European Tour 3-hole Design Challenge

[Ben Stephens]

Adrian,


Matt's entry was very similar to Dylan's. Could you talk us through the distinctions between the two and why you prefer Dylan's routing.

Ben


I have closely looked at both entries


Yes I agree Matt's entry was generally similar to Dylan's (both strong) however the position of the green as well as the bunkers at the 16 on Dylans entry is more interesting than Matts. Dylan's entry allows for the shorter hitter to have two tee shot options.


Both entries had similar tee positions Matt's 17th green is semi blind from the tee as it falls down and left unless the green is slightly raised however you still wouldn't see the bunkers on the left whereas Dylan's is slightly further to the right and higher which is more visible from the tee


Hole 18 Dylans fairway fits better with the downslope which allows for the ball to kick whereas Matt used a flatter part for the landing area. Both have pretty strong green location, shape and design however for me Dylans proposal for a 3 tier green is more interesting and possibly more challenging.


I can see where Adrian is coming from and from experience he is one of the best readers of contour drawings that I know.


Cheers
Ben

[Matt_Cohn]

Interesting and thanks for the comments. A few thoughts and a couple questions for whoever:


I never thought of my 17th as potentially blind in any way. I’m not sure why it would be as long as a decent amount of care was taken in tee construction and grading. Doesn’t Dylan’s actually play over more flattish ground prior the downhill, making it more likely to be blind?


Fair point about my right bunker on 16. That should have been different. I was thinking too much about only my back tee on 17. Shoot, my 16th hole probably doesn’t need any bunkers at all.


I tried to match my style, fairway width, etc. to the other holes shown on the plan. It doesn’t seem like Dylan did. That surprised me in terms of being a winning entry.


It looks like Dylan’s back tee site on 18 has 4.5 meters/15 feet of elevation change from back to front. Someone described that tee location as clever, I think, but isn’t that a pretty big problem in terms of trying to build it?

[Ben Stephens]

Interesting and thanks for the comments. A few thoughts and a couple questions for whoever:


I never thought of my 17th as potentially blind in any way. I’m not sure why it would be as long as a decent amount of care was taken in tee construction and grading. Doesn’t Dylan’s actually play over more flattish ground prior the downhill, making it more likely to be blind?

Fair point about my right bunker on 16. That should have been different. I was thinking too much about only my back tee on 17. Shoot, my 16th hole probably doesn’t need any bunkers at all.


I tried to match my style, fairway width, etc. to the other holes shown on the plan. It doesn’t seem like Dylan did. That surprised me in terms of being a winning entry.


It looks like Dylan’s back tee site on 18 has 4.5 meters/15 feet of elevation change from back to front. Someone described that tee location as clever, I think, but isn’t that a pretty big problem in terms of trying to build it?

Matt,



Try building a 3D CAD model or draw a section you will then see why your 17th green is semi blind from the back tee I have assessed this carefully and confirm it is. The tee in front of the back tee will have to drop down quite a bit taking a chunk out of the side slope to make the whole green and bunkers on the left visible. Have a closer look and you can see why.

I can see that the back tee would have to be two tiered then the tee in front of it will have to be two tiered the the 3rd tee at an angle will have to be two tiered and the front tee will have to be lower than the third tee - lots of shaping work for the teeing areas

Without grading the tee area or minimal grading - Dylans 17th green is clearly more visible as it is on higher ground than yours by 2-3 metres. Your green falls more towards the left which makes the left semi blind as well as the front portion unless is is built up massively like Lawsonia however the bunkers fall much further down on the left side which makes it even more blind. 

Your 18th green would be 3 metres from one side to the other unless it is raised at the front right and the left lowered however Dylans 3 tier green is workable because it is more likely to be set into an shaped amphitheatre like the 18th green at the Oxfordshire so its easy to drop the back by 1 to 1.5m and raise the front slightly by the same and it is a long green which helps.

Dylan's 18th tees is workable because the slope on that side is not too steep. It is easier to build long tees on the side of the slope rather than a slope going up in front of you. For an 11 year old to locate it in this position is quite clever to be fair.

Regarding fairway shaping to me yours and Dylans are similar to the other fairways however there might be slightly more curves on Dylan's plans - why should the judging panel decide this on the basis of fairway shapes as one of the main key points?



Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

I have dug up my 3D model of the site which I am trying to learn a new software - I have put up bigger images so that it is more visible and right click and save so that you can see the whole image




Matt Cohn view from 17th back tee towards green







Dylan Emms view from 17th back tee towards green

[Ally Mcintosh]

Well done to Dylan - remarkably mature for an 11 year old.


Of course there’s things to nit-pick but the general scheme of both Dylan’s and Matt’s was not too far away from what I would have done.


One major difference is that I would not have forced a Par-5 at the 16th. There’s less earthwork and a more interesting hole if you place the green above (to the right) of the first cluster of two trees, on an angle up on the 5m high ridge line. Nice downhill tee shot followed by uphill approach with best angle from the inside of the dogleg. 430 yards. Gives better separation from the hole to the left as well.

[Peter Flory]

Dylan Emms wins 3 hole design competition

On 16, wouldn't the best play (if you can't do the Tiger line) be to hit left into the neighboring fairway?  Seems like it would shorten the hole quite a bit and would provide a better angle.  It appears as though it may even be slightly more direct than the Tiger route.

[Peter Flory]

The whole shortcut topic is an interesting one to me.  It is very socially unacceptable to take shortcuts I've found through personal experience.  It's sort of an insult to the club. 

Here are 2 of the most obvious ones that tempt me every time I play Butterfield CC:


On the par four in the upper left, the traditional line forces you to hit 3W and hit a very difficult landing spot.  That route is 422 yards with an abnormally long approach due to the layup off the tee.  If you take the alternate route, it is 398 and you can hit driver off the tee.  The tee shot is a much safer and doesn't require any shaping. 

On the par five in the middle, the traditional route is incredibly narrow and slopey.  It's almost impossible to actually hit the fairway and it makes the hole 544.  If you hit to the right, it is very easy to hit the fairway and it shortens the hole to 494. Usually you end up getting a nice uphill lie and usually have a 5 to 7 iron in for the 2nd shot. 

As a guest, I have only used these routes when there weren't other players around, but in a tournament, I wouldn't hesitate take advantage of them. 


I would think that most architects actively avoid situations like this. 

[Matt_Cohn]

I have dug up my 3D model of the site which I am trying to learn a new software - I have put up bigger images so that it is more visible and right click and save so that you can see the whole image

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think you made the mistake of creating a view from ground level. A golfer's eyes are not at ground level, because fortunately our eyes are in our heads and not on our feet. I don't have fancy software, but I created these profiles of my 17th hole from the back and middle tees assuming a golfer's eyes are 5 feet above ground level. It's clear that my entire green is visible from both teeing grounds and not even slightly blind.


Back tees:



Front tees:

[Mark Pearce]

Peter,


An interesting question.  On Gil Hanse's Craighead course at Crail, there are good players who will endeavour to be in one of the first groups out, hoping to be able to go back down the 14th fairway when playing the par 5 15th.  Once the course gets busy, that's felt to be unacceptable but, if you get out early and get ahead of the course, driving back down the 14th is shorter and less blind.  Not a route I have ever taken, as it requires a well struck second shot carrying a good distance of crap but advantageous for better players.

[Ben Stephens]

I have dug up my 3D model of the site which I am trying to learn a new software - I have put up bigger images so that it is more visible and right click and save so that you can see the whole image

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think you made the mistake of creating a view from ground level. A golfer's eyes are not at ground level, because fortunately our eyes are in our heads and not on our feet. I don't have fancy software, but I created these profiles of my 17th hole from the back and middle tees assuming a golfer's eyes are 5 feet above ground level. It's clear that my entire green is visible from both teeing grounds and not even slightly blind.


Back tees:



Front tees:

Matt


I am using a CAD software that allows you to draw contour meshes quite accurately so I don't think I have made a mistake. My viewpoints is 2 metres above the ground Nick Faldo height for both yours and Dylan's proposals.


You haven't drawn the section to scale properly If the y axis was in metres the distance from your tee to green on your section is 15m not 150m by extending the x axis by x 10 you will probably see the lines being affected   


Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Peter,


An interesting question.  On Gil Hanse's Craighead course at Crail, there are good players who will endeavour to be in one of the first groups out, hoping to be able to go back down the 14th fairway when playing the par 5 15th.  Once the course gets busy, that's felt to be unacceptable but, if you get out early and get ahead of the course, driving back down the 14th is shorter and less blind.  Not a route I have ever taken, as it requires a well struck second shot carrying a good distance of crap but advantageous for better players.

Mark,


I did something similar on the 17th at Castleknock, Dublin, Ireland which I played to the 8th over the trees which gave me 100 yards less distance to the green and there are some similar holes at Ramside Hall near you.


Cheers
Ben

[Matt_Cohn]

You haven't drawn the section to scale properly If the y axis was in metres the distance from your tee to green on your section is 15m not 150m by extending the x axis by x 10 you will probably see the lines being affected   

My drawings are scaled horizontally and vertically, and they're stretched vertically for easier viewing. Scaling has no effect whether the sight lines intersect ground between tee and green.

Incidentally, Dylan's hole would be blind from the back tee as I suspected. You'd have to be 14 feet tall (a calculation, not a joke) to see the front of his green from the dot drawn on his back tee. At least a normal person could see the back of his green, since it's like 13 feet higher than the front.

[Ben Stephens]

You haven't drawn the section to scale properly If the y axis was in metres the distance from your tee to green on your section is 15m not 150m by extending the x axis by x 10 you will probably see the lines being affected   

My drawings are scaled horizontally and vertically, and they're stretched vertically for easier viewing. Scaling has no effect whether the sight lines intersect ground between tee and green.

Incidentally, Dylan's hole would be blind from the back tee as I suspected. You'd have to be 14 feet tall (a calculation, not a joke) to see the front of his green from the dot drawn on his back tee. At least a normal person could see the back of his green, since it's like 13 feet higher than the front.

Matt


It’s becoming pointless talking to you now let’s agree to disagree and smell the flowers


Ben

[Matt_Cohn]

You’re certainly free not to reply! My par 3 ain’t blind though.

[Ben Stephens]

You’re certainly free not to reply! My par 3 ain’t blind though.

Matt,


OK can you elaborate if you have you done the following?


- Designed and built a golf course?
- Done proper construction sections with viewports/sightlines for buildings and golf courses?
- Worked on viewing angles/sightlines for stadium and theatre designs

I afraid from my experience your sections is not accurately drawn properly (my viewing angles prove this) and can you draw up a 3D BIM CAD model of the whole site and accurate CAD sections to support your proposal?


My final evaluation is that your hole is semi-blind - could you guarantee your client this? are you willing to take that risk? if so better to get your PII limit higher then just in case 


Ben


For all to see here is an image of the model I made. For information from the volume from the Datum level on the model to the surface is 400,000 public metres which my software tells me so.

[Mark Pearce]

Peter,


An interesting question.  On Gil Hanse's Craighead course at Crail, there are good players who will endeavour to be in one of the first groups out, hoping to be able to go back down the 14th fairway when playing the par 5 15th.  Once the course gets busy, that's felt to be unacceptable but, if you get out early and get ahead of the course, driving back down the 14th is shorter and less blind.  Not a route I have ever taken, as it requires a well struck second shot carrying a good distance of crap but advantageous for better players.

Mark,


I did something similar on the 17th at Castleknock, Dublin, Ireland which I played to the 8th over the trees which gave me 100 yards less distance to the green and there are some similar holes at Ramside Hall near you.


Cheers
Ben

Isn't there internal OOB on those holes at Ramside, though?

[Ben Stephens]

Peter,


An interesting question.  On Gil Hanse's Craighead course at Crail, there are good players who will endeavour to be in one of the first groups out, hoping to be able to go back down the 14th fairway when playing the par 5 15th.  Once the course gets busy, that's felt to be unacceptable but, if you get out early and get ahead of the course, driving back down the 14th is shorter and less blind.  Not a route I have ever taken, as it requires a well struck second shot carrying a good distance of crap but advantageous for better players.

Mark,


I did something similar on the 17th at Castleknock, Dublin, Ireland which I played to the 8th over the trees which gave me 100 yards less distance to the green and there are some similar holes at Ramside Hall near you.


Cheers
Ben

Isn't there internal OOB on those holes at Ramside, though?

Bang on Mark I was waiting for that - it is OOB but its rather awkward isn't it and I for one went OOB on one of those holes 


From the bigger picture - I would avoid designing holes like this as it would make me rather nervous from a legal and PII standpoint it has come to light recently that insurers are factoring design/material risk more these days.

[Ben Stephens]

Matt,


Here is a quick section I have cut through my 3D model and I have based on the positions of your tee and green which were overlayed to my CAD drawing and drawn to scale as per your sketch proposal. The section is cut through the centreline of both the back tee and green





The red dash line shows from 2m high or slightly higher sightline because the ground where the rear of your tee falls away so i increased it to a flat level. It clearly shows that the view to the front is blocked.


The dark purple sightline shows that from that tee position you only see the rear 1/3 of the green.


The dark green sightline is the angle that gives you a clear view of the front edge of the green towards back to the tee it shows that you need a min 3m increase in tee level height from the back tee.


The ideal view is at least 20m in front of the green needs to be visible so that most players can see their ball land this is indicated by a light purple line.


To make this work will require serious shaping for the tees to enable the player to see the whole green as well as 20m in front of the green OR raise the green as well as the fairway to the front of the green.


To conclude this I confirm based on the current contours and where you have positioned your back tee and green it is semi blind. To counteract that will require quite a bit of shaping


Hope this is where you can now see where I am coming from.


Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Smaller version of Matt Cohn's hole section

[Mark Pearce]

Bang on Mark I was waiting for that - it is OOB but its rather awkward isn't it and I for one went OOB on one of those holes 

I think you're being kind.  Ramside Hall is dreadful and the use of internal OOB on more than one hole is just one of the reasons. 

[Matt_Cohn]

Smaller version of Matt Cohn's hole section

That is cool software! However, your diagram shows the steepest part of the downslope occurring between ~80 to ~105 meters from the measuring point indicated on my back tee. That's very different than what I get, by about 25 meters. You can see on my diagram that by the ~80 meter point, the steepest part of the downslope should be finished, while on your diagram it hasn't yet started.

[Marty Bonnar]

Matt,
Did you plot 5ft contours on your sections using 2 grid squares? If you did, then your 5ft viewing height uses 3 grid squares, making it 7.5 feet rather than 5.
Cheers,
F.
PS its even worse if you’ve plotted those contours as 5m. Then your eye height becomes 7.5m!

[Neil White]

With his permission please see David Minogue's entry into the competition.


Soft par-5, with risk/reward option off the tee, tough par-3 and a potentially drivable par-4 finisher.



David is currently in France working on the new Gil Hanse layout at Les Bordes.

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt,
Did you plot 5ft contours on your sections using 2 grid squares? If you did, then your 5ft viewing height uses 3 grid squares, making it 7.5 feet rather than 5.
Cheers,
F.
PS its even worse if you’ve plotted those contours as 5m. Then your eye height becomes 7.5m!

Each box is 0.5 meters vertically. I used 1.5 meters for viewing height, which is very slightly less than 5 feet.

[Ben Stephens]

Smaller version of Matt Cohn's hole section

That is cool software! However, your diagram shows the steepest part of the downslope occurring between ~80 to ~105 meters from the measuring point indicated on my back tee. That's very different than what I get, by about 25 meters. You can see on my diagram that by the ~80 meter point, the steepest part of the downslope should be finished, while on your diagram it hasn't yet started.

Matt,


The section drawn is as accurate as you can get I took your plan into pdf and scaled it up to and overlayed on the EGD plan which was scaled up to 1:1 - I saw the issue of your hole being semi blind before I cut the section across the site. As Robin said earlier in this thread - it about understanding the contours.


I have been fortunate to learn from both Robin and Adrian Stiff in the past when it comes to contours they are some of the best in the business. Marty is a landscape architect god knows how many landscape sections he has produced in his whole career prob a lot more than me.


Cheers
Ben