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.


Matt_Ward

Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« on: July 01, 2003, 11:30:10 AM »
I always enjoy heading to the mountain states in the USA because of the fantastic weather that allows you play in the most comfortable of settings.

The main issue I have found after just completing a 10-day trek to Utah, New Mexico and Colorado is the difficulty for designers in bringing forward layouts that can handle the extreme terrain and grade changes you often find -- especially in those areas where grade changes for courses can be quite extreme.

I'm well aware of the effect of the golf ball in thin air but the issue I have is with architects who design layouts on the most severe of land areas and how that impacts the quality of overall shot values when playing.

For example, Cordillera in Edwards Colorado has three 18-hole layouts and I've played all of them -- most recently -- the Summit Course designed by Jack Nicklaus. Here the issue is one of trying to maintain some consistent level of shot value requirements given the abruptness of the terrain. Clearly, when you have holes that slope downhill you must then have some return to uphill holes. I believe Nicklaus did a good job with the Summit but the constant adjustments the player must make really served to accentuate the differences in what the player needed to execute from hole-to-hole.

A better example at the same facility is the Mountain Course. Here you have extreme grade changes and it looks more like a forced crossword puzzle that was created to advance the needs of having as many house lots that surround the layout.

A great example of is the extreme uphill par-4 9th hole that plays ONLY 356 yards but is a monumental slog to get back to the clubhouse area.

I found the same sort of theing with Sanctuary in Sedalia, CO. Jim Engh did a wondeful job with such a demanding site but the same aspect of shot value distortion is still evident on a number of holes there. Yet, you can go just down I-25 and head to Bear Dance in Larkspur and the issue seems to be less so although that site is a bit different than the one at Sanctuary.

I'm just wondering if mountain course development can really work and if the compromises that usually have to be factored in can be done. I will say that seeing courses such as GlenWild in the Park City, UT area showed some real design ability by TF and his team because at that site the distortion of shot values is not as great as a number of others I have played.

I wonder how others feel about this -- especially architects who participate on GCA, and whether the category of mountain golf can truly be included when serious discussion about great golf courses is mentioned?

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2003, 11:54:23 AM »
Matt Ward,

Years ago I used to get together with a group at Salt Fork State Park in Ohio for a weekend of golf. Salt Fork is in south east Ohio and is probably the hilliest course I've ever played.

The 16th hole at Salt Fork is much like the hole you described. It is only about 360-370 yards, but it is a brute just to walk much less to try and reach the green in regulation.

Honestly, I kind of miss Salt Fork after not playing it for about 15 years. But, I miss it in a "variety is the spice of life" kind of way. That is too say that I don't think I'd enjoy it on a steady basis. At some point some of the holes would seem kind of goofy.

Now, can mountain courses truly be considered great? I"ll bet only a few might fit into this category, e.g., the Cascades. But, I would like to hear what other mountain courses people think fit into the category of being "great".
Tim Weiman

A_Clay_Man

Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2003, 01:15:20 PM »
I think I understand what Matt is trying to say, and the "out-do" mentality seems to be the root cause.

I know it's so recent, but I have to say, The Rio Grande Club in South Fork, Co. doesn't have this exact issue. Maybe because it appears to be a minimalist design. Even with the 460' of elevation change, the majority of the course plays extremely friendly, if you let it. Save for maybe the 18th hole a downhill short 5 with an almost all water carry. To be honest it was a great finisher. In both rounds I had the decision to play the hero and go for it in two or play smart. I came up 50-50. Going for it both times, reaching only the first. But the shot that made the water was the most dramatic exciting shot of the day. It was all over the flag but with the wind change it lacked the proper fortitude to carry. The irony was that I looked for a splash on the first ball and the last was ALL OVER IT, but wet. Ain't that golf? Shows us how any expectation is futile, it is all in the hands of the golf gods. So be decent.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2003, 01:16:40 PM by A_Clay_Man »

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2003, 01:55:44 PM »
I think mountain golf brings out the best and and perhaps the worse of architecture. That's why is I were developing a mountain course, I would chose an architect who successfully worked with very difficult sites.

I think most golfers appreciate the eye candy for mountain golf, and frankly, the tee shots can be quite thrilling. While it is different that your standard 430 yard par 4's, that's what makes golf such a great game.

Some people don't like tree lined tight fairways, others don't like links courses. I like all of them, but I like the ones that have been well done.

I also don't think you can assess every course with one look, or one round. I have changed my opinions of courses both ways after multiple rounds.

When I went to Scotland and Ireland, I played all the courses except a few 3 to 5 times. I wanted to better understand the courses.

Take Cordillera for example, I don't care for the Mountain course which I've played 3 times, but I like the Summit course, which I've played only onece. I'm going back this summer and will play the Summit 4 times. By the time I'm done, I may have a different option.

I just think things are not black and white.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Jamie_Duffner

Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2003, 02:22:17 PM »
I agree with redanman on this one.  Mountain golf is eye candy.  A very memorable experience, but generally unmemeorable holes.  Breathtaking beauty in a resort setting.  Aiming at the second peak from the right is fun, watching eagles soar through a valley is exceptional stuff, watching out for bears, elk, deer, etc, is exhilirating, hitting a drive from an elevated tee, down hill, 400 yards is a rare experience, but not on a regular basis.  

Mountain golf is also the most un-walkable.  I played a course outside of Banff and the elevation changes required all kinds of switch backs on the cart paths and there was one green to tee distance that had to be close to mile.  

A_Clay_Man

Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2003, 02:35:13 PM »
Jamie- Agreed. Your assesment is solidifying just how special Rio Grande really is. There is none of that typical look you're describing and I've seen at a few places like Rihc's Ca. home course whos' name will come to me if I just keep typing. BAck in the foothills behind Morgan Hill, I wanna say cimmaron but thats not it...oh someone(TH) help.

THuckaby2

Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2003, 03:51:19 PM »
Adam:

Cinnabar Hills, south San Jose, near Calero resevoir.  And it was one of my homes long before Rich arrived, and remains such long after he's left us for browner pastures.   ;D

TH

Matt_Ward

Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2003, 08:28:07 PM »
I don't want to say definitively like my fellow poster redanman that mountain golf is all eye and no depth. I've played quite a few where the elevation may be in the range of 4,000-5,000 feet and the layouts are done quite well. Paa-Ko Ridge in Sandia Park, NM is very good and has enough twists and turns without being overly done at any point to be one of the finest golf experiences one can face in this particular category.

Let me also mention that the new Greg Norman design at Red Sky Ranch in Wolcott, CO is also quite good although the course is still very, very young and will need some maturing.

I don't doubt that quality shot values can be maintained throughout a round but the demands on the architect to achieve such a high level of play without conceding one or two goofy holes can be very difficult when faced with severe grade changes on the site.

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2003, 09:12:27 PM »
Play a few of our Carolina mountain courses and you might fall in love with "Mountain Golf." Three of my favorites are:

Grandfather Mountain Golf & CC: An outstanding Elis Maple design that is as fine a course as I have ever played. I could play it every day and never grow tired of it.

Linville Golf Club: A 1924 Ross design that was reportedly carved from the mountains using mules and drag pans! Another beautiful and peaceful course that will test everything you've got and more.

Elk River Golf Club: A wonderful Nicklaus design that has several true "mountain" holes on the back nine. The routing up and down the mountain is ingenious... and fun!

I know, I know, I can hear you now... you guys out West are going to say that the Blue Ridge Mountains don't count as "real" mountains.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2003, 09:13:59 PM by Michael Whitaker »
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2003, 10:02:53 PM »
If you can't enjoy the inevitable quirkiness of mountain golf  you are a pussycat.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Matt_Ward

Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2003, 02:29:23 PM »
redanman:

That's one "bridge" I won't cross!

A good example of mountain golf gone to the "nth" degree is Mountain Air in Burnsville, NC. There are several holes at the facility where the elevation is listed on the scorecard that is easily over 100 feet! Still -- not a bad design by Scott Pool for those who enjoy the quirk as Jim K outlined.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2003, 03:25:09 PM »
Thankfully, Matt, not more than a handful of people noodle "mountain golf" (maybe "Alpine" is better?) as much as you and a few others. Certainly I've noodled it, and even written about it, ripping apart the nuances of getting up steeper grades and how this might best be accomplished.

A few thoughts; then I'll listen to comments:

1. Alpine golf can be very exciting and is certainly an American extension of the movement of the game away from linksland and into the hinterlands. Indeed, it is also a morph-ism away from trying to re-create links-ish terrain at inland sites, which is all too common, even among many great courses. This movement — in true American spirit — knows no bounds. It has taken golf to deserts, farms, inland river valleys and, yes, mountainous terrain.

2. None of the above "new" terrains for golf were a part of golf's original and "ideal" land form, but the ideals of golf are not written to end at any particular point. Golf, by virtue of its "cross country" nature, is about playing from one point to the next, across challenging obstacles. It is a simple concept, but all too often confused with one's particular idea of "ideal" landform on which this is to occur. The Matt Ward ideal may be as a result of his endless pursuit of "ideal" golf, comparing one course to another to another to another...etc.

3. At Bel-Air it was generally accepted that Thomas was crazy, even foolish to consider a golf course. Yet, despite classic design it integrates canyons and terrain while overcoming the ups and downs. Motorized golf carts accomplish the same end result at many other layouts.

4. I have always maintained that modern machinery and technology — even the smallest of GPS receivers to accurately give bearings and elevations — would have been of tremendous interest to MacKenzie, Hunter, Tillinghast, Raynor, Banks, etc.  To wit, take MacKenzie's great drive to bridge the rocks behind Cypress Point's No. 18 tees. MacKenize embraced technology, yet he lacked it during his tenure on earth. The comments made by early golf course architects about mountainous layouts were done so in a time devoid of common cart usage, heavy equipment usage, population bursts to inland reaches, or the now-common resort model of seasonal recreation.

5. The biggest mistake in Alpine Golf design is trying to make things too long or to try and overcome the land. Rather, more of such layouts should occasionally go against the grain: uphill or side-hill.

No doubt many who frequent these pages will pooh-pooh Alpine Golf as it does not match that period of the game when they believe the ideal was reached — this, more specifically, is the period after which golf was played through the streets of St. Andrews to the front doors of its dark alleys, and before Americans (in general) took hold and embraced the game.


— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2003, 04:00:13 PM »
 ;D

Certainly there's distortion to player' consci about shotmaking requirements,  but isn't that what makes golf a real game versus the boring court and diamond and pitch field type games.  

I love the variety of flat to eastern Appalachian mountain golf, western Rocky Mountain type golf.. and Sierra-Nev type.. and certainly California and Michigan type.. and Alpine type etc..  One thing is constant in these locales.. there's always a premium on flat land and more than likely its for people to live versus play.  

When I played Salt Fork in Ohio every spring and Fall back in the early-mid 80's (it is very hilly and a bear to walk 36) I always thought of it as a shot making course, ie. finding a flat lie was better than the alternative.  After learning the layout, we used to end up playing odd routes to some of the holes, to keep it in view or minimize the up and down hikes.

If the price is right on mountain terrain, why not go for it?

But why don't we see more national championship venues in them thar hills?

 
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2003, 04:19:40 PM »
Shotmaking (shot values) has not so much to do with whether terrain is mountainous or flatish. It has to do with hole strategy and options. As for why there are not more prominant championships played on mountainous courses: They are not widely accepted and, in general, the population basis is toward seacoasts, transportation corridors and major cities — none of which are in mountainous locales.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Matt_Ward

Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2003, 07:00:13 PM »
Forrest:

I hear what you're saying but consider the work you accomplished at The Hideout. I think a number of designers would help themselves considerably in visiting that site BEFORE they start to plow ahead (no pun intended). I really believe it takes a great deal of talent to deal with dead flat sites and those that only bighorn can traverse. At The Hideout you have holes that work with the existing grades and you can see how each hole gracefully merges into the next one.

I enjoy mountain golf but given the realities of the terrain it poses numerous obstacles because although you can have superior holes the greater odds favor a result in which a series of holes are nothing more than quirks that often fail to properyl reward and penalize shotmaking accordingly.

Chris Perry

Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2003, 07:24:01 PM »
I think you don't see much on tour because a) there isn't a lot of places to hold large galleries a b) you wouldn't want to actually see players working up a sweat playing courses like that.  ;D

Personally I'd love to see the big guns walk a course like Eaglemont for 4 days and see if they aren't exhausted by the 72.nd hole. Then again I guess they have to walk Castle Pines, but that's a rare event on tour.

As for shot values, I can't see any better venue to offer a variety of uphill/downhill shots and sidehill lies than mountain courses. The guys I've played with used to be members at private clubs and are flat out (pun intended) bored by pancake layouts after playing some of the better public courses done on varied terrain.  

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot Value Distortion / Mountain Golf
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2003, 07:41:02 PM »
Matt,

I appreciate the comments about The Hideout (by the way, they have resolved their green problems: turned out to be chinch bug, a nasty critter -- anyway, now all better).

I hold a distinction of being given both extremes: Hilly and dead flat. Damn! Anyway, I do have experience with both and only a few times have been bestowed with what I would call "gently rolling" -- i.e., "ideal terrain" if not true linksland.

I still maintain shotmaking is in how land is dealt with, no matter the severity of the grade. I have seen tremendous hilly sites with resulting fascinating holes sporting lots of options and rewards and gambles. .......And, I've seen plenty of "down-the-tree-lined-fairway after fairway of holes" on hilly sites, obviously because the designer was asleep.

— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com