AAC III - #20

[Cameron DeVries]

     Here's my entry (and I've added the original practice computer routing too) with accompanying green diagrams.  I've heard some good critiques so far, I look forward to more.  It was my first time working with a topo map and it was quite a challenge!  I put in my best effort and while there are plenty of things I did wrong, I enjoyed the process.  If I went back and made some changes I would start with moving the green site on 15 down from the steep hill and get rid of the water hazards.  But for me, the contest was a unqualified success because I learned a new tool and gained some helpful experience- now I can learn what I need to work on for next time.

Thanks to Alex and Jim for their hard work and thanks to all the contestants who made this a fun process.  Good luck to the finalists.

Evolution of the Routing:

First Draft



Final Entry



Green Diagram #1



Green Diagram #2



here was my "300 word" response to the feedback I received:

“Based on the size of the property and the large spaces between many of the natural features I wanted to use, I chose to include several long par fours and only three par 3’s.  I tried to balance these elements in two ways: 1) by having reasonable birdie chances at the four par 5’s, and 2) by having two par 4’s under 360 yards, one drive-able.  The overall length of the course (7505y) is quite long, but at par 73 it's effective playing yardage is reduced quite a bit.  However, I still would have liked to include at least one or two more 4’s under 380 yards.

I thought long & hard about adding 'wetlands' to the course.  After looking at aerial photos of the site I noticed many of the low areas had distinctive dark green coloring that stood out against the brown tint throughout the bulk of the site; which I took to mean that the low areas were already collecting moisture and could make interesting water features.  I'm not a big fan of man-made ponds unless they really gel with the environment.  In this case, I decided that some thoughtfully placed 'wetlands' (if their man-made nature was well-disguised) could enhance the strategy and aesthetics of several holes...but it may have been a swing and a miss.”
 

[Alex Miller]

Dynamite green diagrams!


I really liked your routing Cameron. I think if your course was built based on the routing it would be great, but some of the smaller things detracted and added up for me. Obviously the water/wetlands issue has been brought up, but also I thought some of your bunkering was less strategic and more "flanking". Not all of it, and it didn't even make your individual golf holes "bad", but it was something I noticed. Also having sunset golf of either 2 or 7 holes seemed ok, but maybe just around the length of loop I personally had in mind.

I liked the way your course used the land, especially 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14. Really good job, especially for your first time with a topo (and a tough one at that)!

One thing to note: the only par 73 design.

[Garland Bayley]

Dynamite green diagrams!


...

I'll second that. I have trouble making anything seem right with greens. I guess I've spent most of my life playing to little round circles, and it has permanently damaged my imagination in that area.

[Cameron DeVries]

Alex,

    Thanks again for the comment on the green diagram and the routing, I came to realize when I was making it that I used a lot more severe land than I thought for a few greens!  There would have to be some earthwork done...  I thought about a lot of the issues you address when I was drawing the routing. 

    I would probably go back & have the bunkering be more strategic, giving the players a few more options and interest in general.  At the time, I thought having most of the bunkers on the side of the fairways and greens would be okay because it would provide more ground options.  I used to hate it when courses had bunkers left and right of the fairways and greens without any internal strategy, but I think it can work in some cases - but rarely. 

    I wasn't excited about turning in a par 73, especially since there were only 3 par 3's.  That wouldn't be great for a private destination course.  But, I actually think there was one other par 73 design.  When I noticed I seemed to be the only one, I looked through the other submissions to make sure - lo & behold I found that one entry didn't mark the par of the holes, but did have a 497 yard hole that (if it was a par 5) would have make it the other par 73 golf course! 

GJ, I had the same problem, I can barely read what I drew - and this was the cleaned up version!  The original green diagram had so many numbers & percentages it would have been impossible to decipher.  I still had trouble envisioning just how much percentage of slope would be on each green (according to the topo).  I'm not yet experienced with understanding all the technical aspects of green construction, drainage, and grading percentages.  I knew 5% would be too much for a pin-able location but hopefully 2-3% is okay if the greens aren't  crazy fast..?

[Garland Bayley]

...
    I wasn't excited about turning in a par 73, especially since there were only 3 par 3's.  That wouldn't be great for a private destination course.  But, I actually think there was one other par 73 design.  When I noticed I seemed to be the only one, I looked through the other submissions to make sure - lo & behold I found that one entry didn't mark the par of the holes, but did have a 497 yard hole that (if it was a par 5) would have make it the other par 73 golf course! 
...

In this crowd, I would hope that par would be somewhat irrelevant. Find the best holes, and let par fall as it may IMO. (Besides, my entry to AAC II was a par 73 ).

[Daryn_Soldan]

Cameron,

I really liked your routing and voted accordingly! Nice job incorporating multiple features on the property... especially on your first time working on a topo. Cool green diagrams too! Some things I liked:

-  "Sunset Loops" on the front nine - doesn't interfere with full rounds finishing in the evening.
-  Variety of green sites and lots of fairway around them. A few, 6 & 15 for example, may have been pushed too far up the topography but would be reasonable if pulled back a bit.
-  I think you are very realistic on doglegs & playing angles. I see interesting/strategic angles on almost every hole - some created by bunker positioning and some by landforms. It doesn't take much of an angle in plan view to have a significant impact when played on the ground. When overdone its why most of the holes we call 90* doglegs are really only about 45*.

Other thoughts:

-  Putting blue on your map probably hurt the voting but at least it's all in low areas! Some naturally occurring wetland pockets are definitely not out of the question in that part of the world... but maybe on a smaller scale. Could have labeled one "Trout Pond" and given new meaning to "Sunset Loops"
-  The wetlands you show are really only in play on 2 holes and those holes stand on their own without the water.
-  Not really sure 17 would work. The fairway seems to be sit on a pretty sharp (and unique) feature.

Great job, I find your routing fun and interesting. That's good in my book.

- Daryn

[Brett_Morrissy]

Cameron,

I liked your layout, and found your presentation easy to understand and clear. With plenty of fairway width, I too, would have like to see some more strategic bunkering off the tee (love the 6th & 13th) instead of the fairway fringes. I didn't see the requirement to add the water (penal, lost ball) and for me looked out of place, and with my hat as potential owner looking at the proposal, it will add a lifetime of maintenance issues.

I would have liked your infrastructure better if you swapped the cottages with the carpark and maintenance, putting them on the 'outside' of the golf and having the acc close to the clubhouse and the golf.

I really liked your tour around the compass for the routing, but felt your Par 3's could have had a better variety of direction, and I note that you have some shorter P5's, but 3 of those wedge approaches are all in similar direction also. But perhaps an additional short par 4 on the F9 would have helped me with some balance.

Not particularly addressed to your entry Cameron, but for me this notion of finding the holes and let the par be what it will, is weak. There are a 1,000+ different golf holes on that map, and it is was our brief to find the best we could, if you or anyone else wasnt happy with the sequence or yardage or transistiions - then is your/our role to change that before presentation - would you really submit a proposal at a par of 73, if you thought it was not your best, or would mean you didnt when the job?

It seems the water dictated a number of holes routing, where for me, I would think without the water, better holes would be options - 7 green could be further SW, 8 tee further SW (more diagnonal carry and make short p4), bringing 9 tee further to the East - I really liked this 9th hole use of the ridge, and would have liked just a little more angle on it - but the water seems to prevent much of this.

The only other comment I made in my notes, was that I felt the F9 holes were either thru the flatish areas or uphill generally.

BUT - I really liked it, and I think just missed and in my Top 10 - I also liked your middle tees and perhaps if I had of seen those very detailed green maps, it may have jumped a spot of two - but not into my top 5.
cheers