Why is it "Good" to route golf holes along the contour lines?

[Charlie Goerges]

I've heard it mentioned more than once that it was preferable to route golf holes along (parallel with) the contour lines vs. perpendicular to them. I'm curious why this might be. I'll also note than in studying Flynn's plan of Lehigh CC, virtually every landing area runs along the contour lines.

What's the deal here?

[Jeff_Brauer]

On uphill holes, it minimizes the grade/slope. 

[mike_malone]

 As someone who plays a Flynn course with elevation change on virtually every hole I experience challenge on every shot because of uneven lies .

[Charlie Goerges]

On uphill holes, it minimizes the grade/slope. 

What do you mean? Bear in mind that I'm a rank amateur here.

[Tom_Doak]

Charlie:

It depends a bit on how hilly the golf course is, but if you are routing up and down hills, the course is going to be a lot harder to walk, and you are either going to have a lot of uphill approach shots or some blind tee shots.

Nevertheless, the best routings cross the topo at all different angles.

[Charlie Goerges]

On uphill holes, it minimizes the grade/slope. 

Actually, I think I get it a bit better now that my brain is hitting on all 3 cylinders. I assume you mean it minimizes the effect the slope has on the ball and the walk.

[Kalen Braley]

Charlie,

The basic gist of it is...contour lines on a map show the "where" and "how steep" of elevation changes for a piece of land.

So if you play perpendicular to these lines, especially the ones that are close together you will ether be playing very uphill or very downhill.  Whereas if you play parallel to them you will be more or less staying at the same elevation and the slope of the grade will be going up and down on a side to side basis.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think Tom and Kalen have answered.  I compare long and narrow golf holes,  which need to be fairly flat (less than 10% grade in most cases, except for small areas) to railroad tracks and highways.  To level them out as much as possible, they follow valleys and "slide contours" to achieve their maximum grades. 

Railroads are like 2% max and highways maybe 10% max, similar to the max golfers might want to walk, so roads might be a closer example of how to fit linear things to topograhpy efficiently.

[Charlie Goerges]

Charlie:

It depends a bit on how hilly the golf course is, but if you are routing up and down hills, the course is going to be a lot harder to walk, and you are either going to have a lot of uphill approach shots or some blind tee shots.

Nevertheless, the best routings cross the topo at all different angles.

I agree that the best routings are likely as you say, but I'm curious about where even the general rule of thumb may have come from, and I'm curious what effect such a rule of thumb might have upon play, rather than walkability.


To all, the image below is what I had mentioned RE Flynn's Lehigh routing. I placed green arrows in places where the landing zone predominantly parallels the topo, red arrows where it's predominantly perpendicular, and the blues where it's about half way. I certainly took some liberties in my placements and interpretations of the landing areas, but if we accept them more or less, it certainly makes me wonder. Especially because it only applies to the landing areas; the walks between tee and landing area or landing area to green can differ greatly in this regard.



Again, my curiousity was piqued by what I noticed, combined with an admittedly vague and general rule of thumb, leaving me wondering what I might be missing, or why it might be done.

[Kalen Braley]

Charlie,

Nice post.  So if you look at how those holes are routed, nearly every fairway is placed on the flatter portions of the property.  This can be determined by how far apart the lines are.  And the areas of the map where the lines are very close together, aren't used...because its likely too steep to be practical for golf.

Hole #4 looks to be the one hole with the most amount of uphill/downhill as the lines in the fairway are the closet together of any other red arrow hole.

[Charlie Goerges]

Thanks for the responses Kalen and Jeff. Also, FYI, the contour interval on the map is 5 feet so hole number 4 plays over some very steep terrain but the worst of it is covered in the air (by the ball) as it's downhill to the river and then back up again.

Now perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree, because I realize why the holes are sticking to the gentler terrain. My thought (right or wrong) seized on the fact that really all but 4 holes have the landing areas parallel to the contour lines. It certainly could be coincidence, the only reason I felt it might not be is that I'd seen/heard/read the rule of thumb that the holes "should" be layed out parallel to the contour lines. Only problem is I never read any rationale for why that might be until today.

Ease of walk makes the most sense, but then with the plan above (anecdotal) ease of walk can't be all of it because there are some pretty tough walks out there. So rightly or wrongly I jumped to the conclusion there there might be another reason. Honestly I don't know what it might be. My only guesses center around controlling where the ball might end up (folly in my opinion) or something visual like blind shots or something.

Unfortunately the more I write about it, the stupider I come off, so perhaps I should "quiet" down. 

[V. Kmetz]

Charlie,

Another reason is natural drainage, if a preponderance of holes are routed perpendicular to the contour then there is going to be a lot of low spots and water collecting areas right in the midst of play.

Still, the thing is...every property is different, with different opportunities and challenges for the designing architect.

I really don't think there is a "Rule of Thumb" beyond theoretical.  You could have all the theory in the world, but if you're given a site, the theory might only come into play on a few of the choices.

cheers

vk

[Charlie Goerges]

Charlie,

Another reason is natural drainage, if a preponderance of holes are routed perpendicular to the contour then there is going to be a lot of low spots and water collecting areas right in the midst of play.

Still, the thing is...every property is different, with different opportunities and challenges for the designing architect.

I really don't think there is a "Rule of Thumb" beyond theoretical.  You could have all the theory in the world, but if you're given a site, the theory might only come into play on a few of the choices.

cheers

vk

Great! Thanks for taking all the mystery and fun out of it! I was hoping for "Rose Lines" or at least the Skull and Bones Society.

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Charlie,

You should topo St. Georges outside Toronto. Excellent and original uses of contour; sure gave me an entirely new perspective than the standard up / down vs side to side.

Helpfully,

[Brett_Morrissy]

Charlie, nice post.

The next thing that stood out for me, after the landing areas in the parallel - is that the majority of the approach shots are down terrain, so perhaps by routing the holes to the landing zone in a level type section, this then gives the architect the option to then easily go up, down or continue along the contour lines to the green site - and with that comes the versatility in the routing to provide interest - what do you think ? Is that feasible on the site you have shown us above?

[Charlie Goerges]

Mark, good idea it would definitely be worth doing. I'll have to see if Canadia has a program of mapping the country with decent-resolution topos.


Brett,

I hadn't thougth of that. Just in thinking back to photo tours I've seen of the place, the visibility from the landing areas to the greens always seems to be quite good and unimpeded. I'll have to see if I can track one down of the tours down and post a link. I'd really be punching above my weight if I had an intelligent answer though.

[Tim Nugent]

Charlie, think of it more as common sense than rule of thumb. Especially in the old days when it was  Common Cents.  Many have touched upon some of the reasons. Here's my take:
1) Drainage - cross slope gets the water off the fairway the fastest
2) playing slope -  most golfers have a harder time with the uphill/downhill lies. (fat and thin shots)
3) cost -the more level the fairway, the less earthwork is needed
4) vision - longer, level fairways provide better vision of greens/hazards
5) irrigation consistancy - less opportunityfor wet and dry regions/areas
6) golf ball tends to not be influenced by ground slope as much.  Big slopes in any direction will stop(uphill), propel(downhill) or kick (slidehill).  Too much slope >12% and the ball might not stop rolling.

with a 5' contour map, I would start by looking for no more than 3 contour lines across a fairway(10' cross slope) This corresponds +/- to Jeffs 10% rule.  Playing uphill you can get away with a bit more from a playing standpoint but it quickly gets tedious to walk. Plus, you almost guarantee that you will end up with a wide but shallow putting surface that requires false fronts and popped-up backslopes (expensive, non-puttable green surface) just to see the green or else you have to just make it blind.
A major reason why I think straight uphill holes are about the hardest to play because they start with a tough lie)uphill) where there is a tendancy to hit it a bit fat or thin and also a small target to accuractely gauge the true playing distance.  Many times players will underclub and missing just short could result in a ball backing up 10's of yards.

[Lester George]

Charlie,

Good question.  I am one who usually tries to route using a variety of ways to use the "frequency" (as I call it) of the terrain.  Routing along the contour (parallel) lines gives you the ooportunity to greate long, sweeping, side hill contours to create a "banking" affect with the holes.  Again, it is related to the severity of slope.  Up and over (perpendicular) can get monotonous if over used.  Just my opinion.

Lester

[Charlie Goerges]

More good answers, and I don't mean to give short shrift, but I had my biggest "DUH" moment ever when I read this:

1) Drainage - cross slope gets the water off the fairway the fastest

Okay maybe not biggest duh moment, but I sense that this is what I was looking for. All the other reasoning is good, but I've got to run and I wanted to respond to this. Makes perfect sense.

[RJ_Daley]

Tim and Lester's last posts are very instructive.  I also have used the term "frequency" of contour when speaking of routing holes across contoured terrain.  

I think that one of the aspects that have Charlie wondering if their is some 'rule of thumb' or if there is a 'common sense' or 'cents' aspect to this notion of use of contour in the parallel, diagonal or perpendicular approach is that if one only looks at tracts of land on the contour map (preferably 2ft ele for routing) one does not get the proper sense of scale and proportion at an on-the-ground eye level proportion.  One must have the contour map in hand while one traverses the actual land to 'see' the effect of the frequency or severity of the elevation changes, whether on diagonal, perp or parallel aspect to see the actual potential distances the ball flight will travel and what ground effect it will have in an LZ, etc.  Then, one needs to see where the best place to fit the next hole and so on down the route is best directed.  Sometimes, merely a contour map and exercise in routing that a 'design contest' might entail will distort or not give accurate reflection of what a hole would really be like, on the ground.  So, all the rules of thumb are not complete until the contour is matched to the actual process of routing and pounding the stakes in the ground for tees, TP LZs and green sites, where you match your conceptual notions to reality.

Also, when evaluating the contour frequency, it seems to me that one really must be very aware of the flow of the elevation grade of the low troughs in the whole property, observing the highest low point to the lowest low point, and how that can all work together to drain the rest of the elevation where they holes are routed.  

[Tim Nugent]

RJ, very true. The 2 should be used together. That's why I said it was a place I would start from  Even the experience topo reader (someone who sees a 2-d topo in 3-d in his minds eye, just like a musician hears a melody when seeing notes on a score) can be fooled, as can a someone on the ground.  Many a time I have routed something only to put boots on the ground and discovered it wasn't as severe as I had feared or "I thought you'ld be able to see that better from here".  Then again, a topo keeps your eyes honest when they tell you "it ain't so bad" and the topo says "oh yeah, it friggin 23%".  Also, it's easier to run quick sightline profiles on a topo to illustrate just how much earthwork would be needed to in a certain situation.

Topo also helps you get a better overall understanding of the natural flows within a property so you can begin to formulate the drainge patterns.

As they say in the business "Topos never lie".