Patrick Kiser comments on Presidio regarding what he termed severe / radical lies got me to thinking is this yet another technique a good GCA can employ to add to the challenge and texture of a course ?   Certainly a high handicapper is challenged by these types of lies but does it have a similar impact on the better player or the pro?

Any good examples of where sloped fairways and uneven lies add to he course or worse where they take always from it?

I agree and have been contouring fw (or leaving more radical contours when found naturally) more than ever for the exact reasons you mention.  

It may not require radical contouring - having every approach shot vary from a 2% uphill to 10% sidehill lie is enough to make a golfer think about his swing plane, ball reaction and club selection.  We just need to get away from flat fairways that seemed to dominate the 90's era design (with steep mounds on the side)

The next philosophical question is do you roll the fw everywhere, or do you grind out a level pad in a select area to allow the strategic golfer to gain some advantage?

Jeff,
   I like the idea of giving at least a more level lie to the well thought out and well executed shot when possible, but not necessarily perfectly level.

Cheers,
Brad

I'm generally in favor of uneven lies, they do create interest and challenges that flat sites do not.

With that said, as with any other feature, uneven lies can be done well or not so well. Mike DeVries seems to be a master at this based on comments at Greywalls. The Kingsley Club also uses them in fine fashion.

Jeff mentioned two situations I agree with at the end of the previous post. Downhill lies to uphill greens (especially with 180+ yard shots) and fairways that slope against doglegs. The second situation does have some promise, but I think the fairway has to be wide enough to give the player a fighting chance to keep the ball in the fairway.

Especially in the case of severe slopes, its important to keep these types of courses fast and firm so that the ball doesn't get stuck in soft spots on really severe slopes. If its firm enough gravity will ensure that the ball generally won't come to rest on anything too ridiculous, but I think there is a limit as to how much undulation you really want to force the player to deal with.

One reason it's a good idea to play a course a number of times before making any decisions about its merits is that many times you can't tell when it might be advantageous to lay up or take a different line to avoid bumpy, difficult ground.  Say you are looking down the fairway and you can't really see what is ahead.  You might notice the far off pin is on the left side of the green and hit the drive down the right side, only to find that side is very bumpy with bad lies, but the left side is flat.  You could only learn that from repeated play.

Or maybe there's a speed slot or turbo boost you really can't see from the tee.

I mention this because I seem to play too many courses just once!  That's why I always want a caddie when one's available.

I think the concept of a safe landing areas at various lengths is integrating. It is plays well to risk reward. If you feel you can hit a great shot off a down hill lie have at it, if not aim for the flat lie. This also allows course to play well to multiple skill levels.

The issue of geography is also a factor, living in Northern California having courses with contour is quite common and natural in Florida not quite as common.  

Do uneven fairways impact the cost of maintenance?  More work time required due to the uneven nature of the course?  

This is one of the techniques I suggested to the Tour to make a course challenging for their players ... much like what Trevino suggested.  Perhaps if I do a course for them, we can get Lee to be the player consultant.

John,
One hole (16th) in particular at Waconah CC in Dalton, Ma., has  hundreds of mini-swales and various little humps littering its fairway, but it looks flat from the tee.
Last time I was there I had a lie to remember on this hole. The heel of my left foot (I'm left handed) was below the toes, the heel of my right foot was above the toes and the right foot was below the left, making for a slight downhill lie. The ball was a bit below my feet and hanging on a small sidehill lie. I was only a nine iron away but I was forced to hit a half seven due to my insecurity with the lie. Luckily the green is wide open in front.

These were all small little features, nothing radical or severe, but they played big.  

me thinks a few people should simply practice downhill/sidehill lies

The concept of having the LZ's getting more severe the closer you get to the hole would work very effectivly.

At the course I profiled a couple of weeks ago, South Mountain, several of the fairways were done in this fashion.  lay back off the tee and you are rewarded with a much flatter lie, yet a longer shot.  Bomb it off the tee and while you are left with a shorter shot in, the fairways are much more undulating and your chances of having an uneven lie are greatly increased.

As Tom mentioned these types of modifications could be utilized very effectively on the PGA tour as opposed to narrower fairways, ponds, and bunkers.

The concept of having the LZ's getting more severe the closer you get to the hole would work very effectivly.

At the course I profiled a couple of weeks ago, South Mountain, several of the fairways were done in this fashion.  lay back off the tee and you are rewarded with a much flatter lie, yet a longer shot.  Bomb it off the tee and while you are left with a shorter shot in, the fairways are much more undulating and your chances of having an uneven lie are greatly increased.

As Tom mentioned these types of modifications could be utilized very effectively on the PGA tour as opposed to narrower fairways, ponds, and bunkers.

I have to admit I don't care for this idea much. This type of strategy takes the risk/reward out of the game and just makes it come down to making the best strategy a conservative one. Length is and always has been part of the game and it should be an advantage if it can be combined with accuracy.

I understand the pros hit the ball obscene distances, but if this is the best solution we have then that's a problem in itself.

I love rumpled fairways, the more random the better.
But the idea of placing speed bumps or steeper slopes consistently the farther you hit it is preposterous (on purpose and more than occasionally)
Where's the fun in consistently forcing a layup or consistently rewarding the shorter drive?

If there's a ball problem fix it.
there's enough screwed up courses out there already worrying about how far a golfer (who will never or rarely visit)hits the ball.

Jeff,

I would agree that doing this on every single hole is too repetitive.  But doing it on a couples of holes per nine where it can blend in to the natural topography would work well.

Andy,

This is not so much about penalizing the long ball, but more about adding strategic options.  While some hitters on tour hit the ball farther than others, all of them hit the ball a long ways compared to your average joe.

It also, in my opinion goes right to the heart of the issue surrounding ANGC. When reporters asked Earl Woods if he was opposed to the Tiger proofing of the course by making it longer, he laughed and responded that it has the opposite effect.  It just makes it that much easier for him as many of the shorter hitters have a much tougher time competeting.  And sure enough, with his 3 wins and several close calls, it would appear Earl was right.

On the PGA tour, If 3 or 4 holes on the course makes the longer hitters wonder if they should hit driver or not then perhaps that would be enough to balance out the field a bit more.

As for long hitters potentially being discriminated against on the golf course I think this is laughable as they already have a huge advantage in approaching the long par 4s with shorter irons and reaching the par 5s in two.

Quote from: Kalen Braley on August 05, 2007, 08:14:02 PM

Andy,

This is not so much about penalizing the long ball, but more about adding strategic options.  While some hitters on tour hit the ball farther than others, all of them hit the ball a long ways compared to your average joe.

It also, in my opinion goes right to the heart of the issue surrounding ANGC. When reporters asked Earl Woods if he was opposed to the Tiger proofing of the course by making it longer, he laughed and responded that it has the opposite effect.  It just makes it that much easier for him as many of the shorter hitters have a much tougher time competeting.  And sure enough, with his 3 wins and several close calls, it would appear Earl was right.

On the PGA tour, If 3 or 4 holes on the course makes the longer hitters wonder if they should hit driver or not then perhaps that would be enough to balance out the field a bit more.

As for long hitters potentially being discriminated against on the golf course I think this is laughable as they already have a huge advantage in approaching the long par 4s with shorter irons and reaching the par 5s in two.

Kalen,
Why should we balance out the field? Some PGA pros are better putters than others, but barring a hole-out they have to putt on every hole?

I agree that not every hole should be a grip it and hit it anywhere situation (as seems to exist on some PGA Tour venues at times). Thoughtful play should be rewarded. However, if a player is zeroed in with the driver I see no reason to penalize them for that.

Andy,

Most sports try to balance out the field.

    In basketball they added the 3 point line so it wouldn't be a big-man paint-dominated game.
    In football they constantly tweak the rules to balance offense and defenses.  A decade ago many people were fed up with 10-7 defensive struggles so they moved back the kick off spot, created rules to protect QBs, and started strictly enforcing the hands off rules for defensive backs.
   In baseball when hitters were teeing off on pitchers they made the mound elevated to give pitchers an advantage. And when pitchers got the upper hand, they mandated that when looking from the batters perspective that the stands in center field behind the pitcher is a nuetral green to better see the ball.
   In Hockey, they recently added a whole slew of new rules to make the game more offensive and promote higher scoring.

This tweaking of the rules is constantly happening in just about every sport.  In golf, why wouldn't you want to make tweaks to be more inclusive of everyone in the field instead of the opposite?  In golf, making the courses longer and longer is only making the fields effectivly smaller instead of more inclusive.  Why would you be in favor of reducing the competition in a sports competition instead of increasing it?