[Greg Murphy]

Seems to me a simple routing goal is to negotiate ascents between holes and enjoy descents within holes - is there a course anywhere that does the opposite - I don't imagine I'd like it too much and would get the feeling I was playing a lost opportunity.

[Garland Bayley]

Seems to me a simple routing goal is to negotiate ascents between holes and enjoy descents within holes - is there a course anywhere that does the opposite - I don't imagine I'd like it too much and would get the feeling I was playing a lost opportunity.

Seems to me a simple routing goal is to negotiate ascents and descents within holes, and a simple walk between holes. Any course that wants me to walk from the green up to the tee the majority of the time is likely not going to get return business from me.

I can't think of a more offensive routing than what you have preferred Greg!

[Jim Nugent]

Is it even physically possible to have a course that starts and ends near the same general area to have every hole playing downhill?

Theoretically yes.  If the clubhouse is built into the side a hill or incline, and the first hole starts at the top, the last hole could end near the bottom, with every hole playing downhill. 

In practice sounds very unlikely. 

[Greg Murphy]

Everyone likes ascents and descents within holes, I think. Most hilly sites will have some difficult, relatively abrupt areas to negotiate or an elevated area with prominent view to take advantage of. You like level walks between holes. So do I. But if the terrain goes up and down, I think it a wasted opportunity to walk down 30-40 feet from green to tee then play to a green elevated 30-40 feet if the alternative presents itself. You must have hated Sagebrush!

[Garland Bayley]

GJ,

You could win the "black and white thinking award" for your post 17.  Just because the architects arrange the holes for visibility as much as they can, doesn't mean it can only be done on the worst sites ever (i.e., Iowa cornfields....actually, courses I have worked on in NB and Iowa have GREAT rolling golf land, rarely a flat lie, but not so hilly that its a goat climber.....so even your presumption of bad sites is way off.)  That one could get you on my "Bite Me" thread, only because I hear so many either or one off examples on this site justifying whatever.

Seems to me you read a lot more into what I wrote than I exercised "black and white thinking". Your writing implied that hills were to be removed from golf courses, because no one wants to walk up them. You probably meant something different, so I asked questions, which you didn't answer.

Suffice to say, Ross, Mac, CBM and others preached the mantra of visibility, and especially visibility on approach shots to plan the strategies they were trying to implement.  My take is the accepted blindness more than, say Fazio, because they didn't have the earthmoving capability to do it every time, in every situation, whereas modern architects do.

Since I was talking about the visibility of the base of the pin, perhaps we had a simple misunderstanding on what I was getting at.

I will agree with the statement that only a few golfers can used the base of pin visibility greatly, although I do like (as a golfer) to see the base of the pin to know how far from the edge it is, which might affect even MY strategy.  However, never really thought of it until I heard JN or other pros in design tout its virtue.  Since then, I try to do it, but don't really obsess over it either.  In general, its better if you can do it, but on probably 3-9 holes, it just isn't possible (usually, the uphill ones)  Even then, I try to push the bunkers to the outside edges of the green if visibility is possible, and they would block it.  I just prefer aiming at the green as a target, rather than aiming between bunkers to a flag.  Maybe not everyone does.

To answer your question, I don't really design for tour pros.  

What question?

On the other hand, the best golfers seem to mimic what they say, including base of pin visibility, and they can generate buzz and become tastemakers.  If good players give your course a bad review (or raters trained to look at such things) even average golfers can tend to not like it, even if they don't really understand why.  

Hate to accuse golfers of a sheep mentality, but I have seen it.  Eventually, golfers of all levels will find courses they like best and suit their games, but in the instant marketing world of golf, at least pre-recession, it was hard to convince owners to build a course that golfers would "eventually" grow to love.

Why is it that so many golfers go to the British Isles and love their first experience of links golf? Could it be that they are not being spoon fed all the things the so called "tastemakers" value, not because it is good or likeable, but because it lets the "tastemakers" shoot low scores and feel good about themselves. Could it be that occasional blind shots, and multiple places on the course where the bottom of the pin is not visible on the approach is actually fun? Could it be that courses like that built here would not need to grow on the average player, because they are going to love the adventure from the start? Could it be that in part these are some of the reasons that Bandon Dunes was a hit from the get go?

[Garland Bayley]

Greg,

Sagebrush is a cartball course. I accept it for what it is, and I will never try to walk it.

[John Kirk]

Sand Hills has uphill approach shots on holes 1, 2, 5 (slightly), 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 (third shot), 15, and 18.

Prairie Dunes has uphill approach shots on 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16 and 17.

Crystal Downs has uphill approach shots on 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 17.

I believe that many of the greatest American golf courses have a significant number of uphill approach shots to the greens.

[DMoriarty]

I am saying that Sand Hills and Prairie Dunes both have a number of holes where you drive or walk up to elevated tees to then hit to downhill targets.  IMO, the visual benefits they provide far outweigh the difficult walks (specially at PD where you have to climb stairs to get to some of them).  Both of these courses and a number of others which quite often use elevated tees for enhanced visibility never put me to sleep, but perhaps I am more easily entertained than others.

Prairie Dunes does have a number of holes where one has to climb up to the next set of tees, but it featured less such hikes originally.  It is debatable (to me at least) whether the hikes make for better holes and a better course.  It is probably just a matter of personal preference, but on some I think the original (and lower) tees work better, and they certainly make for an easier walk.

In my opinion, modern golf course architects (including some of the best ones) overdo the concept of an elevated tee for the sake of perfect visibility.  Too many such holes take a bit of the mystery out of the game, make for a worse walk, and oftentimes offer much better visibility from the back tees as compared to the front, thus partially negating the supposed extra difficult.

I agree with Garland.  It gets boring after a while.

And the idea of a golf course designer dead-ending his course into a remote location just to avoid having find decent uphill holes?   Well that sort of thinking just seems wrong to me.  How many great holes like Crystal Downs No. 8 would be missed of the golf architects designed for only downhill holes?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I think (hope) you deserve a little slack here and have simply misunderstood my meaning of 'best suits the land.' The point I'm making is about the inherent benefit of 'finding the holes,' rather than forcing them. If a course happens to be on the links lands I'm lucky enough to experience, great. However, even on flat, otherwise dull land I'd rather play on a humble, natural course which uses the limited features well than on something with all sorts of artificial nonsense going on. I'm not a fan of any form of golf where architecture meets Disney.

You may or may not agree.

Paul, I doubt we are far apart. We agree on the merits of finding natural golf holes.  I doubt anyone works harder at it than I, and most gca's fit in that boat.  Perhaps, maybe, Fazio is less inclined, or a very busy signature architect is less inclined due to time, but I can't even say that for sure, even if it seems to be a common perception.

After that, its a matter of what style you put on the natural holes, from minimalism to traditional to adding all sorts of what I call discretionary earthmoving for whatever reason (or necessary moving for drainage, to fit houses, whatever)  Admittedly, I have done golf holes in all genres.  And you are free to like what you like.  That's why there are thousands of courses and hundreds of architects to choose from!

I get the impression from some posts here that the land should come first in design, which is subtly different than using it to its maximum potential for the benefit of the specific purpose of converting open field or woods to a golf place.  Of the nearly 1000 holes I have built or substantially rebuilt, I have seen the need for earthmoving come in all shades of gray - from very little to a lot required or desired.

I could put it this way - I doubt any architect would choose to build a bad hole just to say he/she moved no dirt in the name of minimalism.  I think that would include Coore and Crenshaw and TD, who of course, can answer for himself.

GJ, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but equating having holes play downhill (from slightly to as much as the land allows) with only playing golf in flat cornfields really does strike me as pretty black and white thinking.  Of course, we all have our own frames of reference.

[Tim_Weiman]

Sand Hills has uphill approach shots on holes 1, 2, 5 (slightly), 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 (third shot), 15, and 18.

Prairie Dunes has uphill approach shots on 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16 and 17.

Crystal Downs has uphill approach shots on 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 17.

I believe that many of the greatest American golf courses have a significant number of uphill approach shots to the greens.

John,

I think they should. Hitting both uphill and downhill shots adds to the challenge of club and shot selection, one of the things that makes the game interesting and fun. Pine Valley, for example, has a nice variety of uphill and downhill shots.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

You wrote, "they would want to see where they are going to plot an attack, and would prefer to avoid uphill climbs (at least those 50 and over.....) so the job of the gca is to change the land". The clear implication is that uphill climbs are to be removed by changing the land. That is probably not the implication you meant, so I asked if your intention was flat prairie with the hopes that you would review your writing and see where you would confuse. Apparently all I did was confuse you, and I'm sorry for that.

The Iowa reference was a joke marked by a smiley. Ignore it.

[Matthew Rose]

I enjoy hitting uphill shots.... it's almost kind of like a real gentle forced carry, but without the huge penalty. There is some satisfaction in pulling the correct stick and executing it.

One of my two aces was on a very uphill hole where I couldn't see it go in.... to walk up to the green with my partners and have us all freeze momentarily when we saw a ball lodged between the pin and cup halfway down, wondering whose it was, and then the thrill when I discovered it was mine.

[Jeff_Brauer]

GJBailey,

What I thought I was implying was that you route to minimize those things, and if that doesn't do it, then you sometimes have to grade to accomplish it.  It's still a matter of gray, because if you are on a site with 30 foot hills, it means you probably have to accept larger climbs.  Every hole, every site forces you to think and re-think whatever your arbitrary guidelines might be.

It's a value decision.  As I mentioned, I think most architects think in terms of creating visible holes, as I think I described by a combo of lowering greens and raising tees, IF need be, given the routing.  Most, probably think in terms of the human comfort of avoiding hill climbing as much as possible, especially since the golf population is currently aging.  There are hundreds of other little factors, all of which add up to sometimes building a golf hole that you wouldn't otherwise build if strategy for the top players in the land was the paramount consideration.

Among those considerations is how much golfers really like uphill shots.  As architects, we need to decide if a dozen folks on golf club atlas constitutes a trend to where we would go out of our way to build uphill holes.  At this point in time, my answer is no, I still see most golfers preferring that a hole "lays out like a road map" and design accordingly.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Wasn't present at the conversation between JN and TD, but I would surmise JN and most archies would look to see if visibility could be achieved via grading, and then if not, accept the blindness.  JN usually touted even seeing the base of the pin from the tee.

So, on that 400 yard, 1200 foot long hole, the green could be 24 feet above the tee, assuming it tilts at golfers at 2%, presuming no intervening hills that aren't removed.  If some combo of raising the tees and lowering the green got that hole to less than 24 feet uphill, most of us would consider doing it.  If not, then we would immediately change to the "occasional blind hole is great for variety camp!"

Sure, there are always good reasons for "breaking the rules", but aren't we talking hypothetically?  On a crazy site it doesn't much matter what the archie does, its cart golf and the archie is probably better off designing for that more than anything else.  That said, 24 feet over 400 yards doesn't strike me as onerous if done a limited # of times.  Golfers really are soft gits.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Tying it back to the original thread, JN said golf is best downhill and he tries to elevate tees whenever possible.  Not absolutely sure he was the first to say it, but I recall the magazine article quoting him saying that. 

Hypothetically, you are pretty sure you can attain full vision going downhill.  I was merely pointing out that you can attain it going gently uphill as well, and pointing out how its done when desired.  It might be a different thread, but I was thinking of Olympic.  I haven't seen the new Bill Love 8th, but on the old course, the par 4 and 5 all slide up the hills (17 and 18) and the old 8th accepted blindness by going sharply uphill to a short par 3 surrounded by sand, an all or nothing target that was clearly defined by bunkers, even if you couldn't see the putting surface.  Not sure if you can see the greens from the LZ on 17 and 18, but you do see it from the tee, allowing you to know where the pin is.  (I think, actually been a while since I have been there, too)

So, in any design its not a question of having some uphill holes, its a question of how to first route, and if necessary, how to grade to make the holes work.  Sliding up the contour is the preferred method to keep uphill climb to a minimum.  A blind, uphill par 3 such as Olympic is another good way to take up grade, when required.

[Jon McSweeny]

This topic has me asking myself which course I've played with the largest gap between 1st tee and 18th green elevation.  Not sure of the numbers, but the Babe course at Industry Hills comes to mind, with the (non-functioning) funicular between 18 green and 1 tee (clubhouse) at the the top of the hill.

Any other courses with similar 1 tee-18 green elevation gaps?

Oak Quarry- about one half hour east of Industry Hills- has a similar gap between its first tee and final green.

I think Oak Quarry is probably the "most downhill" course that I can think of. 2,4,5,6,9,10,12,14 and 18 are all clearly downhill and the approach at 8 is also. Conversely, only 1,7,11,13 and 17 are clearly uphill.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()