Adding this from the other thread on Kingsley since it seems to be tied more to this discussion and Sven recommended.
Mike
Quote from: Sven Nilsen on Yesterday at 06:13:54 AM
Perhaps this belongs on the routing thread, but I'd love to hear Mike D. talk a bit more about the routing process for the front 9. From what I've heard, there are a number of really cool sounding holes that were sacrificed (including some different angles for playing the land that makes up 4 and 6 and the big hollow in between).
Sven,
One of the first holes I found on the property was a short par 5 that went from the far left of the third fairway back across the 4th and 2nd holes to the back tee on #6. It was a great natural hole with lots of movement and options but it "just didn't fit" with other holes that were good enough for the final cut or provided for good flow. Subsequently, holes 2-7T replace what that one hole crossed over, so now we have 5 very dynamic holes around the deep sinkhole of the "South 40" -- these holes are great holes and work very well together, weaving in and amongst each other to create an intimate yet expansive feel. The 7th tee is the exit point for the South 40 and is very important, as it is a significant drop to exit that plateau - interestingly, the first landing area there is an entirely different feeling, confined by trees on the left and hillside on the right, with a blind/semi-blind 2nd shot. I like that juxtaposition of feelings and the transition it presents to the golfer. With the 5 holes on the South 40 plus the exit strategy, I had to get to the South 40 and back to the clubhouse area (which was logically going to be in the vicinity of the north-west-central portion of the property due to access and property configuration, although it didn't necessarily have to be exactly where it is located currently if the routing dictated a better spot). Hence, a variety of combinations and greensites were considered, with #1G a very interesting site for any number of hole plans, but the second landing area of the 1st was the most degraded part of the property as it had 2 acres bulldozed flat for a gas transmission collection point -- that area is completely manipulated and represents about 50% of the earth-moving on the project. So, the question was, "Should we have 1 or 2 holes out to the South 40 and 1 or 2 back to the clubhouse?" Going out in two didn't provide for very good/different holes that added to the golf course and 8 was really dynamic and 9 was 9 (still the most controversial hole on the course . . . wouldn't MacKenzie think that was a good sign?) so that led to the big 3-shotter to start things out and figuring out how to incorporate the earth-moving that we needed to "naturalize" the gas work area into that concept. One of the owners wanted a plateau to hit to as a target and so we manipulated the big hill on the right to create the right landing area and push material down into the gas site for contour.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Mike