Why aren't more of these built?

« **on:** October 23, 2006, 03:47:35 PM »

EDIT: topic name edited and latest post re-asking the question about why so few uphill holes.

The tee shot is uphill to a wide fairway (wider than appears in the photo). Unfortunately as a high handicapper I did not take my picture from the back tee, so things may look a little closer than one would expect.

The approach is uphill along a narrowing fairway to a skyline green.

Personally, I think it is a fine and interesting golf hole. However, my recent experience seems to indicate that not enough of these holes are being created. Instead, modern designers seem to often be designing for cart ballers and allow the golf cart to take you up the hill to the tee so that you are playing downhill all the time. As a golfer, I prefer to play a golf hole uphill to reach the elevation of the next tee!!!! Some modern design makes me appreciate my home club more, because as a real estate poor club the holes had to be routed uphill to reach the next teeing area or the clubhouse. There is an equal amount of up and down, which is as I believe it should be.

Perhaps we are not in the new golden age of golf course design, but are in the first golden age of cart baller course design.

« **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2006, 03:56:09 PM »

Garland,

From the photo alone , what I see is appealing. If it is a short hole I like it even more. As a short four I think a short approach to an uphill, blind green is appropriate ; as a 5 the go-for-it crowd would have that blind challenge for their heroic shot.

The scrub off the tee creates just a little blindness and seems fairly easy to carry; another nice feature I like.

« **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:00:57 PM »

Looks like a hole for left-handed Iron Man contestants with free balls. Although it may be better than the first at Elie.

« **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:04:22 PM »

Quote from: Gary Slatter on October 23, 2006, 04:00:57 PM

Looks like a hole for left-handed Iron Man contestants with free balls. Although it may be better than the first at Elie.

Gary,

Are you self identifying yourself as a cartballer?

« **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:11:06 PM »

If there are no blind bunkers by the green, then I like the "saddle" in which the green sits. That looks like fun for an uphill , blind shot.

« **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:13:38 PM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on October 23, 2006, 04:05:08 PM

Garland

The hole looks good to me. Now I spose you will reveal a hidden bunker right in front of the green! The only changes I would make are cut the trees down around the green and cut the green trees down in front of the tee. I really like the grey/purple(?) plants in front of the tee. What is it?

Ciao

I must have zoomed the camera some, because the trees in front of the tee appear taller than I remember them. They certainly did not provide any obstacle of significance. Besides, it is desert coutry. They may grow a foot taller in then next 100 years or so. As for the trees fronting the green, I began my career here singing the praises of Doak's tree gate on Black Forest #10. So keep your chainsaw away from those trees!

I don't recall any trap fronting the green.

« **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:15:50 PM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on October 23, 2006, 04:05:08 PM

...
I really like the grey/purple(?) plants in front of the tee. What is it?
...

I don't know. Perhaps Forrest can educate us on that.

« **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:17:51 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on October 23, 2006, 03:47:35 PM

Garland,

I can't tell you what's wrong with the hole, but, based on the photos presented, my initial thoughts are as follows.

I like visual signals and would imagine that they existed, unobstructed when the golf course first opened.

From the tee, I would trim the undergrowth to provide an unobstructed view.

I would remove the trees behind the green, allowing a true or near perfect skyline green to bask in the sun.

« **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:18:38 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on October 23, 2006, 04:04:22 PM

Quote from: Gary Slatter on October 23, 2006, 04:00:57 PM
Looks like a hole for left-handed Iron Man contestants with free balls. Although it may be better than the first at Elie.
Sorry I can't figure out how to respond, etc. Not a cartballer by choice, love walking 36 a day. Just that hill in the picture looked a bit tough for most players.
Gary,

Are you self identifying yourself as a cartballer?

« **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:20:31 PM »

It appears that the somewhat taller trees near the tee on the left hide the landing area view of the preferred angle and the lower ones give one a view of the less favorable side. If that is so, then there is another appealing aspect.

« **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:22:39 PM »

I agree with Patrick.

Please tell us there isn't a bunker in front of the green.

Please?

« **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:28:30 PM »

Patrick,

Did you only read the subject, but not read the rest of the post? I was really posting about my displeasure at having to walk up hills to tees.

The trees are in front of the green. Hit through the center of the trees and you should end up near the center of the green.

Mike,

I believe the preferred angle would be determined by the pin position. As it was left on this day, the right side of the fairway would give the preferred angle.

Gary,

The hill is not that bad! Not nearly as bad as some of the hills I walked up on my trip to access teeing areas.

Dan,

No bunker.

« **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:28:58 PM »

Strong utilized the top of a ridge for this greensite on his 3rd, today's 4th hole:

« **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:29:06 PM »

I also like it. I would agree that removal of at least one of the trees by the green, most likely the one on the left, is best to help with a more true skyline effect. I don't think the trees and scrub in front of the tee hurt the hole, and may help it.

What hole # is it on the loop?

« **Reply #14 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:31:35 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on October 23, 2006, 04:28:30 PM

The trees are in front of the green. Hit through the center of the trees and you should end up near the center of the green.

Patrick said (and I, somewhat surprisingly, agreed) that the trees BEHIND the green should go. We do see at least the tops of a couple of trees behind the green, do we not?

« **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:46:45 PM »

The only possible thing I can see wrong with that hole is it looks like I'd get all my clothes torn to shit everytime I tried to get from the tee to my excellent drive.

Not just that but if my cigarette got ripped out of my hand when I'm trying to fight for my life and wardrobe in that jungle the damn hole might go up in flames and burn down.

« **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:49:12 PM »

Garland,

Regardless of the lack of the trees off the tee coming into play, they unfortunately come into view in a manner that can only detract.

The hole would surely be improved if they were gone, no?

« **Reply #17 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:54:02 PM »

Quote from: RJ_Daley on October 23, 2006, 04:29:06 PM

...
What hole # is it on the loop?

16

« **Reply #18 on:** October 23, 2006, 05:00:01 PM »

Quote from: Dan Kelly on October 23, 2006, 04:31:35 PM

Quote from: Garland Bayley on October 23, 2006, 04:28:30 PM
The trees are in front of the green. Hit through the center of the trees and you should end up near the center of the green.

Patrick said (and I, somewhat surprisingly, agreed) that the trees BEHIND the green should go. We do see at least the tops of a couple of trees behind the green, do we not?

As I recall, there are no trees behind the green that are anywhere near being in play. What I believe you are seeing is the tops of tall trees at the bottom of the hill that have gotten enough moisture to grow tall (perhaps Ponderosa pine). Since the hole was on the edge of the course, those trees may even be on another property. In playing the hole, I did not even notice them, but then the camera often picks up things we don't see in person.

« **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2006, 05:04:39 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on October 23, 2006, 04:46:45 PM

The only possible thing I can see wrong with that hole is it looks like I'd get all my clothes torn to shit everytime I tried to get from the tee to my excellent drive.

Not just that but if my cigarette got ripped out of my hand when I'm trying to fight for my life and wardrobe in that jungle the damn hole might go up in flames and burn down.

Tom,

You have hit exactly on the one thing where I think my vision of the hole would supercede the architects (Forrest Richardson). As a walker, I hate having to walk the round about cart path way to get to my ball. I certainly would prefer having a generous path cleared for walking to the fairway. Add walking bridges if necessary. It is after all golf, not cart ball!

« **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:34:55 PM »

It's too green.

« **Reply #21 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:44:13 PM »

Quote from: Mark Ferguson on October 23, 2006, 07:34:55 PM

It's too green.

Au Contraire!

The fairways of this course were the firmest of my recent travels. Even though they had been getting inordinate amounts of rain for the region. The rain may have greened up the fairways, but the ball she was a bouncing. This was the exact opposite of the last course I played on my trip, Eagle Point in Oregon. The peon who stole people's money to play the place justified the cost with a quote to the effect that the course condition was the best it had ever been. It was a swamp! My home course near the foot hills of the Cascade Mts. plays firmer in the rainiest weather than Eagle Point plays in an extended dry spell.

« **Reply #22 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:52:11 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on October 23, 2006, 03:47:35 PM

The tee shot is uphill to a wide fairway (wider than appears in the photo). Unfortunately as a high handicapper I did not take my picture from the back tee, so things may look a little closer than one would expect.

Separated at birth?

http://www.lindrickgolfclub.co.uk/images/hole_13.jpg

« **Reply #23 on:** October 24, 2006, 11:12:44 AM »

James,

Your "twin" does not have nearly as steep an uphill cant as the one I posted. Perhaps it did not get as much testosterone at birth.

All,

I have changed the subject of the thread hoping to get more people to address the real question I was asking. On hilly land, why aren't there 9 holes playing uphill and 9 holes playing downhill (or some other equitable distribution). The hilly courses I played on my trip had steep climbs to tees, and very few uphill holes that would get you into position for the next hole playing downhill. Unfortunately, I had to cut out Apache Stronghold and Talking Stick North from my itinerary, so I had no chance to see what Doak and C&C had done in desert terrain.

« **Reply #24 on:** October 24, 2006, 12:06:08 PM »

I think it looks a good hole. I agree with comments others have made regarding the fact that you don't appear to be able to walk straight to your drive - I don't mind the scrub in front of the tee but someone really should cut a path to walk through.

I wonder if the steep climbs to tees/all holes downhill syndrome you mention is a US thing? It's not something I recognise over here, even in newer courses. Undoubtedly I'd rather get up the hills on a course while hitting a ball, just so long as the uphill holes aren't all 450 yards long.

News:

Garland Bayley

mike_malone

Gary Slatter

Garland Bayley

mike_malone

Garland Bayley

Garland Bayley

Patrick_Mucci

Gary Slatter

mike_malone

Dan Kelly

Garland Bayley

Jason Blasberg

RJ_Daley

Dan Kelly

TEPaul

tonyt

Garland Bayley

Garland Bayley

Garland Bayley

Mark_F

Garland Bayley

JMorgan

Garland Bayley

Mark Pearce