The straw that breaks the golfers back.

« **Reply #25 on:** October 28, 2007, 09:16:48 PM »

It depends on the length of the hole, with the shorter the hole, the relatively greater amount of drop that'll work before it gets goofy. With a short pitch type of hole you can get away with a greater percentage of drop because the ball's basically going straight down that much sooner. Even a 100'+ drop might only call for a one-club change. Stretch out the hole and require a longer club with a flatter trajectory, and there's more guessing and at some point goofiness/luck. It gets a little strange and perhaps goofy figuring out if a 225 yard hole requires a five, six, seven, or eight iron.

« **Reply #26 on:** October 28, 2007, 09:41:56 PM »

I am not certain what a lot of you are talking about!?

I watch the 'Silly Season' of the PGA, and there is that cool par-3 contest in Michigan. Several of those holes are exactly the type you are bi***ing about, say they are not predictable enough to be 'real golf'. Yet, those guys make their calculations of distance, windspeed/direction; and they club very nicely.

It cannot be that they are 'just better players' ....... they clearly have better grasp of how to 'club' these holes. But if they can, it can't be as random as you seem to complain.

Is you golfing judgement that poor, or is it your golfing habits, your need for comfortable similarity, that makes you reluctant?

Golf is heading to a wider World. Hills, even mountains, are part of it's future. YOU do not have to join, afterall. Secure yourself on the plains and seasides if you must. See ya!

Doug

PS: BTW, holes with a rise of 50ft+ are even more rare. Why? Cause a lot of people feel even less comfortable with THAT kind of difficulty. Yet, I swear this can be cool too.

« **Reply #27 on:** October 29, 2007, 03:00:21 AM »

Quote from: Doug Ralston on October 28, 2007, 09:41:56 PM

Is you golfing judgement that poor, or is it your golfing habits, your need for comfortable similarity, that makes you reluctant?

Doug

Doug

It comes down to the walkability of a course for me. Everytime there is a huge elevation change in one hole means the chances of a the course being walkable are reduced. I am not terribly interested in a tow rope to a tee type golf at the present. There are too many proper courses to see first.

Ciao

« **Reply #28 on:** October 29, 2007, 04:54:48 AM »

Let's go the other way. How blind can an uphill par three be and still apply to Pat's post? I've always thought the 7th at Co Down and the ninth at Jupiter were superb holes although you are blind as a bat on both holes. JC

« **Reply #29 on:** October 29, 2007, 06:41:18 AM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on October 29, 2007, 03:00:21 AM

Quote from: Doug Ralston on October 28, 2007, 09:41:56 PM

Is you golfing judgement that poor, or is it your golfing habits, your need for comfortable similarity, that makes you reluctant?

Doug

Doug

It comes down to the walkability of a course for me. Everytime there is a huge elevation change in one hole means the chances of a the course being walkable are reduced. I am not terribly interested in a tow rope to a tee type golf at the present. There are too many proper courses to see first.

Ciao

"Proper ......" Ah, I see, a little dig at me eh?

Sean, I certainly would not hold it against you to play only 'flatlander' courses

. But I do not agree that there is something holy about walking in golf.

Once in human history, humans walked everywhere. Then we discovered domestication, drawn wagons, horseless carriages, trucks, planes, rockets etc. In golf we once walked and carried our club, the we discovered club(s), wheeled carts, and powered carts [maybe horsedrawn somewhere in there, I dunno]. As man learned, he found he could do more interesting things, like build courses in mountains ....... amazing, huh?

And, by God, those beautiful mountain courses were made possible because of sensational advances in the transport of the player! Oh happy days!

Man up. Get a cart! Play some 21st century golf. LOL

Doug

« **Reply #30 on:** October 29, 2007, 06:59:48 AM »

Quote from: Doug Ralston on October 29, 2007, 06:41:18 AM

Quote from: Sean Arble on October 29, 2007, 03:00:21 AM
Quote from: Doug Ralston on October 28, 2007, 09:41:56 PM

Is you golfing judgement that poor, or is it your golfing habits, your need for comfortable similarity, that makes you reluctant?

Doug

Doug

It comes down to the walkability of a course for me. Everytime there is a huge elevation change in one hole means the chances of a the course being walkable are reduced. I am not terribly interested in a tow rope to a tee type golf at the present. There are too many proper courses to see first.

Ciao

"Proper ......" Ah, I see, a little dig at me eh?

Sean, I certainly would not hold it against you to play only 'flatlander' courses . But I do not agree that there is something holy about walking in golf.

Once in human history, humans walked everywhere. Then we discovered domestication, drawn wagons, horseless carriages, trucks, planes, rockets etc. In golf we once walked and carried our club, the we discovered club(s), wheeled carts, and powered carts [maybe horsedrawn somewhere in there, I dunno]. As man learned, he found he could do more interesting things, like build courses in mountains ....... amazing, huh?

And, by God, those beautiful mountain courses were made possible because of sensational advances in the transport of the player! Oh happy days!

Man up. Get a cart! Play some 21st century golf. LOL

Doug

Doug

Holy? Nah, I don't go for all that Shivas Irons golf revelation nonsense either. I simply believe that golf is a game meant to be played while walking. I don't mind if you want to zoom up and down mountain sides in a buggy. I find it a bit odd, sort of like "campers" who park their caravans next to 100 other caravans. Neither is my bag, but you gotta right.

Ciao

« **Reply #31 on:** October 29, 2007, 08:51:42 AM »

First hole at Furry Creek is a par 4 with 165 foot drop. Water left and right on the very first swing of the day makes the hole a little too unforgiving for me. Thinking about finding the fairway way down there also detracts from a great view.

« **Reply #32 on:** October 29, 2007, 09:19:57 AM »

Pat Mucci,

Downhill Par threes.. as others have referenced.. the Devil’s Caldron at Banff is pictured below.. interesting to note that Thompson’s first and lower tee placement, to right of present upper tee, over guard rail down the hill a bit, is not as dramatic a shot, with less drop, the more direct approach to green.. mountains in back of green are less visual distraction

Local favorite, ~45 ft drop, #10 at Blaketree, eat your snacks after this hole!

I've played the referenced Stonehenge hole at Fairfield Glade many times.. when no one is pushing us, we have historically hit drivers into lake behind it or otherwise goof off on that hole given wind conditions etc..

I believe the break point, is when local knowledge totally trumps perceptive skills and available scorecard information.

On uphill shots, with current equipment, don't give me anything greater than 1st at Black Mesa.. a small 75ft+ hill blocking view of landing zone..

« **Reply #33 on:** October 29, 2007, 10:41:35 AM »

Quote from: Doug Ralston on October 29, 2007, 06:41:18 AM

But I do not agree that there is something holy about walking in golf.

Once in human history, humans walked everywhere.

And over the course of that same history humans engaged in various sports and physical competitions. Runners ran and swimmers swam, and those endeavors have remained true to their roots despite the fact that one could now complete a marathon with much greater ease with the help of a motorcycle. Speaking only for myself, I view golf as a sport, and the physical grind of walking the course is very much part and parcel of that sport. When a course is designed in such a way that prohibits me from playing the game in the way I most enjoy it, I do hold it against the course. Cart golf can be worth playing, and I would not avoid a course simply because it was unwalkable, but I would not want to play those kinds of courses every day, or often, to be honest.

On topic: Port Royal in Bermuda has some very fun drop shots, like the tee shot on #1 and the approach on #11. While the differences in elevation at Port Royal do not approach the distances mentioned in some other posts, in a stiff Bermudan wind they probably approach the limit of what would be fun in a wind prone environment.

The tee on #1 sits on the horizon;

The approach on #11. At one time this was probably in the landing zone for most players, however, every player in our group easily knocked their tee shots well down the slope.

« **Reply #34 on:** October 29, 2007, 10:48:55 AM »

Quote from: Bill Brightly on October 27, 2007, 06:02:23 PM

14th at Stonehenge? Snap!

Awesome view, but if I want that view, I'll go up in a ski lift. As a golf hole, it is gimmicky.

I second that emotion. It seems semi-stupid to moi.

« **Reply #35 on:** October 29, 2007, 11:47:10 AM »

Quote from: Doug Ralston on October 29, 2007, 06:41:18 AM

And, by God, those beautiful mountain courses were made possible because of sensational advances in the transport of the player! Oh happy days!

Man up. Get a cart! Play some 21st century golf. LOL

Doug

It's MNSHO, there's a repetitive aspect to many of these 21st mtn. golf holes. (not all) Some of it is unique, and holes on many mtn. courses are great lures for the golfer predisposed to testosterone inducing golf shots. However, there's a chasm of difference between inspiring golf, over 18 holes, and the sporadic Wow's, mountain golf has provided heretofore.

Patrick, Volcano type greens up to 5 feet high, are about all us non-spinning wedge players can handle.

« **Reply #36 on:** October 29, 2007, 12:57:00 PM »

Quote from: John Mayhugh on October 27, 2007, 04:48:02 PM

Quote from: John Pflum Jr on October 27, 2007, 02:02:34 PM
Quote from: Tom_Doak on October 26, 2007, 11:14:51 PM
At some point soon after that, the downhill-ness gets to be so much that judgment of distance is just a pure guess (with local knowledge being a major factor).

I'll agree on that point. There's a course in Fairfiled Glad, TN called Stonehenge that has a par three where the drop must be 100+ feet. It's in a resort area and I doubt many people play the course on a regular basis. It is a fun hole but is a total guess regarding club selection.

The big problem with the 14th at Stonehenge is there is a stone wall around the green. Left and long are both in the hazard. I think the unknown yardage can be fun, but if you're guessing on yardage you need a bit more room to miss. There's room short but that's about it.

John,

I aced that hole! in 1987 the summer before my freshman year at UT.

The tee shot on this hole is almost completely guess work. 120' downhill, around 150 yds.

Good players I've seen just hit a low knock down 8,9 or PW almost straight down, like a bullet, to the green.

It is beautiful right now, was there early this morning. BTW it is under contract, pending a vote by the Fairfield Glade members to be sold by Linkscorp to the Fairfield Glade membership, adding 18 more holes to their 72 others.

I expect they'll be converting Tennessee's first and only all bentgrass greens, tees and fairways course to Zoysia tees and fairways in the not too distant future.

« **Reply #37 on:** October 29, 2007, 02:05:16 PM »

I've played quite a few of these drop shot holes and like most of them, including the one at Stonehenge which I've played a few times. It is a tough hole, but its a simple pitch from the bailout short. If you want to take your chances at a back pin then its somewhat risk/reward.

I see the elevation changes as another variable in distance control. In some ways its not that different from playing on a windy site. With that the better versions tend to have some kind of a bailout. I don't like four of them in a round, but one good one certainly adds to the golf course.

A couple good examples:
#8 Forest Highlands Canyon
#12 Shoreacres

« **Reply #38 on:** October 29, 2007, 02:34:35 PM »

Quote from: Bob_Huntley on October 27, 2007, 01:48:00 PM

A couple of holes at Vail come to mind but cannot remember the club.
Bob

Bob,

Vail GC (the muny in town) has a couple of these holes (7 and 15)
that actually are not too bad;you may be thinking
of Eagle-Vail, which also has some drop shots and is a Doak 0 course.

« **Reply #39 on:** October 29, 2007, 02:52:51 PM »

Quote from: Doug Wright on October 29, 2007, 02:34:35 PM

Quote from: Bob_Huntley on October 27, 2007, 01:48:00 PM
A couple of holes at Vail come to mind but cannot remember the club.
Bob

Bob,

Vail GC (the muny in town) has a couple of these holes (7 and 15) that actually are not too bad; you may be thinking of Eagle-Vail, which also has some drop shots and is a Doak 0 course.

Eagle Vail got that high?

I remember playing there around 1978 and later reading a review that started, "Veterans of golf at Eagle Vail sit around and discuss it in the same tone that veterans of WWII in the Pacific discuss Guadalcanal."

There was a VERY big drop on the par 3 that takes you off the mountainside down to the valley, at least 100'.

« **Reply #40 on:** October 29, 2007, 03:01:17 PM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on October 29, 2007, 02:52:51 PM

Quote from: Doug Wright on October 29, 2007, 02:34:35 PM
Quote from: Bob_Huntley on October 27, 2007, 01:48:00 PM
A couple of holes at Vail come to mind but cannot remember the club.
Bob

Bob,

Vail GC (the muny in town) has a couple of these holes (7 and 15) that actually are not too bad; you may be thinking of Eagle-Vail, which also has some drop shots and is a Doak 0 course.

Eagle Vail got that high?

I remember playing there around 1978 and later reading a review that started, "Veterans of golf at Eagle Vail sit around and discuss it in the same tone that veterans of WWII in the Pacific discuss Guadalcanal."

There was a VERY big drop on the par 3 that takes you off the mountainside down to the valley, at least 100'.

Bill,

Eagle Vail probably was something of a golf course engineering marvel back in 1978; now it's just a terrible housing development course with a bunch of lousy golf holes.

« **Reply #41 on:** October 29, 2007, 03:09:38 PM »

What's wrong with guesswork?

« **Reply #42 on:** October 29, 2007, 05:06:19 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on October 26, 2007, 11:14:51 PM

...but I think it's maybe 50 feet downhill.

At some point soon after that, the downhill-ness gets to be so much that judgment of distance is just a pure guess (with local knowledge being a major factor).

Why is that? At some point the laws of physics get suspended and everything goes unpredictable? I think not!

« **Reply #43 on:** October 29, 2007, 05:29:04 PM »

Hanover CC in NH has one downhiller that may by 70-80 feet downhill on the front listed at over 200 and it plays roughly 175. On the back it has one up an old ski jump landing hill that was three tiers at one point. A club for each tier was the local knowledge and you had to look as you walked by the green playing the tenth.

Playing home matches on the course in high school was a huge advantage with those holes. They never felt like gimmicks and the ski jump even provided the logo.

I wonder how many courses have one par 3 with that much elevation going up and down?

« **Reply #44 on:** October 29, 2007, 08:35:12 PM »

Quote from: JeffTodd on October 29, 2007, 10:41:35 AM

Quote from: Doug Ralston on October 29, 2007, 06:41:18 AM
But I do not agree that there is something holy about walking in golf.

Once in human history, humans walked everywhere.
And over the course of that same history humans engaged in various sports and physical competitions. Runners ran and swimmers swam, and those endeavors have remained true to their roots despite the fact that one could now complete a marathon with much greater ease with the help of a motorcycle. Speaking only for myself, I view golf as a sport, and the physical grind of walking the course is very much part and parcel of that sport. When a course is designed in such a way that prohibits me from playing the game in the way I most enjoy it, I do hold it against the course. Cart golf can be worth playing, and I would not avoid a course simply because it was unwalkable, but I would not want to play those kinds of courses every day, or often, to be honest.

Good pointless Jeff!

The runners did not have to run several miles BEFORE they began running. The swimmers did not have to lap the pool five times before each event. Baseball players do not walk from home to the stadium, only from the dugout. Perhaps each thoroughbred should be expected to walk around the Country to their next meet?

Golf is about striking the ball as accurately as possible to move it about the obstacles of each hole. I am sorry. Golf is NOT the walk between shots.

Should someone fat, or elderly [c'est moi], or bow-legged, or disabled, or just like to ride, be told that; though they strike the ball great [or not], they are not REAL golfers because they cannot walk the course? Yes, I know SOME people in each of these catagories can still walk ..... but others cannot.

Jeff, again, I do not expect anyone to ride who do not wish to. I simply cannot accept unworthiness based on whatever reason put me and others in a cart when we STILL DO strike the ball around the course as we are able. And I CERTAINLY cannot agree that courses too vertical to walk comfortably are 'lesser' just for that reason.

Doug

« **Reply #45 on:** October 29, 2007, 09:00:00 PM »

Quote from: Dan Kelly™ on October 29, 2007, 03:09:38 PM

What's wrong with guesswork?

I wondered about that too. This is the site where we love random fairway bunkers and other 'chance enhancing' architecture.

The answer is obvious. Once again, discomfort of things that do not fit your idealism overwhelms any new ideas and directions.

Doug

« **Reply #46 on:** October 29, 2007, 09:29:09 PM »

Quote from: Doug Ralston on October 29, 2007, 08:35:12 PM

Quote from: JeffTodd on October 29, 2007, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Doug Ralston on October 29, 2007, 06:41:18 AM
But I do not agree that there is something holy about walking in golf.

Once in human history, humans walked everywhere.
And over the course of that same history humans engaged in various sports and physical competitions. Runners ran and swimmers swam, and those endeavors have remained true to their roots despite the fact that one could now complete a marathon with much greater ease with the help of a motorcycle. Speaking only for myself, I view golf as a sport, and the physical grind of walking the course is very much part and parcel of that sport. When a course is designed in such a way that prohibits me from playing the game in the way I most enjoy it, I do hold it against the course. Cart golf can be worth playing, and I would not avoid a course simply because it was unwalkable, but I would not want to play those kinds of courses every day, or often, to be honest.

Good pointless Jeff!

The runners did not have to run several miles BEFORE they began running. The swimmers did not have to lap the pool five times before each event. Baseball players do not walk from home to the stadium, only from the dugout. Perhaps each thoroughbred should be expected to walk around the Country to their next meet?

I never suggested that I walk to the course BEFORE I start playing golf. What happens before the game begins is immaterial, whether it is running, swimming, or golf. But let's get one thing straight, I clearly stated that I was speaking only for myself. I never once stated or implied that others should think or believe what I believe, nor did I make absolute statements based on my opinion, as you did in the following:

Quote

Golf is about striking the ball as accurately as possible to move it about the obstacles of each hole. I am sorry. Golf is NOT the walk between shots.

That's your opinion, and you are not alone in that position. However, there may be a reason that competitive golf, at many levels, is played on foot and not behind the wheel. Clearly, not everyone agrees with what you assert as fact.

Quote

Should someone fat, or elderly [c'est moi], or bow-legged, or disabled, or just like to ride, be told that; though they strike the ball great [or not], they are not REAL golfers because they cannot walk the course? Yes, I know SOME people in each of these catagories can still walk ..... but others cannot.

Jeff, again, I do not expect anyone to ride who do not wish to. I simply cannot accept unworthiness based on whatever reason put me and others in a cart when we STILL DO strike the ball around the course as we are able. And I CERTAINLY cannot agree that courses too vertical to walk comfortably are 'lesser' just for that reason.

My guess is that you're bringing baggage from other debates or posts with you into this exchange, or, you didn't read what I wrote very closely. I did not pass judgment on you or other golfers, I only stated what the game means to me and how it impacts the way I view a golf course. I try to be respectful when I post, you may even notice that I didn't call any of your points, "pointless".

-Jeff

« **Reply #47 on:** October 29, 2007, 10:33:05 PM »

I like an occasional drop shot hole but I think that a good general rule might be that if it is a hazardous walk or drive to the green from the tee, then it might be too much or too steep a drop. Is that too simplistic or conservative?

There is a course in North Georgia, Big Canoe that has a par five that must drop 150 feet from tee to fairway, it is lots of fun but even though it's 520 or so, I have hit 3 wood, L wedge to it and that doesn't seem like a par 5. It's fun once in a while.

« **Reply #48 on:** October 30, 2007, 02:11:00 PM »

I would suggest a 100 foot drop (which is the equivalent of a 10 storey building) is far too much of a drop to offer a challenge and becomes far too much of a guessing game off of the tee. Club selection can be a game, especially if there is any significant wind. Personally, I think that 30-40 feet is more than enough.

One new hole that in my opinion has too much elevation drop is #9 at Chambers Bay. I would guess it is 70-80 feet. Great view and interesting but I would have tried to find a much lower tee. Then again, I am not an architect.

« **Reply #49 on:** October 30, 2007, 03:40:57 PM »

From reading their works, I find that Alister MacKenzie and Pete Dye both like to make the top golfers uncomfortable. Alister goes to the point of suggesting you keep from taking advice from the top players, as they will advise removing the interesting things from the golf course, because these things make them feel uncomfortable, or tend to hurt their score.

I was surprised to read Tom Doak's assessment on this issue, because he is an advocate of Alister's work and he was an employee of Pete.

What I find amazing is that the farther the hole drops the more predictable the result. I don't think the people stating their opinions to the contrary realize this. The one variable that changes this is the wind as Bob just brought up (for the first time as far as I have noticed). Good players deal with the wind on 300 yard carries. Is that that much different than the added carry time for a drop shot hole?

I come down on the side of how does the hole affect the walk? (And, yes Doug, golf is a walking game. May I suggest you join CartBallAtlas.com.

) In that respect, I find nothing wrong with Chambers Bay #9. The hole has been fit seamlessly into the walk. I asked my caddy how long the hole would play given the wind of the day. I took my club for the distance he recommended, and hit it to 8 ft. I love the hole.

I have noticed several people mention that Chambers Bay is a difficult walk. I did not find it so. I attribute the difficult walk attribution to a couple of things.
If you play the back most tees, I understand that it is a significantly harder walk because of the climbing back to those tees. If you ride a cart for most of your rounds, I can understand that the Chambers walk can be difficult.

In conclusion, I don't see any limit to the amount of drop for a shot on a great hole. If the hole fits, call it great!

News:

David_Madison

Doug Ralston

Sean_A

Jonathan Cummings

Doug Ralston

Sean_A

Paul Stephenson

Steve Lang

JeffTodd

tlavin

Adam Clayman

Eric Smith

Andy Troeger

Doug Wright

Bill_McBride

Doug Wright

Dan Kelly

Garland Bayley

Mark Manuel

Doug Ralston

Doug Ralston

JeffTodd

Brock Peyer

Bob Jenkins

Garland Bayley