, Let me re-state this question:

The real question is how do you feel about the new front nine routing with three par 3’s, three par 4’s and three par 5’s?


Billy B, we need the complete picture if you want a definitive answer. Remember . . . you get what you pay for.
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Real Routing Question
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2008, 08:18:04 PM »
Slag....I would try to charge them for the B29 idea....that was a good one. The problem is that if you give good ideas away for free, no one gives them any value....I'd send Bill a bill.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2008, 08:18:56 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca