AAC II. Results. Are. In.

[Garland Bayley]

So Tim, you're saying that your back of the envelope design is the best? Scan it in an post it! We want to see the best!
BTW, Thanks for your time rating these amateur attempts.

[Steve Lang]

  Tim, thanks for the investment in time you made in judging this year..  has your hair returned to normal?  Are you getting some sleep now?

[Nick Campanelli]

Tim, I'm assuming you analyzed the site in some depth prior to studying each entry?  I read previously that you created your own routing...were there any design styles, moves, etc that appealed to you based on your initial impressions of the site and your own routing?   Were there features on the site that you expected to be utilized and/or avoided in each routing?  I'm trying to pose questions you can answer without hinting towards a specific design.

I, like the others, would also like to thank you for taking the time to critique everyone's concepts.  I look forward to you upcoming discussion points.

[Charlie Goerges]

A BIG thanks to Tim! We are well on our way now. I'll try to provide some more fodder for discussion soon. Rest assured, I think it will really take off once all of the results are in. Very interesting indeed!

[Andy Gray]

Andy,

Do you mean to tell me you looked at that map in detail. May I ask how is your migraine? Or, how many Tylenol (Oxycontin?) did it take to decipher it?

If you mean the map Charlie posted of all the courses, quite a lot, however it is very hard to decipher it as there is so much going on. My comment wasn't referring to any particular contestant's routing, but was more an observation that a course that reaches every part of the property does not necessarily mean it is better than one that doesn't. There are so many possible courses there that ultimately it is down to how good the designer is and what the judges own philosophies and preferences are.

In Australia it is 'Panadol'... 

[Tim Nugent]

Nick - The movement of the site was what jumped out at me.  Like I said, I did do a routing but I changed the scale, which made the site smaller but still allowed me to become intimate with it and it's nuances.  Being a virtual blank canvas, I found it facinating how everyone "dressed" it.  While I saw it as a barren site (probably due to the side slope contours around the edges - which looked like it was a landfill to me - something I'm very familar with - probably why that's what I saw.  Then I open up one entry and it's a completely forested site and it kinda makes your head spin.
I expected that the rougher terrain would be fully utilized along with the creek, but the site was so huge that it would be tricky to include it all, so seeing what was left out was fun.

Steve - you'ld look like that too after trying to wrap your head around 13 good submittals (luckily the wife buys the 5 lb bags of Starbucks at Sam's Club).

Gary - you'ld be surprised at how many good/great holes were penned.  Perhaps we can highlight some later.

Garland - No, thank you, it was a fun exercise.  We spend our lives being judged, it was nice to be on the otherside for a change.
I'm not adept at posting visuals here but I did send it off to Charlie with the suggestion of AA #3 being the same site but at larger scale (smaller site) since everyone is now intimate with the site.  However, it's his call - he is the Master.  Remember, I said the problem with ranking is an arbritary set of criteria must 1st be established and therefore, there is an inherent bias in those criteria.  If you were to develop "The perfect wife", I'm sure she would be different than what others would come up with as we each would seek something to conform to our priorities of wants and desires and our own definition of beauty.

Andy - quite true.  The site is an embarrassment of riches - kinda like a Brunch Buffet at a 5-star restraunt - it all looks sooo good and you could fill your plate from just one table and be entirely satisfied or try to taste a morsel from each and be left wanting.  However, one could make an argument for the opposite too.

[Andy Gray]

Andy - quite true.  The site is an embarrassment of riches - kinda like a Brunch Buffet at a 5-star restraunt - it all looks sooo good and you could fill your plate from just one table and be entirely satisfied or try to taste a morsel from each and be left wanting.  However, one could make an argument for the opposite too.

Tim, that's quite a concise analogy, very well said. The argument can be made for both, and I do not disagree with either. As I said it is very dependent on designer and judge(s).

Like you said, there would be a huge amount of great holes on this site, and indeed in the competition itself. I am very much looking forward to seeing each entry as it is revealed.

Just a quick point, I did not envision the site being of any particular sort i.e. forested/barren/dunes etc. I just saw the contours and worked with it. A question to the other competitors/judges/anyone familiar with the site: Did you imagine the site being a particular type? If so, what and why?

[Steve Lang]

  Andy,

At first I envisioned with all that acreage (a whole section) that it looked like a "reservoir in waiting" along that meandering creek i.e.,  dams of varying heights at the north end would make that creek into something much more interesting, but could severely divide or restrict the site's full possibilities.  Also looked at flooding the NW pit..

I viewed the Creek as Charlies' Burn.. and did think of keeping some holes away from land 92' elevation down to it.. here's look at flooding up to 92 feet.. ? mosquito lake? or water feature?  i took the land as presented, just a lease, and less permitting..

[Tim Nugent]

Steve, that's the beauty of an unrestricted site - you get to make your own rules.  Like I said earlier, with nothing stated to the contrary, one could assume there was a waterfall just off the property to the north, assurring no flooding would ever occur.  It's interesting that you contemplated damming "Charlie's Creek" but didn't.  No one else did but it would have yeilded some interesting golf.  As for biforcating the site, notice that a few chose the high s-s/w plateau for a club house location.  This would allow for an east course and a west course (number of holes - up to you as I believe 18 per side would fit).

Some did flood the n/w pit to create a grand lake - look back at the spaggetti plan - Some nice CH sites overlooking a 60 acre lake.  I looked at that feature hard but had to take what the topo told me, it's a big hole in the gound but contains no water-hmmm-must be free-draining.  So to make it a lake - I would have to come up with some means of making it water-tight.  Could be a BIG undertaking.  Pluses and minuses to weigh there. Of course, it could be made into smaller lakes since to pit actually conains several "sub-pits".

[Emil Weber]

Just a quick point, I did not envision the site being of any particular sort i.e. forested/barren/dunes etc. I just saw the contours and worked with it. A question to the other competitors/judges/anyone familiar with the site: Did you imagine the site being a particular type? If so, what and why?

Andy,

I didn't envision the site of being of any particular sort either. And, I didn't once think about flooding the n/w pit!

If anything, I'd just hav it wide open with no trees, full of high fescues everywhere.

[Alex Miller]

Just a quick point, I did not envision the site being of any particular sort i.e. forested/barren/dunes etc. I just saw the contours and worked with it. A question to the other competitors/judges/anyone familiar with the site: Did you imagine the site being a particular type? If so, what and why?

Andy,

I didn't envision the site of being of any particular sort either. And, I didn't once think about flooding the n/w pit!

If anything, I'd just hav it wide open with no trees, full of high fescues everywhere.

Same here, and not to give anything away, but I wanted to keep my mind open to all sorts of playing conditions. Ideally for me they were fast and firm with enough room if a wind ever picked up.

[Nick Campanelli]

I actually did create a character for my site, and did so before I even began the routing (I won't identify the character of my site for obvious reasons).  In the post to Tim above, I asked him if he saw any specific features he felt were worth taking advantage of or staying away from...well I did (and am sure most of you did as well).  I translated my initial impressions into a pseudo pre-existing conditions plan on which i then designed.  I didn't flood and pits or redirect and natural features to enhance the holes, but rather I routed my course throughout the "natural" site i felt already existed.  I guess i was just trying to add another layer to this unique site. 

[Tim Nugent]

Just curious, how many tried multiple routings/ CH locations? Or did the 1st one just seem to work out for you?

What was the hardest part for you?

What did you start with? End with?

Did you have a concept or ideal program beforehand or did it just "shake-out as you went?

And for those fretting, I didn't put any emphasis on whether or not any "environment" was created.  If none was, I assumed it to be meadow grasslands and went from there.  If one was, I factored it in as to how the holes/course related to it.

[Garland Bayley]

As I have plenty on my plate, I only did one routing. Hardest part was connecting holes.

To much other information would give too much away to remaining judges.

[Tim Nugent]

Garland - we don't know who you are.  Only Charlie knows which # goes with which name.

So, you found some good holes and then looked to connect them up?

Remember, there is no right or wrong way to formulate a routing.  Just different systems that work for different people.  Maybe it's one reason we can get such variety out of a static site. Depending on where you start, it starts you down a path, opening up some options while closing off others.

[Michael Baldwin]

I had four distinct routing plans.  The final route was a 4th generation, direct descendant of plan #4.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland - we don't know who you are.  Only Charlie knows which # goes with which name.

So, you found some good holes and then looked to connect them up?

Remember, there is no right or wrong way to formulate a routing.  Just different systems that work for different people.  Maybe it's one reason we can get such variety out of a static site. Depending on where you start, it starts you down a path, opening up some options while closing off others.

But answers to your questions could be correlated to the plans the judges have in their hands.

Yes, I found holes first.

[Gary_K]

I assumed the site was wide-open, no trees and natural prairie grasses.  This vision comes from what I typically see as undeveloped land, that isn’t farmed, here in the Midwest.  The new courses I see around my area are developed on farm ground with trees added later.  I’m glad to see Tim didn’t place an emphasis on the existing environment.  

My initial thought for routing the site was to have 18-36 holes utilizing both sides of the waterway.  I wanted to have a par-3 course in the NW depression nicknamed the ‘Punch Bowl’ but I started late and real world work was taking all my normally free time.  The routing was based on mostly connecting certain holes that I saw on the site and wanted to have while at the same time provide some ‘flow’.  By ‘flow’, I didn’t want to have too many par-4s in a row, back-to-back par-3s or par-5s.  I didn’t want 3-4 par-4s in a row, tends to create a grind on a player.  Back-to-back par-3s and/or par-5s seem ‘quirky’ to some.  

Placing the clubhouse at first seemed easy to me based on the most flexibility of having area to start and finish nine holes, views of the course and location of the practice facility.  At the same time, the toughest part about citing the clubhouse is having a ‘good’ finish hole for each nine.  I found myself having no problem getting out to the holes that I wanted to include and interconnecting them and then struggling a little to get the 9th hole back to the clubhouse.  

[Will Peterson]

I actually placed the clubhouse after the routing was complete.

I made of couple of rough routings at first.  Once I found a few holes that I liked, I stuck with them and found others to fit around them.  I did pick one area for the front and one for the back.  I designed the entire front before starting on the back.  Although the front slightly changed when I was having a lot of trouble with the finish.  I made a few different 16-18's but nothing seemed to work.  I ended up tweeking 7-11 a bit, and was able to get a finish that I liked and as it turned out it gave me a logical site for the clubhouse.   

I did not have a specific concept when I started, but I did have a few features that I wanted to incorporate into the design.  Some were types of holes, ie long par 3, and some were features within holes, ie large false front.  I was able to put all of the features into the design, but not necessarily where I thought they would end up at the start.

I didn't really think about the environment, and just thought of it as an open piece of land.

[Tim Nugent]

As we see, there are different ways to skin the cat.  The method I use is the one taught to me by my father, who learned it from Robert Bruce Harris.  Quite simply it revolves around locating all the possible CH locations.  The CH directly controls 2 or 4 holes and thier adjoing holes, not to mention the ingress/egress and the practice facilities.
Next, flush out a series of potential routings.  This allows you to develop individual hole concepts.  Out of these routings, you will have some favorite holes and some your rather indifferent about. 
The big trick is to merry all this into the best combination possible.  It can be painful when you realize you have to abandon one or more of your favorite for the greater good, but if it were easy, any idiot could do it -right?

When siting the CH and starting/finishing holes, one should pay attention to the location of the rising and setting sun.  No one likes to start of finish looking into the sun.  And, with the risk of inciting a riot, the prevailing wind.

Seems like some of ya'll employed some of these techniques.  I hope this little exercise allowed you to reflect back on your system to see if next time you want to go with it or tweak it.

[Steve Lang]

   first looked at site from East, west, north , and south perspectives by turning map

second imagined driving into the land area and checked out slopes.. and what kind of golf holes would go in here and there ..

next did the flooding thing as a check and started looking for green sites

next looked at topo high points and potential vistas

picked club house

then started connecting lines of play to the green sites

then started looking at routing things together to make it go out and come back in

[Nick Campanelli]

I spent a few nights identifying "prime" center line / green sites throughout the property.  After refining and narrowing the study, I decided to work around ten favored holes.  It then spent the next week developing 4 or 5 "connection" routings, working to link the favored ten with the connecting eight in a combination that provided a steady rhythm of par and varying level of difficulty.  The final design was essentially a combination of the favored holes, and holes i preferred from the connection routings.  

While i was pleased with the clubhouse / practice facility location within my design, the decision on its location was made after the routing was complete.  With access points to the site not specified, I felt the clubhouse site was the most flexible.  If access points to the site were provided, i would likely have relocated the clubhouse elsewhere (i.e. closer to the access point) to reduce site disturbance and paving.    

[Tim Nugent]

Often the hardest task is just finding a way to begin.  For the 1st timer, it can be rather overwhelming - especially with such a blank canvas.  Thanks for outling your approaches.  Hopefully some who wanted to get involved but couldn't get past square one will get some inspiration for the next one.

Charlie - thought we might be getting some feedback from you by now.  Did you submit one or are you just facilitating?

[Daryn_Soldan]

I started by locating the clubhouse in an area that I felt would satisfy basic access and space requirements for parking, practice area and leaving/returning holes. Then moved on to look for interesting greensites and hole corridors around the property. Once I had quite a few identified, I started to group and link them together... ending up with some interesting combinations that began to form the basis for a routing.

A couple observations from my process - Combining holes (a par 3 and par 4 into a 5) or splitting holes (a par 4 or 5 into a par 3 and 4) really helped in a few cases when it came to making the routing work. Also found that several of the greensites I identified early ended up getting used but with very different playing corridors than initially anticipated. Some of my most difficult decisions centered around the "flow" of the course and the spacing/timing of the golfer's interaction with many of the site's prominent features.

Had a great time with this exercise. Thank you to Charlie for setting it all up and the judges for their time and insight.

-Daryn

[Guy Nicholson]

My process was similar to Daryn's ... looked for the holes and greens I wanted to build the course around, then started looking for a clubhouse area. I considered a few of them, and tried out a couple of ways to reconcile the holes and clubhouse. Settled on what I thought was the best combination, then got down to details on the holes themselves.