Garland,
I've been camping out on a computer that isn't mine this week...
ENTRY 7
Much better alignment to the practice range, in that it faces west rather than east, but with the south wind, it will accentuate the slices of many a fader, which is never a good thing.
I honestly didn't give a whole lot of thought to the driving range, simply because as a national destination club member, I know how little use they get. I've used the driving range at Ballyneal twice in six years. One google doc responder said the west facing range was a detriment, due to being into the setting sun. I can honestly say this is really not a concern at a destination club. Nobody uses the range at the end of the day -- they go out and play.
Obviously Ron made a lot of comments assuming prevailing winds from the south, which explicitly wasn't an assumption in the contest. With respect to the driving range, I take solace in the fact that my range orientation is almost identical to Sand Hills, the course where Mr. Whitten wants his ashes spread.
It is clear the architect tried to provide an easily-walkable course, but in nearly every instance, the closest tee box to the previous green is the back tee, not the regular member tee. My feeling is the back tees are rarely used, and therefore those should be off in the distance somewhere. To truly make a course walkable at a decent pace of play for the masses, the regular (members) tees ought to be closest to previous greens. In some cases, the architect didn’t provide formal tee boxes, just massive tightly mown areas with flatten areas from which to pick a spot to tee off. All well and good, but for handicap purposes, every golf association requires players tee off between markers. (Rules of golf require that, too. Within two club lengths.) So the romance of picking your spot from which to hit is negated considerably by the fact that clubs will pick those spots for you.
I think a lot of entries used the open teeing areas with no set markers, a la Ballyneal, which works well for a members matchplay course on a site with varied wind conditions. I might be mistaken, but I believe neither Sand Hills and Ballyneal have course ratings/slope on the scorecard -- golf associations be damned!
As I mentioned earlier, my method of routing is to find greensites, find natural corridors to those greensites, then find the closest logical spot for the next tee box, with a strong bent of maintain visibility for the tee shot. Admittedly, a lot of times this leads to the back tee, but I believe I have shorter/equidistant members tees at 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, which has to be on par or better than most real-world courses, I'd imagine. And as Alex mentioned, as long as you're starting with short distances in the first place, that has to count for something. I believe Ron's co-designs at Erin Hills has to be one of the most arduous walking only courses in the country.
I don’t like the fact that the architect didn’t bother to provide yardages from anything but the “back tees.” Doesn’t seem like there’s much advantage in distance from the forward tees, which I suspect measure 6,600 yards or more, far too far for average handicappers. Hard to “tee it forward” on this course. Nor does there seem to be much variation in the angles for average golfers. Most holes are linear. The architect doesn’t take advantage of the vast width available on this site to provide some distinctly different angles on the same hole. One of personal observations is that the best golf holes are those that look and play differently from tee to tee. I don’t see that here. Nearly every hole demands the same tee shot angle from back tee to front. (An exception may be the second hole, but the tee boxes, although left and right of the first green, present just about the same distance to the green. (Can’t be certain since the architect failed to provide a complete scorecard.)
I can provide yardages for each tee box...I think it was something like 5,600 yards or less.
With respect to varied angles/linear tee shots, I think that a shift of just 10 yards means a lot in terms of the angle of the tee shots. Many courses that are known for offering varied angles (Ballyneal being one of) would be considered 'linear' from an aerial view. I have angles on 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18. I guess I could've pushed the envelope there more.
Three of the four par 3s run in different directions, and I suppose we could say that five and 17 are actually in different directions, but only if you play the left-hand tees on 17. (I assume the neck of fairway leading from 11 to 17 is also teeing ground. Otherwise, why is it there?) Three of the four par 5s play in the different directions. (Alas, the ninth and 11th playing in exactly the same direction; why, on this vast site?) But there doesn’t seem to be much change in direction (and change in wind direction) from hole to hole. The first two play into the south wind. The fifth through seventh are all downwind. Eight through 11 are four holes in a row with a left-to-right crosswind, while 15 through 18 all pose (admittedly different) angles of right-to-left crosswind.
I've never been a big fan of the formulaic, box the compass evaluation of par 3's and 5's. Certainly I would've explored other options before having all four par 3's run in the same direction, but I firmly believe you have to find the best 18 holes well before trying to have all four par 3's run in different directions. [I did like the fact that my par 3's got longer as the round went on, but that wasn't that I intentionally set out to do]. Along those same lines, I felt very strongly about my 9th and 11th holes (I think 11 was the best par 5 in the contest). I see no need to scrap one of those holes or make one a par 4 simply because they run in the same direction.
The shared turf between 11/17 is really for the second shot on 11, as that devilish green may require being right of the centerline bunkers on the 2nd shot in order to have a good angle for the approach. The unsuspecting golfer would probably blast into the bowl left of the green. The safe golfer might lose his shot a little further right and have a very difficult third. To me, that shared turf is essential.
I think the natural features of the site lend itself to a east-west orientation. In a vacuum, I'd probably avoid having holes 8-11 run in the same direction. However, this is a very strong stretch of holes, along with 7 & 12, so I don't think I would change anything there. Again, it's more about finding the best 18 holes to me than trying to make sure I'm constantly going in different directions (something that I do value, but not at the expense of the quality of the golf holes.)
I’m also curious about the returning nines. I understand the rules indicated that contestants were to “look for the opportunity for ‘sunset golf,’” which may have negated this (and every participating) architect from following the Tom Doak suggestion of routing – i.e. make it feel like a comfortable walk through the land, following the line of least resistance – and instead forced contestants to manipulate the routing a bit to get several holes close to the clubhouse for that “sunset round.”
I'm probably more influenced by the Doak school of routing than anybody else, and I definitely agree with the natural hunt for golf holes as you traverse the site. Considering Ballyneal and Sand Hills have returning nines (similar to the vast majority of golf courses), it's a stretch to say that returning nines automatically means you didn't get the most out of the property. I will also point out that at a national destination club, there's often little else to do besides golf, so returning nines and sunset loops are an important ingredient. The late, late afternoon is where these courses really shine (we call it the Golden Hour)...who would want to be out here with a glorious day and two hours of daylight, but unable to go out for more golf because an out and back routing would mean you'd be miles away from the clubhouse at dusk?
I’m not a big fan of dual fairways, or even massive fairways split by bunkers. I’ve found that in most cases, one fairway usually goes unused, unless there is a good design reason why players would use it on occasion. On this design, the par-4 fourth has high-low fairways and I don’t know why anyone, from the back tee, should play the right hand fairway. (From the forward tee, the right-hand fairway isn’t even an option.) So that right-hand fairways seems like just a waste of land, turf and irrigation to me. Eliminate it, and the hole is still a good one, playing, as the architect writes down a “roller coaster ride” to the green.
I talked about the 4th earlier. I think the right fairway is fine.
Likewise, is anyone really going to drive it down the right side of No. 8? I don’t see that “the angle of attack” is all that much better from that hazardous side as from the more generous left side. On the par-5 ninth, the architect describes it as an “all-or-nothing carry to the left fairway.” Okay, given that it’s an uphill tee shot, where’s the advantage? There won’t be extra roll. Players taking the right hand route won’t be any farther from the green for their second shot, and the green, with a front center bunker, doesn’t favor either left or right approach angle. These sort of holes look good on paper, but as a practical matter, rarely work. Everybody plays one fairway or the other. There’s no advantage for a gamble.
8th: going left means intentionally lengthening a 460-yard par 4. That is often very hard to do, either consciously or subconsciously (see Ballyneal #17)
9th: there is a speed slot past the crest of the hill left, and the green invites a left-to-right shot around the clown's mouth. It's an all-or-nothing proposition with a payoff. It favors the bold. No way everybody plays to just one side on that hole.
I’d like to like the short uphill par-4 12th, but the huge distance from the regular and forward tees to the start of the fairway – nearly 200 yards, uphill, into the wind – makes me think this is a mid-to-high handicappers nightmare. Plus the fairway slopes sharply to the right for the slicer, into more trouble. I find this tiny fairway curious, given the large expanses of turf used for no apparent purpose elsewhere. Why are the 14th and 15th fairways connected? Why are the 11th and 17? If you have that much grass seed and irrigation to spare, why not use it where it’s needed, like a little more fairway on 12, extending back toward the tee?
The 12th fairway is something that I immediately was taking a second look at after I turned my entry in. Considering I was early with my submission, Alex likely would've let me change it, but I didn't want to go there. I probably would've changed the orientation to be more left of the green, with less carry. The way the green is situated, it would still demand a precise and straight tee ball to drive the green, but would be one of those holes that would be more difficult the closer you are the green if you couldn't quite pull it off (I like those holes, probably because I often fall prey.)
Likewise, the double green for 13 and 15 may look dramatic, but how practical is it? First, it will be extremely difficult to irrigate (particularly on a windy sandhills site) without placing some irrigation heads within the putting surface, which is never a good idea. There is always the safety issue (particularly since the architect, in his hole description, indicates that, when the pin on 13 is to the front, the pin on 15 will be in the “shared section. . . requiring a long approach over the deep hazard.” It’s never a good idea to have golfers playing uphill into a green where other golfers are standing, often with their back to the line of play. Worse yet are skulled bunker shots out of that “deep hazard” which could hit unsuspecting golfers putting on the 13th green. Other than the novelty of a double green, was there a genuine design reason for using it? I can’t see one.
I knew the double green would probably be my downfall, but I feel strongly there is a "genuine design reason" for its inclusion. There are two very cool natural features right next to each other, the pit and an adjacent ridge. I could easily picked one for the 13th hole and one for the 15th hole, but the double green allows both holes to use both features. Playing on both sides of the ridge on #13 provides some very interesting and challenging putts to the other side, a just penalty for missing with a short third shot or long 2nd shot. Having two distinct greens for #15 in combination with two different tee areas (one just off the 14th tee, which really brings the shared fairway between 14/15 into play) equates to four different holes in one.
I also like the interplay between the hole locations on 13 & 15. If 13 is short of the ridge (easier), you'll know instinctively that 15 will play over the pit (harder). Conversely, if 13 plays to far side of the ridge (harder), then 15 will play easier and shorter to the left of the pit. Given the size of the green, the size of the membership and this pin strategy, it could be executed without anybody getting plunked unsuspectingly. This green is about the same size as one of the largest double greens at St. Andrews, and they do alright with a lot more play.
The design, to me, seems more contrived than I would have expected to see on a sandhills locale. While the architect did try to take advantage of landforms, particularly on the par 3s, there still seems to be a number of holes simply superimposed into the landscape.
I couldn't disagree more, as I feel this course could definitely "mow and go" with little to no earthmoving. I tried desperately to use natural landforms for green sites, which is apparent at 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17, several of which utilize some of the best natural features of the site.
CONCLUSIONS ON ENTRY 7: Didn’t like the short par-4 seventh at first, but upon further reflection, it’s the sort of distinct-options hole that works without being overly expensive to build and maintain. Should this architect be hired, I’d have him go back to the drawing board to re-route the course to provide more changes in directions to present more varying wind situations, and design alternatives using natural slopes and land forms instead of enormous extra fairways.
Based on the comments, the only change I'd probably make would be to the 12th fairway, as mentioned above.