News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JBovay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Hi all, I'm very happy to join this discussion group and grateful for all that I have learned by following it for about the past year.

I have done a preliminary routing for a golf course on a piece of land I know well. (This is strictly an armchair project for now.) More than half the site is densely forested, and the site features elevation changes that are quite extreme for a golf course.

From the first green to the highest point in the second fairway [point A] is about 250 yards as the crow flies, but with a 100-foot climb. From there to the green is a significant descent, playing over a ravine diagonally. Quite thrilling.

Ideally, I would place the second tee near the first green, positioned so that good players could reach point A--but not go too much further--with a good drive. If that were infeasible, I would probably reroute the first four holes so that the tee for the ravine hole were in a completely different position.

With this in mind, I have a few questions.

What kind of change in elevation is feasible, given that the terrain is extreme and the hole should remain fair?

Specifically, how high should an architect expect good players to hit their driver? What kind of elevation changes are reasonable 50, 100, 150 yards from the tee? If you were designing this kind of hole to challenge players who ordinarily carry the ball 250 yards on flat ground, what elevation change/yardage combination would you use as a rule of thumb to estimate their uphill carry distance?

Related, and more general: how do architects handle routings on densely forested courses, where shots cannot be tested before trees are cleared? I am especially thinking about anticipating how far balls might run out after landing.

Lastly, what grade is acceptable for a scruffy fairway, so that balls at rest will stay at rest and drives won't roll backward after losing momentum?

Thanks very much.
JB

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Feasible elevation change and grade, routing on densely forested land
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2014, 04:14:26 AM »
Hi JB - With a scaled rule and detailed topo map you don't need to hit shots and the detailed top is the key;

There are no rules. Steep climbs are big minus in the grand scheme. Good routing to mitigate 'bad walks' will make a course better and vice versa, sometimes there a 9 great holes and 9 bad ones. On Hilly land its quite hard not to have a few not so good one. A key factor will be the intention to walk or ride. That in itself may stop or reduce its greatness.

Much depends on configuration but a reasonable property walkable course could have say 30 metres of contour change (so 100 feet).

I would say a 100 metre contour change and as a walker you are reducing your cliental.

Height of cut can dramatically influence ball roll on fairways as can grass type, soil firmness. Fairways that are steep are better to fall in a direction of play or anti-play rather than a cant.

You can play quite steeply uphill over a short period, and downhill holes can be blind are just some pointers.

I would suggest you buy some books Routing the course by Forest Richardson is a good one.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Feasible elevation change and grade, routing on densely forested land
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2014, 07:19:16 AM »
JB:

That sounds like a pretty steep site.

Based on my reviews of a bunch of great courses, you would be best to avoid a consistent slope of more than 10% in a fairway, even a scruffy fairway.  That's the side-slope on the 5th hole at Merion, where nowadays most drives tend to roll out to the edge of the rough.  Most architects use a rule of thumb quite a bit less than that [I've heard 8% and 6% and even 4% cited as maximums].

I've also found that most great courses stick within a certain range of elevation change on a given hole.  For most, a 20-foot climb for each shot is the general limit if you want the course to be walkable and to be able to see where you're going.  There are, of course, exceptions:  some of Augusta's two-shotters work uphill 60 feet, and Pasatiempo has three holes that run 90 feet uphill [over the course of 400 yards or 1200 feet -- that is still less than 10% overall].

I don't know what is the biggest climb I've seen on a tee shot -- perhaps at Gullane #2.  It's certainly less than 100 feet.  Going uphill 100 feet in 750 feet on a tee shot is, as you say, extreme, and probably isn't going to work very well at all. 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Feasible elevation change and grade, routing on densely forested land
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2014, 07:47:11 AM »
JB,

Welcome to the discussions.

First, it seems as if the second is an up and over type hole.  While good players might negotiate it ok, have you considered the rest of the players and whether they will be able to experience the second shot thrills, or whether they will be shooting blind to open sky over that hill?  I can't tell from your description.  Second, in any event, I have always felt that the key to good routing is to put it away for a week or two, and come back to it, rather than getting stuck on one idea.  Time away always clarifies things for me, and I can't count the times when something that seemed like a must have on go around number 1 seemed trivial later on.

Architects use topo maps to draws cross sections along the centerline to get an idea of vision.  With topo in hand, you should try the same on any hole you route, just to check.

To answer your questions -

TD is right on with the cross slopes, 10% or less on scruffy fw (like bluegrass) and maybe half that for consistent stretches on bent or other tighter fairways.  Being uphill in the landing zone gives more leeway, as the uphill slope tends to kill the roll.  Downhill and cross slope of 10% means most balls pull and Elvis, and leave the building....or fairway.

For most players, the tee shot tops out at 90-100 feet.  For the 0.0001% of golfers who hit it like a tour pro, that can be as high as 130 feet.  The flight is a parabola and the high point occurs about 2/3 of the total flight distance, or at about 200 for a 300 yard carry, 181 for 275, etc.  There are online flight pattern calculators which are fun to play with.  Grandma Gertie might get the ball half as high, or less.

As to the max uphill, there are two considerations - one if you want to see the green from the LZ, then it should be a maximum of 2% uphill, because that is about how much the green will usually tip from front to back.  If vision isn't desired or possible, the 10% rule should apply.  I'm not sure of exact figures, but you also need to consider whether the fairway mowers can pull up and down those long hills.  A cross section will help determine what golfers would see on the tee shot, too.  Seeing uphill slopes from the tee usually isn't a factor, but sometimes you would be surprised to know just what golfers won't see on that steeply downhill second shot over the ravine.  Like Pebble Beach 8, and so many other places, it often turns out that the spectacular view can ONLY be seen from the very edge of the cliff.

Lastly, as on most steep sites, you need to consider what earthmoving can do to correct a situation that has some good features, but the details don't work.  I know the mantra here is to move no earth, but I'm not familiar with too many mountain courses that don't level off hills and fill some valleys (enviro regulations permitting) to get a golf hole to playable condition.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Feasible elevation change and grade, routing on densely forested land
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2014, 10:24:14 AM »
JB
Welcome and have fun, don't get caught up in too many details until construction budgeting starts.
Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Brent Hutto

Re: Feasible elevation change and grade, routing on densely forested land
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2014, 10:48:26 AM »
Here's a paragraph from a little write-up I did on Pitlochry Golf Club after visiting there in 2008.

Quote
The first five holes are uphill, uphill, uphill, crosshill (Par 3) and uphill respectively. I ask the club Captain which wind direction made the course play toughest and he said it was from the North because the first five are uphill and upwind. That is the prevailing direction and on the two days I played it was primarily from the Northwest. I tend to agree with his assessment. For a short course those first five holes played like five miles on 12-13C temps and 10-15mph breezes (with stronger gusts during my first round). I need to find a small-interval topo map but I'd say the overall climb from clubhouse to fifth green is probably 300 feet or a bit more. Then just to add insult to injury there's an additional set of steps leading up 20 feet or so to the back tees on the sixth before you're finally allowed to start downhill (only to return uphill several more times later in the round).

JBovay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Feasible elevation change and grade, routing on densely forested land
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2014, 10:56:23 AM »
Thanks very much for the replies so far, guys. These are some great guidelines and considerations, and for them I'm glad I've joined the site.

I'll check out Forrest Richardson's book, develop some cross-sections, and surely tweak the routing so that the second shot over the ravine can be accessed by more players. (Jeff Brauer, you'd need to within 15 or 20 yards behind my point A to see the green.)

There are not many golf courses with this amount of elevation change, as you've noted. I fully agree that the 100-foot climb with a single shot is infeasible.

JB