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.


Mike Jansen

Design Contest (non-entry)
« on: March 24, 2009, 02:46:54 AM »
I finished too late to be entered... but figured that some feedback would be valuable.

Don't be shy about being critical... but lemme know what you like as well.  Thanks

Anthony Gray

Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2009, 09:25:34 AM »


  Mike,

  This looks like a course that gives you alot of angles. Very creative. Nice bunkering.

  Anthony


Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2009, 09:51:42 AM »
Okay, since you went through the effort, I take a stab.

Overall, I like the fact that you didn't feel it necessary to have the nines return to the clubhouse.  On a course like this that is not all that interested in 9-hole play, it is an unnesessary parameter that doesn't have to be met.
 
The par 34 on the back with 3-3's is weak.  You should have tried harder and given the abundence of property, should have been able to get 35 if not 36 out of it.

You seem to have a penchant for forced carries into greens.  Could be considered a bit too restrictive for short hitters.  Alot of target golf,which makes for a lack of options.

Good use of varying to direction of holes.

17 and 18 seem to be the same design concept.

Need more fairway short of landing areas.

Bunkers either directly in play or too far out of play
I liked how you challenged the line of charm but didn't carry it throughout the design.  Plus,  as mentioned earlier, the option of playing around the hazard results in the loss of a stroke and it's unclear if the angle to the green is better or worse from there.  Forcing one to add a stroke and then getting a tougher angle is insult to injury.

How is the left side or right side a better option on the double fairway par 5?  Usually, on side is longer (3-shot manditory) but easier while the other is shorter (2-shot possibility) but much riskier.

Where's the practice range? Putting Green?

Sorry - all I have time for.


Coasting is a downhill process

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2009, 11:31:58 AM »
34 - 35 - 36 - who cares.

It seems your goal was to be as creative as possible.
Congratulations - that is one wild looking ride.

I don't think I could hit a fairway out there - but it sure is creative.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2009, 11:35:11 AM »
Tim,
Is it really a goal to get to 35 or 36?

Tom's goal seems to be not getting to 36 - which seems to be working quite well for him.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2009, 11:43:55 AM »
Mike N:

It's actually NOT my goal to avoid par-72 golf courses.  I just don't care that much one way or another.  If par for a nine works out to 34, 35, 36, or 37, I don't give it a second thought, as long as overall par is 70 or higher.  [I'd love to do a par-68, but I know most clients couldn't stomach it.]

What makes this approach different is that it's UNLIKELY to wind up at par 72 when you don't care.  The odds of 36-36 are about one in ten ... and that's about the percentage of courses I've designed which are par 36-36=72.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2009, 11:48:18 AM »
Mike J:

Your design has some cool features.  That first hole looks like a Mike Strantz or Jim Engh hole.

What holds it back is more basic stuff ... the long carries to many fairways seem at first glance to limit this to Pine Valley-style heroics, instead of being a course everyone could play.  What would it have hurt to drag the fairway on #17 back down into the hollow, so short hitters could at least get to grass?  And the long green-to-tee walks, such as playing #15 into a corner and then having to walk way out to the next tee, are not a good example of routing.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 11:50:17 AM by Tom_Doak »

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2009, 12:21:32 PM »
Mike, it's just that it's been my personal experience that 34 tends to be looked upon as "less than a real course" by the golfing public.  I used to be a partner in one 3-3's and 1-5.  We thought the same as you and figured the variety of the threes would make it more fun for the average chop as the site was windy and par 5's can become a long slug.  However, we did get our fair share of the "E" word - Executive.  After I stretched a long 4 into a 5 (alot of guys couldn't get there in 2 although it was downhill/downwind and it played like a 5 for them). the course went to a 35 (still with 3-3's) and no one ever said the E-word again.  

If that's what he wanted, fine.  I just don't agree with it.  "Experience is a dear school but only fools will learn". if he was constrained by the site parameters in such a way that 34 gave you the best option, so be it.  However, in this case, I just don't see it.

What I would like to know is how many routing did these guys do before settling on the final routing.  As you know, the first guess isn't always the best guess when it comes to routing.

I would also like to know if they solved the routing before doing the strategic design or if they did it all at once.

I had the opportunity to walk the site with Bob Lang prior to development.
After he mentioned that he had gone to school w/Rees, I didn't think I had a chance.  Plus, I thought it would be a hard site to permit due to the WDNR and mentioned he should talk to Mike as at the time he was who I would get to handle the environmental complexities.

Lucky for these armchairers, they only had to consider the topo.  It would be eye opening if they had to overlay the environmental constaints and the existing vegitation as well.  

I hope when you guy judge these, you are open and honest in your crit.  As Mike stated, he wanted to know where he succeeded and where he didn't.  I'm sure he didn't want to be told "oh - good job - you tried so hard".  He wanted specifics he could sink his teeth into.  Perhaps he likes target golf and that's what he was shooting for, perhaps he didn't realize it, I don't know.  I just gave my opinion on it.

Like the thread last week about opinions, just because there are 2 opinions, it doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong.

When I look back on some of my early stuff - stuff I had every conviction that it was good, some of it was, some wasn't.  One of the things having a mentor is good for is that they can crit your work and things will jump off the page for him that you never saw.  A phrase I hated hearing was, "Yeah, I tried that  before.  Didn't work then, won't work now".
Coasting is a downhill process

Jim Colton

Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2009, 12:45:30 PM »
Tim,
 
  I'd urge you to go through the other entries with the same type of detailed analysis.  I've been trying to learn from the feedback and rework my routing for no other purpose than to simply learn from the process.  I'm sure the other contestants are in the same boat.

  I sketched out my routing using lines initially and tried different routings during that stage, but only drew in the strategic elements and the details once I had a final routing set.  Part of that may be because I started the process late, about a week before the deadline.  Essentially I found a couple of holes I really liked then tried to make the pieces fit.  I quickly realized that one of the hardest things an architect may have to do is scrap a hole that they absolutely love because it doesn't fit in the overall picture.

Mike,

 As far as your design goes, I think you are off to a great start.  I'd probably suggest a 'less-is-more' strategy to improve the overall design.  Less carries off the tee, less snakiness to the fairways, less climbs to the next tee.  You have that one mound that is the starting point to three tee boxes.  It would probably create a lot of interesting do-it-yourself loops but also a lot of congestion as well.  I wonder if a golfer might get tired of climbing the same hill again and again.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 12:51:42 PM by Jim Colton »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2009, 01:52:05 PM »
...
What I would like to know is how many routing did these guys do before settling on the final routing.  As you know, the first guess isn't always the best guess when it comes to routing.

I would also like to know if they solved the routing before doing the strategic design or if they did it all at once.
...

I did one routing. It was 17 holes, so I tacked on an 18th. I believe I could have done much better, but having to learn the (uncooperative for me) software, was a big hindrance. After learning how much trouble it was going to be for me, I gave up on any idea of going back and re-evaluating the holes and revising the routing. I could see golf holes all over the place, so it was frustrating to be constrained to my original routing.

The holes I created often had the strategy desired from the get go. Part of this was because I was trying to do a Bill Diddel interesting/difficult design with no or only a few bunkers. (What I later read TEP call gravity golf.) Therefore, the routing was chosen because of the features of the terrain that would contribute to this.

"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
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2009, 01:56:59 PM »
If this is easier to read, perhaps you can use the quote button on this post to see how it was done, and present your drawings larger.

"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

Ian_L

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2009, 09:20:29 PM »
Hi Mike,

I really like the strategy on your holes, but I think your design might suffer (strictly in my opinion, of course) from lack of fairway acreage.  For example, I liked holes 6 and 12 that were unconstrained off the tee more than most others where two excellent shots were required to reach the green.  With your extensive bunkering I think providing a few bail-out areas of short grass near the greens would add some strategy to recovery shots, rather than the simple choice of going for the green or pitching out (#1 would be a good example of what I'm thinking here). 

I think holes 17 and 18 would be really good if you connected the fairways from tee to green.

You might also consider keeping hazards on only one side of the green or fairway instead of pinching the landing area.

Mike Jansen

Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2009, 12:30:30 AM »
Wow!  This is really cool...
Thank you all for the feedback, it's great.

To answer some of the questions: I did three different routings before settling on this one.  I'm still tinkering, but this is what was done prior to the contest.

Once I saw the lake in SE corner, I knew I wanted my 18th hole there and routed around that, and alot of the other decisions dealt with getting into and out of the corners of the property up top and to the left.

As far as the carry from tee to fairway, I use a standard of 150y from the back tee, and I see now that is a mistake.  I would have extended the fairways on 17 and 18 to connect to the green, but I was thinking those areas were too steep for mowers.  Getting a perspective on slope from a topo is something I am improving on.


Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2009, 03:48:32 PM »
Jim, sounds like you were on the right track.  I don't know how others do it but I will route the course first then go back and explore each hole for it's strategy.  However, when routing, I will look for holes that work well with the topo and try to find interesting features to exploit.  I look primarily for greensites and work backwards.  But first, the most important thing to locate is the clubhouse.  This takes up at least 5 acres and needs good access.  It directly impacts the location of 4 holes (1,9,10,18) if your doing returning 9's.  Indirectly 2,8,11,17.  Plus the practice area - about 12 acres.  Next is the maintenance compound - 2 acres and semi-truck accesss.  Knowing the locatioin of necessary utilitiesis very important because extending these services can be very expensive.
This first routing is just centerline sticks with 60'x100' ovals for greens and a retangle for the tee.
Next, identifiy the features/hazards of the hole.  Finally, sketch in the fairway.  Now go up to the greens and chart back to find the distances for the up tees and locate them.

It is very informative to put all 18 holes side by side on a wall to look for redundancies.
Also, make a chart showing club selection by charting out the various tee players to see if a wide variety of clubs is used (or is every hole driver, 9 iron?)

Finally, blow the greens up to a large scale and put them on the wall side by side.

Garland, I'm surprised they shot you apart,  I  actually liked what you were attempting to do.  TEP National.  I think where you got into trouble was not being able to relate the 2-d to 3-d in your head (maybe I'm wrong) and ended up with alot of blindness.  I agree, that software looked cumbersome to learn.  Luckily, I have mastered by CAD yrs ago and could whip out a presentation colored course plan in a couple days.  Faster by hand.  I liked how you were not trying to route 'through' the landforms but rather incorporating them into the holes. But in this legal world, it might be hard to find enough Professional Liability Insurance to design blind holes.

Here's a funny 17 hole design story - when dad and his partner Ken Killian were early in their careers, they were working all day on trying to get a routing down for a meeting they had with a protential client the next day.  Finnally around midnight, dad got one.  Since they had about six hours of driving, they grab Kens station wagon, Dick drove and Ken got in back and drew/colored it up.  Bleary-eyed, they arrived for their meeting and rolled out the plan.  The client was going though the holes and finnally looked up and said "there's only 17 here".  Dad said all he think was "so much fo getting this one" until Ken, who has a great sense of humor retorted "of course we only showed 17 - if you sign a contract we'll show you where the 18th goes".
Coasting is a downhill process

Mike Jansen

Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2009, 07:16:29 PM »
It is funny that Mike Strantz name was brought up... in the routing plan prior to this "final" one I had a lot more waste hazards and connected a lot of the bunkers so that the cart paths would take them through them(similiar to MPCC Shore and Bulls Bay CC that I have seen), so I did have that "wild" look in mind when drawing the holes.

A few of you also mentioned the green to tee distances... I realized that this was a problem and made some big changes to the original routing (paticularly #7, 14, 17), but still there were a few I just couldn't  get closer.

What is an acceptable (max) distance from green to tee?  Do you make it point for the green to be nearest a certain tee marker (back, middle, front), or look for a balance?  When considering all 18 holes is there total walking distance between holes you aim for?

 It seemed that I always had the back tee closest and the forward tee player always had the longest walk.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Contest (non-entry)
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2009, 11:55:10 AM »
...
 It seemed that I always had the back tee closest and the forward tee player always had the longest walk.

Oh, oh! Big no, no!
"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