[Patrick_Mucci]

in the design of a golf course.

Ran Morrissett commented that the tees at GCGC seem to transition, seemlessly from the surrounding terrain.

Where drainage is not a problem, does a course with nothing but elevated tees reflect a weakness in the design ?

An "Americanization", or the need to see all that lies before the golfer ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat Call me on the cell if you could. I just want to program it into my new phone!

[Glenn Spencer]

It is one of Muirfield Village's, even though there are only about 13 of them.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Pat,

  Are you thinking of specific courses?  

  Overall, I would say no.  

  Being late, I'll offer the simplified version; teeing the ball up is only the first step.  The golfer still has to negotiate the hazards provided by the architect and get the ball into the hole.  

  If the golfer was afforded a view of all the hazards on a particular hole from the teebox, so what?  They still have to execute.  For 99% of golfers, isn't execution the problem?  

  Now, I think in your stated example of GCGC, the terrain being relatively flat (I haven't been on-grounds, so I am not completely certain), elevated tees might look out of place.  

  If elevating the tees rendered some or all of the hazards useless, then I would say yes, it would be a weakness of design.  

[Mark_F]

I guess if an architect contrived to create all 18 on a site it might be, but what about locale?

In a windy place it would expose the golfer more to the elements.

Depending upon the terrain, height can also effect perception of hazards and distances to good effect, or amplify bowls and troughs in the fairway, for instance, making carries appear much more formidable.

And just because you see everything in front of you from the tee, doesn't mean that you will once you are upon the fairway, which also unexpectedly tests short term memory.  

That adds a great element of uncertainty, hesitation and confusion.

[Scott Witter]

Does this have anything to do with the fact that Ran is involved with Cabot Links and is now taking a closer "look" at this feature?

"Where drainage is not a problem, does a course with nothing but elevated tees reflect a weakness in the design ?"

No in the context that you stated with respect to drainage, IMO, but I do think it reflects an aesthetic weakness and certainly an artificial look that isn't necessary.

On their own whether drainage is involved or not I think Doug has made some good points.

"If the golfer was afforded a view of all the hazards on a particular hole from the teebox, so what?  They still have to execute.  For 99% of golfers, isn't execution the problem?"

For the most part and though a view does make you feel better about what lies in front of you, it really does come down to good execution for most golfers.

"If elevating the tees rendered some or all of the hazards useless, then I would say yes, it would be a weakness of design."

I am not sure how this condition could exist as execution along with all the other environmental conditions, wind, maintenance.... again enters the picture and an elevated tee really doesn't change the relationship between the golfer and the hazard, or the elements that Nature and the architect present.  If for example, and we have all seen this many times, a hole starts on a high rise in the landscape, really high I mean, and we find an elevated tee built in that location, for no apparent good reason, the elevated tee in question affords no further advantage, the golfer can see the hazards with or without the elevated position, or as Pat asks, does this tee render the hole weak?   I don't believe so, IMO.

[mike_malone]

 The use of built up stone  tees at Westchester was jarring to me. I much prefer the natural tees at other classic courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:  That was one of the ongoing discussions Mike Keiser and I had about the design of Pacific Dunes.

I felt that having all of the tees elevated would be a weakness, just out of fear that the tee shots would lack variety.  I came up with lots of reasons to support that view ... on a windy day golfers would want a respite from the wind, etc.

But Mr. Keiser's mantra was that golfers like elevated tees, so why not give them what they want?  And I've read defenses of that argument, too, going all the way back to the fact that our ancestral hunter-gatherers felt more comfortable at a high vantage point where they could see any dangers around them.

As it turned out, nearly every hole at Pacific Dunes has an elevated tee, because most of them start from a dune complex.  But it's not always the back tee that is the most elevated.  We tried very hard to come up with some back tees that were relatively low, with a higher middle tee off to the side, to balance out the fact that on most holes the back tee is naturally highest.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

The use of built up stone  tees at Westchester was jarring to me. I much prefer the natural tees at other classic courses.

Mike,

  You have good tees at RG.  I recall most of them are pretty level with grade, no?  There were a few exceptions.  
I wonder if the tees at Westchester were built up because of drainage, or perhaps at the Tour's request.  

[mike_malone]

 We have some unnatural looking tees at RG; I hope we change them in time. I want to get to more Travis courses to see some of the other tees. I'm not sure it was his idea or not. But, based on Pat's statement it seems that GCGC is not like that. The tees at Westchester were ungodly IMO.

[Scott Witter]

Tom:

Is not the 'weakness' you note more aesthetic as opposed to 'design' weakness? for as you say,

"nearly every hole at Pacific Dunes has an elevated tee, because most of them start from a dune complex."

Do you believe the elevated tees at Pac Dunes affect (weaken) the design of the course in some way when the tees are elevated naturally?

"We tried very hard to come up with some back tees that were relatively low, with a higher middle tee off to the side, to balance out the fact that on most holes the back tee is naturally highest."

Here I think the variety (visual balance and proportion) approach works the best.  Usually this also produces the best looking feature as well.

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

Yes, it's more of an aesthetic thing than anything else.  And I was referring to elevated tees in the context of downhill tee shots.  I see that others are just talking about whether the tees are built up 2-4 feet or laying on the ground.  

I've always preferred the latter ... we rarely bring fill to tees.  In fact my reluctance to do so was kind of a joke among some of my friends; there are some early courses of mine where a tee lays so low that you have to think twice about hitting driver for fear of driving the ball straight into the beginning of the slope going up in front of you!

[wsmorrison]

Tom Doak,

Francis Ouimet was afraid of doing just that, hitting into the slope fronting the original 4th tee at The Country Club in Brookline.  He never did use a driver on that tee during the 1913 Open for fear of plugging into the bank of the hill.  

When Flynn redesigned the hole (moving the green to the left and thus bringing the left contour into play for the tee shot), he moved the tee to the right a bit and elevated it.

[Scott Witter]

Wayne:

Is there any design reasoning behind why Flynn elevated the tee?

[wsmorrison]

It is hard to know what he was thinking, but it would seem he wanted to avoid the steep slope that was was a short distance from the old tee.  He place it on top of a natural ridge so it does not appear at all contrived.  I think he wanted players to be tempted to hit driver to clear the left contour and have an open angle to the new green.  I'll try and post a drawing that will show it more clearly in a bit.

[Bill_McBride]

I think 18 elevated tees would definitely mean a lot of earthmoving to achieve that result, and therefore an unnatural golf course.  Pat Mucci must have a reason to ask that question as the superficial answer is quite apparent!  What is Pat's hidden agenda?

[BCrosby]

Wayne - Isn't the 4th tee at TCC the one built on a steel scaffold? Was the original tee at ground level?

Bob

[wsmorrison]

Bob,

Here are drawings that show what was pre-Flynn and what was designed and built by Flynn.  In the Flynn design plan you can see the bridge that was built on the natural rise to the right of the old tee.

You can see the rise immediately in front of the tee on the pre-existing hole prior to Flynn's redesign:



Flynn's redesign plan (since modified by Rees Jones--can't say why he bothered though):



I think the Flynn design clearly shows a direction towards naturalism that was missing in the earlier design iteration of TCC. Nearly all the bunkering and most of the greens on the original course were redesigned by Flynn.  

Interestingly, Donald Ross proposed a complete redesign of the existing course and the addition of 18 more holes.  Several years later Flynn's more economical plans (for 27 holes) were implemented.  For a while only the front 9 was intact from a routing progression, the back nine was intermingled with Flynn's 9 holes on new property.  The new nine holes were not meant to be a distinct nine but rather incorporated into the existing routing progression.

[Scott Witter]

Wayne:

"I think the Flynn design clearly shows a direction towards naturalism that was missing in the earlier design iteration of TCC"

As I look at the two designs I don't see your conclusion of 'naturalism', IMO could you explain more?  All I see are different bunker shapes and positioning from penal to strategic, or tactical as Tom D. eludes.  There is of course a drawn 'fair way/green' in the Flynn plan and the tee is shifted to what some may feel is more natural on a slight rise in grade and the green is moved and has a different shape, but from those aspects I don't follow you and other than that I don't see how the Flynn design "shows a direction toward naturalism"?  Thanks

[Jeff_Brauer]

The Flynn design is natural in that he used a more random bunker pattern than the geometrics in front of the old green, and put the fw bunker in the natural up slope on the left, even though its not at the actual anticipated landing area.  It appears its not enough slope naturally, and he recommended adding some suport fill.  I think its mostly decorative, or dare I say it a target or definition bunker.  Given the green opens to the right, I think the falloff to the creek on the right is the major hazard to contend with.

I suspect that the original tee, which had to hit up and over from a 200 elevation to over a 220 meant it was blind and uncomfortable, with a real possibility (esp. in those days) of not clearing the bank. It also meant using only a minor foot bridge.

I note a long footbridge on the Flynn plan, which may not have been financially feasible when the club was built.  This allows both easy walking and a more elevated view. However, without adding fill, the tee sets about 215 and still must play over than 220 contour, so I think without earthmoving the fw would still be blind from the tee.  Except for the rock in the area, it would be easy to saddle out the 220 knobs both between tee and landing area and landing area and green to provide both fill for the features and better visibility.  Been a while since I have been there, and I don't know if that is what they did, either Flynn or Rees.

[Joel_Stewart]

It is a weakness in certain classic courses that have been renovated.  At Olympic Club lake course its especially unsightly on certain holes, the 4th, 6th and the 8th to a large degree.  The 8th which is a uphill short par 3 was a perfect walk off tee in the photos of the 1955 US Open has been elevated and widened so may times it doesn't have a hint of its old self.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Scott-

  I'm not Wayne   but if I may, I believe I can answer the question, or, I can understand Wayne's statement.  

  Look at Flynn's placement of objects vs. the original placement/original design.  

  The tee appears to be shifted to the right.  I haven't seen this in person, and the immediate contour lines aren't labeled, so I can't say if this point is higher in elevation than the original.  This may have been for drainage concerns (again, just a hypothesis based on comparison of these two drawings).

  The bunkers are all located on or near changes in elevation--my hypothesis, based on these two drawings only, is that the bunkers were located where they could have been formed naturally, by wind or water erosion, or animals--much as I have seen in pictures of Sand Hills GC, among others.  

  In the original design, the bunkers appear less natural/more man-made, the drawing leads me to believe they were basic pits surrounding the green.  

  The green was moved to what appears to be a natural dell, to the left of its original position.  I observe that this also may have a dual purpose in providing the player with a varied look at the green, depending on his placement in the fairway--I see that a particularly long drive would be rewarded with a look straighaway up the green, while a drive that landed in the vicinity of the new left fairway bunker would ostensibly have an uneven lie and be faced with carrying the two left greenside bunkers, as well as hitting the green on a narrow axis.  

It also appears Jeff's post and mine crossed en route to posting.  

[wsmorrison]

Scott,

I don't think the tee location is more natural in the Flynn iteration versus the prior one.  Both are on natural grades however the Flynn tee is on a higher level that allows some of the strategic designs to come into play while the other tee was quite awkward with the 20 foot climb in front of the tee.

As for a greater sense of naturalism, consider the shape of the bunkering in the original iteration versus the Flynn plan.  Flynn's bunkers are more sophisticated in the outlines in harmony with the movement of the topography rather than narrow unnatural geometric forms. The centerline bunker in front of the green was a primitive design with a narrow rectangular pit with a berm constructed behind it using the fill from the pit.  The other three bunkers are not placed in a natural fashion but at three corners of the green.  Flynn retained a single bunker from the right rear corner of the original green and used that to mark the outside of the turn towards the new green.

The original green itself is squarish in the direct line of play while the Flynn green is made of curves and lobes offset to the line of play.  Flynn's left fairway bunker is placed naturally into the hillside with a small mound behind to raise the topline a bit more.  Flynn's design uses an outstanding feature that was on the periphery of the old ole, namely the mound that hides the green for all but well-placed shots to the left of the fairway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Doug,

To get the contour elevetions, you have to trace the contours from the other side and count up from the creek.

I just noticed that Flynn proposed to leave the small, back right green bunker from the old green in his plan.  Kind of out of play and odd.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

The centerline bunker in front of the green was a primitive design with a narrow rectangular pit with a berm constructed behind it using the fill from the pit.  

Wayne-

  Watch what you say, you just might find yourself asked to prove that TCC was or wasn't 'advised' on the original design and that, since it was an Alps hole Flynn altered, perhaps he was trying to cover up CBM's contribution in 'generosity of spirit' to TCC!  

  Or, you may not have to, since it's been established here that an absence of disproving information equates to proof

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()