[Jim Colton]

Favorite:           
7 (reasons already mentioned)
11 (options)
12 (fun green complex)
18 (options off the tee)

Least Favorite: 
4 (straight forward) 
10 (right fairway seems too forced)
                     

Thanks Nick.  I pretty much agree with you.  I don't think 10 is forced.  I didn't have the right fairway originally, but when I was staring at this wide open, treeless site in sketchup I wonder why someone would go around that hill when they could just go over it.  A big drive would provide a turbo kick  around the corner and still at a good angle for the hole.  Although I would consider changing the fairway to make it more one piece.

[Nick Campanelli]

Jim, by forced i was questioning whether the right appendage to the fairway is needed?  Are you using the bisecting rough as a hazard? 

[Garland Bayley]

Isn't the slope of the right fairway going to carry a high percentage of balls to the intervening rough. There seems to be a very small patch that would propel landing ball primarily forward, whereas all others would take big left bounces.

[Nick Campanelli]

Garland, I think we are talking about the same thing.  If you carry the mound off the tee, shouldn't you be rewarded rather than penalized with a left kick into the rough?  If anything I would place bunkers short of the right fairway to penalize shots that don't carry the mound as intended.

[Jim Colton]

Garland, I think we are talking about the same thing.  If you carry the mound off the tee, shouldn't you be rewarded rather than penalized with a left kick into the rough?  If anything I would place bunkers short of the right fairway to penalize shots that don't carry the mound as intended.

It's not a huge carry so I think most golfer could make it around the corner, otherwise they shouldn't be trying.  That said, I think you are right, which is why I was thinking about making it one large fairway.  That might just make it a grip and rip hole, but given the length maybe that's okay.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jim
Why isn't 10 tee closer to 9 green?
It was only a little dirt to shift.
You could have put all the tees on the bluff too.
Cheers

[Jim Colton]

Mike,

  I don't really a good answer for you.  I guess it could easily be closer, but that might skew the trade-off between left and right.  I have a picture in my head of what I'd like to try to do w/ #10.  If I have time to fool around with Sketch-up, I'll make some tweaks and repost.

  Jim

[Mike Nuzzo]

I have a picture in my head of what I'd like to try to do w/ #10. 

Isn't this the problem with all the average and poor designs out there - getting married to their ideas on the plan?
Take the better tee - use the green to reward a particular fairway location and adjust the fwy accordingly.
Assume the whole friggen' place is fwy - then take out the part that would be a waste - where no one will hit.

[RJ_Daley]

Jim, this really seems spectacular and so totally influenced by your deep affinity to Ballyneal.  So far, I'd have to say your's and Ed's are the two that really capture my attention the most.  Not to put down the others efforts and concepts.  But, it just seems to me that the concepts and reality of their vision of how this property might be in terrain and characteristics most fit with Ed's and Jims, IMHO.

I do wonder about the watercourse.  The routing of 16 through the oxbows and acute turns seem to me to be a disaster waiting to happen in a heavy flash flood or heavy rain event.  I think the allure for the AAC to route a split or multiple FW offering preferred sides and crossings that play into the field of play might overshadow the engineering realities of how to handle water flow. 

I love the concept behind 10 with the blind right side carry to a favored approach.  But, I might give it more favor at the green with moving that bunker cluster on right of green back to the right further and making it one bunker, While expanding the pregreen mid FW bunker on the approach line from the safe left FW.  As to 4 being too straight forward, I think the length is the challenge, yet I might think of more forgiveness in the first LZ carry by expanding the FW to a bit infront of the carry bunkers off the diagonal tee ball to the LZ.  The length of the second to a narrower layup area, and the total length to the green makes this a potential easy bogey fairly hard par, and nearly impossible birdie except for the really big bangers. IMO.

I also love the concept and array of the bunkering of 11, but if you are going to have a short par 4, then you really should make it a real and drivable par 4 at about 335-285-260 in my view.  Every great course should have one, I think.  The boomer green is good, something like 8 at Sand Hills.

I think you have alot of excitement in the 9th-10th-11th-12th that promotes that notion of saying the heck with a brat at the turn, I can't wait to stay in the flow of this great golf course! 

[Jim Colton]

How about something like this for #10?

Dick, thanks for the comments.  As I mentioned earlier or in the other thread, I really meant a lot of the holes to play better from the greens tees, and with no set tee markers at all, the freedom and flexibility to play holes as fun short par 4's depending on the wind direction.  The green tee to the front of the 11th green is 292 yards.

[Nick Campanelli]

Jim, after the discussion from late last week regarding the tenth, i printed out your tenth and sketched over it....the result was almost exactly what you just posted.  I reversed the green angle also, like you did.  Odd

[Tim Nugent]

RJ - You're on target.  THe problem I had was that it appeared as if the hole was designed with only one class of player in mind.  Sure, you can give the big hitter a risk/reward option. But then to place hazards in the way takes from the reward (and are probably no of much consequence to someone of that caliber).  However, to then look at the other way (let's call ut the 95% solution because that's the route most golfers will take - not by choice - but rather by necessity, to hinder their second shot all because you are looking to obstruct the 5% who choose not to attempt the R/R shot is something I would have a problem with.

Nick/Garland. I don't see enough in those contours to kick a ball left into the rough, If anything, I would be worried about blls running though the fairway if the just cleared and hit on the down-slope or on the flat.  Since it is blind, I would probably valley-out the middle to help contain and funnel balls down the fairway.  Plus, I would bring the fairway back enough to get the leading edge visable.

[Wyatt Halliday]

I think you can still extend the fairway left to give a bit more room resulting in a safer drive, albeit tougher approach. ala 12 at Ballyneal.

[RJ_Daley]

No, not that Jim!    I really think you have 10 right as long as the carry over the blind slot up the right is no more than 230-40 for the middle tee, and 250-270ish from the back tees for the right side.  Then, as seen in this screenshot, just flip the bunker cluster of three on the right side approach with the single pot on the left side approach in the pre-green.  Wrap the approach mowing a little more around the right side approach and gathering into the small pot bunker, and move any bunker there slightly back more on the right side of green, IMO.

[Wyatt Halliday]

Wrap the approach mowing a little more around the right side approach and gathering into the small pot bunker, and move any bunker there slightly back more on the right side of green, IMO.

Dick,

Wouldn't you consider this to a redundant penalty? I may not be following you, but it seems that by moving the right bunker back you have the exact same effect as the bunker left. It seems to render it a directional penalty only, rather than all four (short, long, left, right). Again, if I read you right it doesn't properly challenge the enitre skill set on the approach.

Wyatt

[RJ_Daley]

Wyatt, in my view, taking on the blind shot from the back tee to carry the hill with a few bunkers sprinkled into the hill, and a carry of 250-70 back tee (230-40 middle tee) with the potential of a slice into the junk, is challenge enough.  The approach should always have some skill set demand even for the better player's risk of the carry over the blind hill.  So, I think the 'proportionate' risk on approach shot is the slighter smallish vexing pot if you approach too far on the right and a little long into a gathering small pot bunker (still a fairly good up and down for par).  I think that is enough to make the skill of the longer hitter still have to hit a good shot into the green with an option to bound one in on firm foregreen.   As to the safe and visable tee ball shot to the left, then a cluster of carry bunkers about 20-30 yards in the foregreen, it is more distance control to go for it or an option to again play safe to the open pregreen on the right side.  The fun for the lesser player is avoiding the blind tee route yet succeeding in taking on the daunting yet not that tough carry over the cluster of Bs, and forgiveness on the missed shot going a little right. 

[Wyatt Halliday]

Dick, How far back would are you wanting the bunker? Would this make the approach more difficult for the lesser player? It seems a long running approach from the angle of the safe visable landing area would force many balls into the collection bunker. Much of this discussion hinges on who wins the 9th hole because the choice of teeing grounds dictates my argument . With a longer approach (from the 437yd tee), something will almost always be coming in hot. With firm and fast conditions, carrying the cross bunker and stopping the ball on the green appears to be quite difficult. From the next tee set (365yd) the ground game option is available, but would most likely not be used by the majority of players which is why I still like the cluster short right.

[RJ_Daley]

Dick, How far back would are you wanting the bunker? Would this make the approach more difficult for the lesser player? It seems a long running approach from the angle of the safe visable landing area would force many balls into the collection bunker. Much of this discussion hinges on who wins the 9th hole because the choice of teeing grounds dictates my argument . With a longer approach (from the 437yd tee), something will almost always be coming in hot. With firm and fast conditions, carrying the cross bunker and stopping the ball on the green appears to be quite difficult. From the next tee set (365yd) the ground game option is available, but would most likely not be used by the majority of players which is why I still like the cluster short right.

Wyatt, are you asking how far back would I like to see the small pot (maybe 6-8ft of sand diameter - and 12-15 ft diameter of collection area into it, I'd like to see it towards the back about 1-2 o'clock from the line of play into the green and plenty of clear foregreen approaching from the right side of the green.  If the better player taking on the blind carry can't control his distance better than that, there seems like there should be something to penalize him.  Yet it is still up and down sandy territory.  Of course the contours on the green are very important.  I"d envision a slight left to right general green slope with a couple of poofs or Maxwell rols mid green and a firm gentle slope come off the green left to right about 2-3 ft rise from short chiping area. I'd like to see about 20-30 yards of FW-foregreen between the cluster of Bs on the left approach with all that bailout still to the right of them for the chip and putt safe play.

[Garland Bayley]

Jim, this really seems spectacular and so totally influenced by your deep affinity to Ballyneal.  So far, I'd have to say your's and Ed's are the two that really capture my attention the most.  Not to put down the others efforts and concepts.  But, it just seems to me that the concepts and reality of their vision of how this property might be in terrain and characteristics most fit with Ed's and Jims, IMHO.

...

Dick,

Here is judge Philip Spogard's input. I took this displeasure with routing over the contours was most suitably addressed to Ed's design. Do you disagree? Do you think all of Ed's blind shots directly over the contour's were a good choice? Would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Charlie,

Compliments for all the hard work you have put into this. I was amazed by the effort not only from the contestants but also from you.

As I am in the middle of moving I do not have much time these days to post individual comments to all participants - but as you know I have individual comments to each layout. I will be happy to provide individual feedback to all interested participants so please send me a PM and I will get back to you all.

My judging was mostly influenced by the individual routings and use of the land. In my opinion the ultimate solutions were the ones which naturally incoorporated all areas of interest within an 18 hole routing. With such an expansive site I looked for a layout routed among - and not over - the contours (unless well explained). Safety, interest, concept, clubhouse and facility locations, aesthetics, degree of realism, etc. were off course also important factors.

Congratulations to you all for producing such fine work - and congratulations to the winner.

Philip

[Jim Colton]

How about this for #10?

[RJ_Daley]

Garland, I don't see Jim or Ed's routing excessively going over 'all' the contours at all, and certainly not to a big detriment.  These are 2ft elevation lines, and I see a number of shots running diagonal or along slopes, not over them.  But, some are downhill to visable LZs and some are from one high pt across a valley to an equal elevation LZ.  It is really tough to really study the contours on these sketchup small screenshots. 

Besides, the term "melting down" was a technique to soften the lumps used at BallyNeal for some of these sort of situations, and I don't see why such can't be employed on either of Ed or Jim's plans. 

[Garland Bayley]

Dick,

Ed moved this discussion to his thread. I point out 4 blind shots there.

Also, if you use Charlie's link to download the pdfs you can magnify them as needed to see details with the exception of Nick's where the contour lines were obscured by forest.

[Nick Campanelli]

Garland, for someone so into minimalism and lack of disturbance, you sure sound like you hate trees  

Dick, you can look at the hole detail sheets to see how my routing utilized the topo.   

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, for someone so into minimalism and lack of disturbance, you sure sound like you hate trees  

...

I hate them so much, I spend a significant amount of time planting them. Don't know where you got this hate trees thing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()