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.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
No problem Ian. I didn't have any idea so many archies submitted on that site. I'm glad I chose it, but what would have happened if I'd chosen Merion!?!?!? I shudder to think.

The thought crossed my mind that you might have chosen Merion, but the acreage was too much for that to be. I actually looked on Google Earth to see if you had chosen Shinnecock, or the Rawls course. Interesting that the judges compared some designs to Shinnecock.

Did I really mispell think like you have it above?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Did I really mispell think like you have it above?

Probably not, I was typing from memory, so you may not have typed it quite like I did either.

However, I don't seem to be able to locate the misspelling either, perhaps I really am losing it! ;)
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
...
However, I don't seem to be able to locate the misspelling either, perhaps I really am losing it! ;)

If you are using a spell checker, it won't find it either as thing is a perfectly good word.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Yep, I'm lost. The one place I see the word thing is the second to last word of the quote. I thought that word was supposed to be thing. Am I nuts?!?!

Don't answer that.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Let me quote my mother for you.

"If you think you can get away with that buster, then you have another think coming."

You see, it is not supposed to be thing.

But, we digress.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
I want to see all the other architects preliminary routings.

Why didn't H&F put a single par 3 from 14 green to 17 tee and keep the bye hole?
Problems with a returning 10?
Are 15 & 16 both that good?
Back to back par 3s twice is something I wouldn't do.

Would the USGA ignore a course if it didn't have returning 9s?
They start off the back now too.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm pretty sure the USGA has used an out and back routing and ferried players out to 10, and back from 9.

They certainly did it for the Women's open at Pumpkin Ridge.

Part of the reason I remember that is the infamous Michelle Wie bumping incident was at the separate scorer's tent off the 9th green.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike, 15 is a short par 4.

Also, I believe I saw on a thread here recently that they are not going to use the 7th hole in the US Open, in favor of using the bye hole.

At any rate it seems that returning nines seem to be a prerequisite (edit: Garland proves me wrong once again ;)). Though (generally speaking) I don't think they need be, as long as the 10th tee is not in some terribly far away place, they should be able to manage.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2009, 01:53:58 PM by Charlie Goerges »
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Ian_L

  • Karma: +0/-0
#10 at Pebble Beach is pretty darn far away...

Jim Colton

I want to see all the other architects preliminary routings.

Why didn't H&F put a single par 3 from 14 green to 17 tee and keep the bye hole?
Problems with a returning 10?
Are 15 & 16 both that good?
Back to back par 3s twice is something I wouldn't do.

Would the USGA ignore a course if it didn't have returning 9s?
They start off the back now too.

Mike,

  I think 15 is one of the best holes on the course and probably one they wanted to make sure was incorporated into the final routing.  I have no idea what the thought process was in the final design...I'd love to hear more about it (part 2 Dana Fry interview?)  Maybe certain parties really wanted the 15th, the Dell and the 10th green and they had to work around it.

  Charlie, when I was out there last year there was talk of building a second course.  The starter told us Bob Lang was already carving out a routing (he also told us that Mr. Lang 'basically designed the first course', so take his comments with a grain of salt.)  The website says they have 650 acres.  Maybe it's a good candidate for the next armchair contest.  You do realize that you volunteered yourself as organizer for a lifetime term, don't you? 
« Last Edit: March 16, 2009, 09:19:32 PM by Jim Colton »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
#10 at Pebble Beach is pretty darn far away...

Charlie,

You have any pictures of Einstein flogging himself? ;)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
In comparing Ballysnoop to Bighorn Cliffs, I notice a significant difference. I know it shows a couple of prejudices of mine, and wonder if it was consciously done by Jim. In particular, I often write on this website that difficult terrain makes little or no difference to me when walking and playing a golf hole. However, it is not appreciated when walking between holes. Another factor in play is that I will allow carries over ponds off the tee, but am not a fan of them in front of the green, or as hazards by the green. Small streams, burns, etc. are OK almost anywhere. This led to my design having the player walk down to 13 tees from the previous green, and up to 4 tees. Jim was almost the exact opposite. He has the player walk up to 14 tees and down to 3. Since he located greens near ponds, and I located tees near ponds some of that is explained. I am wondering if we each went overboard, and should have moderated.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Dan Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
A view of the course during construction. 

"Is there any other game which produces in the human mind such enviable insanity."  Bernard Darwin

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Considering that image was pretty much all I had guiding me to hole placement, it was a miracle I got the holes on the map at all.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Armchair Architecture Contest. Not tonight honey...
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2009, 10:31:34 PM »
It doesn't look like we'll get the final results tonight. Sorry guys.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Jim Colton

In comparing Ballysnoop to Bighorn Cliffs, I notice a significant difference. I know it shows a couple of prejudices of mine, and wonder if it was consciously done by Jim. In particular, I often write on this website that difficult terrain makes little or no difference to me when walking and playing a golf hole. However, it is not appreciated when walking between holes. Another factor in play is that I will allow carries over ponds off the tee, but am not a fan of them in front of the green, or as hazards by the green. Small streams, burns, etc. are OK almost anywhere. This led to my design having the player walk down to 13 tees from the previous green, and up to 4 tees. Jim was almost the exact opposite. He has the player walk up to 14 tees and down to 3. Since he located greens near ponds, and I located tees near ponds some of that is explained. I am wondering if we each went overboard, and should have moderated.


Garland,

  I count 7 uphill climbs of more than 10 feet in my design, so maybe that is going a bit overboard.  I guess I don't mind an uphill walk to an elevated tee box as long as it's worth the extra effort when you get there.  I don't know what's average or normal but I calculated the average distance from green to the next tee box as 44 yards.  Based on Charlie's sketch of EH, the average distance between holes is 75 yards with the benefit of the bye hole.  Looking at my routing in more detail, if I had been more cognizant about it, I probably could moved some greens or tees closer together to lessen the elevation change, but at least 3-4 of the them were unavoidable.

Hole (Green --> Tee) -- Distance to next tee (yds) -- Elevation Change between Green and next tee (feet)
1 --> 2   19   2
2 --> 3   23   1
3 --> 4   75   29
4 --> 5   41   2
5 --> 6   48   3
6 --> 7   42   22
7 --> 8   20   1
8 --> 9   43   19
9 --> 10   127   -8
10 --> 11   32   3
11 --> 12   82   21
12 --> 13   21   12
13 --> 14   45   -9
14 --> 15   23   17
15 --> 16   41   19
16 --> 17   33   4
17 --> 18   46   -11

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
In a gentle bit of cajoling for our holdout judges, I've changed the thread title. My other purpose is to hasten the onset of discussion.

Before that though, I want to acknowledge a couple of things. I realize that the multiple threads with a great many pictures on them may be a bit confusing to folks not in the contest. I think Garland's precedent of separate threads is a good one because it will keep this thread as uncluttered as possible. I think that the contestants deserved some bragging rights and the spotlight for their projects, as they put in a boatload of work on this thing. (I’ve still got one more to put up as well; and NOTE that there are links to each individual course thread on the previous page right above each course's aerial)

Also, I’ve gotten the feeling (and I agree with it), that some feel that the discussion portion of the contest is not living up to its potential. In order to remedy that fact, we need to bring as much of the discussion back to this thread (from the satellite threads) as possible.  And we should try to examine the various problems, limitations, assets etc. associated with the site and how the contestants (and the actual architects) dealt with/used them in creating their designs.


Lastly given that the contestants are no longer anonymous, there may be questions as to the veracity of the judges’ findings since not all are in. I’ve gotten 5 of seven without any knowledge of the contestants’ identity, but I’m not sure of the last two. (If you guys are reading this, I’m not calling you guys out. Life happens, and it definitely comes first.) I gambled on how long it would take for A. the contestants to put up their tours and B. the judges to complete the rankings. Anyhow, I’m playing it by ear, and I’ll get it all figured out, but I wanted the contestants to be aware.



So, let the discussion begin. To that end, I’ll be putting up some examples of my favorite holes from each of the contestants, but everyone should feel free to further the discussion in any way they’d like.

Best Wishes,

Charlie
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 02:17:32 PM by Charlie Goerges »
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jim,

I have never considered the issue before. After all I am an amateur, but considering my home course I found there is only 2 more up than down, which seemed more balanced. I am wondering if I placed too many greens too high (or you visa versa) or if this type of thing comes out all over the map. Do architects even consider balancing it?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tom Dunne

  • Karma: +0/-0
One of the features of the site that I'm having a hard time picturing is the esker (is that what it's called?). I placed my 11th green down in it in a desperate attempt at quirk, while the 005 design turned it into a pond. Viewing that landform in 360* on Sketchup was really weird.

Are there any pictures of this feature at Erin Hills?

The thing that I learned from this exercise was how hard it is to fit 18 holes onto a property with any kind of coherence, and how easy it is to paint yourself into a corner. And, on paper, Erin Hills is by all accounts great land for golf. Hurdzan/Fry can see a championship course--until my last night of working on this, my routing was probably going to be about 6,000 yards from the tips! I found a couple of solutions (including a par-five that somehow didn't make it to Charlie when I sent it along--#16) that got it to 6,700 from the tips. I think I was paranoid about trying to provide ample width to the playing corridors.

Architects: How much lateral yardage do you generally budget for a hole to be considered safe in your eyes?
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 12:16:27 AM by Tom Dunne »

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Armchair Architecture Contest. Discussion...Bring on the ESKER!!
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2009, 08:26:45 AM »
In the attempt to parse the use of the land by the contestants I’m going to examine each entry in light of how it uses an individual landform. Since no major landform was used by all of the entries, this first one will obviously exclude at least one entry. But the landform is so interesting to me that I can’t pass it up. I’m speaking of the “Esker” circled in white on each of the aerials below. Everyone handled the Esker slightly differently as you will see in a little segment I like to call, “The Many Uses of the Esker”.

(Note that this is to get the discussion started, my commentary is by no means exhaustive.)




Erin Hills


 


The drive depicted is about 290 yards and each of the second shots is about 215 yards






This is the view from the left side of the fairway. The Esker obscures the view of the green, though this appears to be the shortest route from tee to green.





Here the view opens up considerably.






001 Jim Colton





This view shows a drivable or nearly drivable par 4. The esker in this case is more of an ornamentation to the hole (short of the central bunker complex), but it fits in quite well with the hole design. (Jim can weigh in on the strategic choices present on this hole.)






002 Steve Lang. This one doesn’t have a sketchup file, so perhaps Steve can weigh in on the use of the esker. It does appear more ornamental like the previous and next entries.






003 Tom Doak/Charlie Goerges





This hole was one that I and not Tom designed. The esker is on the right and the hole doglegs around it. Again the use is somewhat limited, but playing left will leave a better view but much longer shot. Additionally, blasting it really long will get the player past the corner. (like all of the drives depicted, this one is about 290)
 




004 Garland Bayley





Here the esker is used to full effect. To maximize the effect the green was placed in a punchbowl with means that to have a good view of the green one must hit a very precise and long tee shot right over the most distant part of the esker (depicted by the tee shot.).
 



The least risky shot seems to be the bite of as much as you can chew right side option. The longer the shot you are able to get over the esker, the better your view will be (though none of them is particularly good on this side). Notice the flight path on the left side of the image, that’s the location of the “bombed” drive. It is significantly above the right side of the fairway.





Here is the view from the right. The risk here seems to be if you don’t hit it far enough, the esker itself will block your view. This is the next best view to the “bombed” option. Even so, you can really only see the top of the flagstick.






005 Dave Stringer





The next two images depict the same thing from slightly different angles. The esker lies just beyond the two far fairway bunkers. What’s interesting is the options aren’t just left to avoid the esker and right to have the easier tee shot, you can also play short of the downslope and have not only an unobstructed view, but an aerial view as well.
 





This angle leaves you with a great view, but about 220 in.





Here the view is obstructed, but you’ve only got about 150 in.






007 Ian Linford





This aerial view shows a par 5 that places the green in about the same location as the Erin Hills routing. EH however has the tee somewhere on the extreme lower-right of this image. This hole is reachable, but what is interesting is how tough the layup shot is.
 



This image depicts the 2-shot route, but you can also tell where you can lay up because the hill to the right and beyond the layup area seems to guide your eye to the right location.





The next two images show how important it is to get the layup in the right location.





You can see the player in the lower right and the flight path of the 2-shot option up near the green. Looking back at the previous image shows you that you need to get at least to where the player is shown in order to see even a smidgen of green. Every couple of feet to the left of the player’s location (as shown below) means you’re a few inches lower, with that much worse a view.






008 Andy Gray





Here the esker seems to be the main obstacle on the tee shot of a short par 5. Miss a little right, left, or even too long and the esker will route your ball into oblivion.
 



Below you can see the extreme difference between the safer play (left), and the risker one (upper right).





And the view from behind the green.







Okay, that’s meant to get you started. Feel free to comment, start a new tangent, or whatever you wish. I must say that I found this small, abrupt, but natural feature to be an interesting tool in our designers’ “kits”.

Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Jim Colton

Re: The Armchair Architecture Contest. Discussion...Bring on the ESKER!!
« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2009, 10:25:22 AM »
I think the real thing uses the esker very well.  Ian's is my favorite of all the entries.

I like my 13th hole but obviously didn't use the esker as well as I could have.  I wonder what it would've looked like if I had flipped my fairway and the safe play was over the esker off the tee.

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Armchair Architecture Contest. Discussion...Bring on the ESKER!!
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2009, 12:55:39 PM »
Perhaps you could have used it better or differently, but you would have had to encroach on your 14th quite a bit. I think 14 is good hole, good enough not to mess with just to give the esker a more "active" role. And the bunkers fullfill the role that the esker would play anyway.

I agree that EHills', Ian's are both very good uses of the esker (Ian's is the more interesting/crazy/fun of those two in my mind). But Garland's is just crazy strategic. There's almost perfect linear improvement in visibility proportionate to the quality of the shot hit. AND there are 3 separate ways to play it! I don't know if the green location would work drainage-wise, but the shot-values (if that is the right term) are great.


I also find it interesting that all but one of the contestants used that esker in some form or fashion. And in NO case was it a bad or ill-advised way. None of the holes were total clunkers.


And bear in mind Jim, that this post was in regard to the esker and it's usage. Your hole stands on its own regardless of the esker. Maybe that kind of hole is common, but I've never played one (to my knowledge anyway) so I classify it as clever.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Dan Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Armchair Architecture Contest. Discussion...Bring on the ESKER!!
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2009, 01:04:01 PM »
Here are two shots of the 17th at Erin Holes.  The Esker Hole.  This is one of the holes undergoing some changes to make the landing zone more receptive.  Esker on the left in the second photo blocks the view of the green from the middle to left side of the fairway. 



"Is there any other game which produces in the human mind such enviable insanity."  Bernard Darwin

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Armchair Architecture Contest. Discussion...Bring on the ESKER!!
« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2009, 01:19:06 PM »
Thanks for those images Dan! There are a lot more rolls and bumps on the ground than were picked up by my topo.

Plus, I can get a decent read on a couple of the other holes and how they might look.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Jim Colton

Re: The Armchair Architecture Contest. Discussion...Bring on the ESKER!!
« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2009, 02:01:45 PM »
Perhaps you could have used it better or differently, but you would have had to encroach on your 14th quite a bit. I think 14 is good hole, good enough not to mess with just to give the esker a more "active" role. And the bunkers fullfill the role that the esker would play anyway.

I agree that EHills', Ian's are both very good uses of the esker (Ian's is the more interesting/crazy/fun of those two in my mind). But Garland's is just crazy strategic. There's almost perfect linear improvement in visibility proportionate to the quality of the shot hit. AND there are 3 separate ways to play it! I don't know if the green location would work drainage-wise, but the shot-values (if that is the right term) are great.


I also find it interesting that all but one of the contestants used that esker in some form or fashion. And in NO case was it a bad or ill-advised way. None of the holes were total clunkers.


And bear in mind Jim, that this post was in regard to the esker and it's usage. Your hole stands on its own regardless of the esker. Maybe that kind of hole is common, but I've never played one (to my knowledge anyway) so I classify it as clever.

Charlie,

  Maybe you can show that tee shot of mine from more of a ground level...I think the esker does play a role in masking the front of the left finger of fairway.  One of the things I really had no feel about as a newbie was exactly how close to make the start of that left side.  I probably could've put fairway directly on the other side of the esker...maybe you wouldn't see it the first time you played and decided to hit it right, but you'd hit it left everytime after that.  I envisioned a private course that would get a lot of replays, therefore I wanted that tee shot to continue to provide a challenge every time you played it.  Plus I really like the elevated tee shot over that valley.

  Seeing a lot of these entries has brought a lot of 'why didn't I think of that?' moments.  Like on my 12th, Tom had that big bunker in basically the same spot I have the indent in my fairway short of the green.  It seems like a no brainer now. Part of the learning process.  The biggest benefit of this process for me was forcing me to think about decisions I had previously just taken for granted, like 'is this a natural place for a bunker?' and 'what's the typical distance from green to next tee?', and even basic things like size of greens and width of fairways.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 02:04:44 PM by Jim Colton »