[Tom_Doak]

I touched upon it in talking about "shot distortion," but I do think pure altitude is a factor working against a course being perceived as "great."

Aside from the fact that it's hard for the east-coast sea-level establishment to do the math for distance control on approach shots ... one has to make ridiculously long holes to create a "long" par 3 or par 4 for a good player.  

Perhaps we should make every golf course play at 2000 feet below sea level as a check against equipment ... but that's another topic altogether.

[Brian_Gracely]

How much does altitude really effect distance.  I thought I had heard it was like +10%....unless of course you get into the areas where you need to bring your own oxygen.  

Are you talking about building courses longer than 7700yds (7000+10%)?  

After all the hype at Whistling Straits this year with multiple 500yd Par4s, and the players not complaining about length (albeit they moved up the tees on several holes), you might not get skewered by the press and raters if you sneak in a few 500yd Par4s and 260yds Par3s.  Just remind people that you used to work for Pete Dye  

[Jason McNamara]

... one has to make ridiculously long holes to create a "long" par 3 or par 4 for a good player.  

Doesn't altitude exacerbate the distance problem?  Yes, the ball -can- fly farther, but only if sufficient backspin is put on the shot?  As such, the mid- to high-handicapper will not see much (if any) increase in distance on all those mishits.

So the hacker may think he'll hit it farther, but on all those slightly thin/fat shots, it won't be the case.  He's more likely to play the wrong tees, and more likely to miss (even) more greens.  That doesn't help pace of play...

(Yes, I majored in history.  Someone with a physics background is welcome to revise and extend my remarks.)

Perhaps we should make every golf course play at 2000 feet below sea level as a check against equipment ... but that's another topic altogether.

Funny you should mention that, though.  Today's Golf Digest website has a GolfWorld review of Furnace Creek in Death Valley.  It's below sea level (couple hundred feet, apparently), and according to one visitor plays at least a club longer.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1B424F29

Jason

[Scott_Park]

This was from an earlier post-

The altitude question is one that I think gets frequently talked about, but unless someone has a lot of experience golfing at altitude (> 6000 ft), it is hard to fully appreciate.

Disclaimer- although I live in NC, I grew up out west and wouldn't really call the Apps mountians.  Nevertheless, Wade Hampton and the Homestead are wonderful courses, but being only at three to four thousand feet, the effects of altitude are not that great.

Obviously the ball goes farther, but that also depends on the trajectory of the shot.  A high ball flight will benefit more from thinner than lower ball flight, even if those shots travel the same distance at sea level.

Furthermore, as Bill points out, the ball does not curve as much, which by itself detracts from the game.

In some ways, golf at altitude suffers from the same negative effects that technology has placed on the modern game.  Twenty years ago, it was more of a finesse game where one had to control trajectory and shape.  Today, it is blast it high and the ball goes straight- very similar to the nature of the game in the mountains.

SP

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, This attitude is precisely why you'll never work for Tom Fazio!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

You need only check your own book "Confidential Guide" to see how architects can combat against the altitude issue and still provide a winning layout.

Forest Highlands (Canyon) -- the Weiskopf / Morrish original design in Flagstaff, AZ (one of your top picks) does this quite well with a unique routing that includes several par-3's that are thrown in to keep the element of altitude in check. Starting with the 6th hole there is a par-3 for every other hole until you reach the 14th. All told -- there are six (6) par-3's -- many of them are quite different from the other.

Let me also mention that the design has a few solid "long" par-4's such as the 7th at 475+ yards and the 9th at 466 yards. Clearly, altitude plays a role but a unique design that understands how to face the situation can be accomplished.

P.S. Weiskopf did a good job in a solo effort with Lahotan in the Lake Tahoe area in CA.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

Where is it written in the golf course architect's manual that altitude is bad, that shot distortion is bad, etc?

It should be considered a challenge for you to tackle these type sites and perform the same type quality work that you consistently do.

It raises the bar, and allows you to explore exteme sites and bring to the golfing world more wonderful experiences.

I have heard no one complain about shot distortion on the 8th hole at Pebble, 2nd shot. That was the first time I experienced it, and never knew a name for it until Matt Ward coined the term "shot distortion"

As a matter of fact, shot distortion may become a selling point as time goes on.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Can't distorted distances caused by altitude be combatted by tight fairways in the landing areas, bunkering that will cause a talented player to make a real choice of shot angle and club selection to creat risk/reward situations that have real meaning?

In this case the distance becomes less od a factor and the mind the most important club in the bag.

[RJ_Daley]

Philip, I'm not sure that narrowing the LZs that trend to be further from the tee is the solution.  What does that force the player to do?  Of course it demands accuracy to a narrowly defined spot, or target area, but then it really narrows the options of approach angles if you hit your smaller/narrower LZ; does it not?  Or, it takes the driver out of the players hands, to offer a wider short LZ and probable lay-up strategy due to a much longer second shot.  

Tom Doak, what is the Ballyneal altitude?  Do you move turning points to 270 or even 280 above 4500-5000ft.

Frankly, I was a little shocked that the other project I had a chance to see the designers scoping out, were shooting to turning points of 270, at about 3800ft altitude.  But, hey with the equipment alone, even at modest altitudes, the increased distances may demand the, up from the old traditional 240 yard turning point rules of thumb.

[Phil_the_Author]

RJ,

When I suggest narrowing in landing zones, I am not recommending U.S. Open narrowing, rather I sm talking about risk/reward use of narrowing where the player has a choice to make. For example, gradual narrowing to the preferred landing area and then a gradual widening. This will give pause to the better player to consider using driver for the greater reward by a long carry against a more conservative tee shot that will provide him with a better lie but longer second shot. It may also bring a tougher angle of approach into the green where the longer drive will provide a reward of better angle to green.

I believe that judicious narrowing is an art form that can enhance the challenge of a course. It may even be accomplished through creative fairway design and designed mowing pattern to create a wandering fairway that forces decisions of placement as it moves on its way forward in a curvilinear design rather than straight.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Wide Phil, WIDE!

(More options=less out-of-bounds=more fun)

[Doug Siebert]

Rather than narrowing the fairway by growing in the rough or pinching it in with the obligatory bunkers, I'd like to see more places use slope and contour for this purpose.  i.e., maybe the fairway is 35 yards wide, but at 280 there is some very bumpy ground on the right 2/3 of the fairway making it very difficult to get a good level lie.  But you can still hit driver there if you think you can hit left of that or think the shorter shot is worth the risk of a goofy lie.

[A_Clay_Man]

Having moved from sea level to a mile high, I can testify to having used the same clubs for the same distances for most of the shots I make.

There's an inherent restriction to wide golf at altitude. Most high altitude regions suffer from a lack of bankable water sources. Combine that with the cost of adequate irrigation systems and you have narrowness.

Using Black Mesa as an example, the width was created through the use of angles. As for the lack of ball curve, I have not seen my slice or pull hooks suffer from a lack of errantness, but I am special.

[BCrosby]

The rule I've always heard for altitude v. distance is that your ball goes an extra 2% for every 1000 feet of altitude. At 5000 feet you get roughly 10% extra distance.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

No, it's not that simple.  The big bashers seem to get a lot more % extra when they flush one, than the average player who mishits a lot of shots.

RJ:  Ballyneal is at 3700 feet, Apache Stronghold was 3200.  No, I don't change the turning point distance when we are at altitude, I just keep in mind that more golfers may reach or even blow it past the post.  But we use 800 feet [267 yards] as a standard at sea level, and have since I worked for Pete Dye in 1981 ... Nicklaus uses 850 feet.  240-yard drives are a thing of the past.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

Having moved from sea level to a mile high, I can testify to having used the same clubs for the same distances for most of the shots I make.

Then your game is deteriorating and you don't realize it  [/color]

[RJ_Daley]

240-yard drives are a thing of the past.

Tom, really?  I hadn't noticed that...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()