next »

[Garland Bayley]

#10 at Pebble Beach is pretty darn far away...

Charlie,

You have any pictures of Einstein flogging himself?

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Dan Moore]

A view of the course during construction. 

[Charlie Goerges]

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.

[Charlie Goerges]

It doesn't look like we'll get the final results tonight. Sorry guys.

[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]

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

[Garland Bayley]

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?

[Tom Dunne]

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?

[Charlie Goerges]

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”.

[Jim Colton]

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]

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.

[Dan Moore]

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. 

[Charlie Goerges]

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.

[Jim Colton]

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.

[Charlie Goerges]

Here is the image:

[Ian_Linford]

Hmmm... I love the concept of my hole, but I think the results don't live up to my expectations of it.  I think the biggest problem is that the hole is too long.  At about 520 yards, only the longest hitters will be going for this green in two, especially considering the difficulty of the second shot.  Also, many  players won't be able to hit it far enough to get themselves a view of the green for their third shots, leaving them few choices (to get a good view of the green, you have to be able to hit it pretty much pin-high).

I think I would like the hole more if it were a very short par-5, maybe 480 yards or so.  That still leaves a difficult second shot for longer hitters over the esker, while giving medium-length hitters the chance to play out to the right.  One thing I do like about the hole is that a good "lay-up" is actually past the green, and interesting feature IMO.

I'd be interested to hear what you all think about improving the hole, or if you prefer it how it is.

[Steve Lang]

   Charlie,

using the topo almost exclusively i noted your esker feature, it was ~100 yards long and while i considered it a topo-feature (i.e., anything sticking out above 975') it was only ~10' tall with steep sides.. 

 reminded me of the borrow channel walls at the Pit, growing over with pricker bushes! 

I gave it some thought, (though didn't call it an esker) and I used its end as an aiming feature for the tee shot on my #16.

I  was really more interested in using it to divide and protect folks from bad slices from my 16th and 17th hole tees .  On my #16 its flat and open fairway is a late round green light.. on my #17 i was more interested in using the sloping land for the right side and open flat land on left side of #17 fairway

[Charlie Goerges]

Steve, thanks for that explanation. And sorry I couldn't figure it out better on my own, that was a failure of imagination on my part.

Sometimes a feature can be used for visual effect rather than physical effect. I guess Jim did much the same thing.

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks for the nice words about my use of the ridge left by a stream running under the glacier. Those people that have read my thread perhaps realized that I was trying to do gravity golf, which is a term I learned from TEP on the bunkerless thread. I only learned the term after doing the design. I attribute the motivation for doing gravity golf to Bill Diddel after reading that he had tried to do interesting, difficult bunkerless golf courses at one point in his career. The first course I spent any significant amount of time on was a Diddel course.

The esker provided a perfect hazard for gravity golf. Pick an aggressive line, try to drive over it, and fail leaves you with a terrible stance and a terrible view of the green.

[Steve Lang]

  Charlie, no failures anywhere on this whole thing man.. its all good in contestants' approaches, there was some serious thought  no matter what reviewers may think or dismiss..

Garland I dd everything without bunkers first..

[Charlie Goerges]

Hmmm... I love the concept of my hole, but I think the results don't live up to my expectations of it.  I think the biggest problem is that the hole is too long.  At about 520 yards, only the longest hitters will be going for this green in two, especially considering the difficulty of the second shot.  Also, many  players won't be able to hit it far enough to get themselves a view of the green for their third shots, leaving them few choices (to get a good view of the green, you have to be able to hit it pretty much pin-high).

I think I would like the hole more if it were a very short par-5, maybe 480 yards or so.  That still leaves a difficult second shot for longer hitters over the esker, while giving medium-length hitters the chance to play out to the right.  One thing I do like about the hole is that a good "lay-up" is actually past the green, and interesting feature IMO.

I'd be interested to hear what you all think about improving the hole, or if you prefer it how it is.

Ian, you saw the other thread, just do more tees!

[Charlie Goerges]

Hmmm... I love the concept of my hole, but I think the results don't live up to my expectations of it.  I think the biggest problem is that the hole is too long.  At about 520 yards, only the longest hitters will be going for this green in two, especially considering the difficulty of the second shot.  Also, many  players won't be able to hit it far enough to get themselves a view of the green for their third shots, leaving them few choices (to get a good view of the green, you have to be able to hit it pretty much pin-high).

I think I would like the hole more if it were a very short par-5, maybe 480 yards or so.  That still leaves a difficult second shot for longer hitters over the esker, while giving medium-length hitters the chance to play out to the right.  One thing I do like about the hole is that a good "lay-up" is actually past the green, and interesting feature IMO.

I'd be interested to hear what you all think about improving the hole, or if you prefer it how it is.

I like the concept that the layup is challenging. But it's not as challenging as going for it in two. Also, most anything that I can think of to change the hole (aside from re-routing it) seems to reduce the difficulty of the layup (and hence the 3rd shot). You could incrementally move the green back (displacing the back bunker) and that would lengthen the hole, but make the "on in 2" option a bit easier (because the esker would be less of a wild card) and would make layups and third shots easier because you wouldn't need to get so far down, and you'd have more margin for error side to side. At least that's how it looks to me.

I like it, and every course needs some quirk or individuality, and that hole seems to embody the feeling of cross-country golf (if you know what I'm getting at).

[Dan Moore]

I see the Doak/Goerges Design did not use the far NW corner where H/F/W placed the 15th and 16th holes.  I had heard this area was aquired late in the process and wasn't part of the property when Tom did his original routing.   I'd love to know how close the D/G design is to Tom's original routing plan.  Better yet if Tom would sometime share his original routing. 

Having walked the property and played there a few times I have been in awe of its raw character and the endless possibilities of what could have been fashioned from what was there.  It seems like you can stand anywhere and say well we could have gone that way and what a great hole that would be.  Interesting to see the extent to which many of the existing hole corridors were used but I guess that is largely a product of the topography. 

Kudos to those of you who participated in theis process; I'm glad I didn't see it until this week.  Amazing what you did working off the topo map.  However, there is so much subtlety in addition to the larger undulations, the real test would have been in the field. 

[Charlie Goerges]

Dan, go to this link to the individual course thread. It has a rundown of what Tom's original routing was:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39001.0.html

[Dan Moore]

Thanks Charlie.  Look forward to comparing when I have some time tonight.  Let me know if you need any other photos posted, I have a fair amount of the course covered but not everything yet.  Thanks for doing this, very entertaining. 

[Charlie Goerges]

Just a quick note, I'll be posting the results this afternoon with a (very) brief write-up. Additionally the contestants will be getting a packet with all of their comments from the judges (This won't be right away though).

[Tom_Doak]

Charlie:

You are hereby authorized to post the entire "packet of comments" about our design if you so desire.

[Jason Topp]

I really like 4, 5 and 7 of the Esker holes. 

Number 4 reminds me a bit of the hole early in the round at Bandon Trails that goes over a ridge

Number 5 reminds me of the 8th (or 17th)  at Dornoch

Number 7 is a bit like 12 at Pacific Dunes

[Ian_Linford]

Number 7 is a bit like 12 at Pacific Dunes

Jason, I thought about #12 at Pacific a lot when I drew up the hole.  It's similar in that the approach from the left is much more difficult, but the scale of the esker makes it play very differently (you can't even see the pin from the fairway).

[Charlie Goerges]

Okay, the moment of truth is here. And the winner is……












Andrew Gray!!!!

Congratulations!!!


Here is what you’ve won:

Scorecard front (folds in half):



Scorecard back (it will be smoothed out etc):




You’ll just have to imagine it with the autographs of our illustrius panel of judges.

In the interest of transparency, here are a couple of screenshots from my excel file for the judges and contestants to see.

First the competitors’ rank (in order):



Here, the judges’ rankings for each competitor (judges names removed)





I’m going to do addional posts including a Judges’ Favorite Holes post and some “random” comments posts.

Also, I think that each of the competitors deserves a scorecard, and so I’ll design one for each of you (they’ll all look similar) and get them printed.

I’ll also duplicate the competitor’s routing post below this one so you don’t have to go back and forth so much.

[Charlie Goerges]

001 Jim Colton:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38988.0.html





002 Steve Lang:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38996.0.html





003 Tom D/Charlie G:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39001.0.html





004 Garland Bayley:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38984.0.html





005 Dave Stringer:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38987.0.html





006 Greg Davis:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39036.0.html





007 Ian Linford:





008 Andrew Gray:

Hole by Hole Tour Part 1: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39023.0.html
Hole by Hole Tour Part 2: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39024.0.html

[Steve Lang]

 

Congrats Andrew!  You won going away, well done!

Couldn't help but see what would happen if low and high scores were removed

   Avg Wt.
AG   1.8
DS   3.3
JC   3.5
GD   4.3
TD/CG   4.5
SL   4.7
IL   6.3
GB   6.8

Throw Out Lo & Hi   
AG   1.8
JC   3.0
DS   3.5
GD   4.3
TD/CG   4.8
SL   5.0
GB   6.8
IL   6.8
     

Given spread in some of the judges rankings, its clear why we have some heated discussions here on gca.com..  THANKS TO ALL..

[Jim Colton]

First my Illini lose to Western Kentucky and now this...I don't know if I can take any more disappointments!

Seriously, congrats to Andrew on a great design.  You incorporated the humps and hills in an interesting way, where I chose to work around them to my downfall.  Can we fast track Andrew's application for a GCA user id and password?

Thanks again to Charlie for all your hard work.  Looking bad, would you do it all over again if you had the choice?  I was mildly disappointed that the entries didn't generate much discussion other than from those whom entered.  I figured each would get ripped to shreds.  Will there be another armchair contest in the future?  What can we do so the contest generates more entries/lively discussion?

  Jim

[Garland Bayley]

Congratulations Andrew,

My time has been constrained lately, but when I get a chance I'll take a look and let you know all the things you did wrong.