Quote from: JES II on September 11, 2007, 08:29:44 PM

I don't think there is any chance that second fairway up to the left is part of the same hole as the front fairway there...doesn't the hole go down and to the right over that ridge? Picture must be from well left of the teeing line...

Somebody should let you people know that Tom does wide fairways. There is only one fairway shown, and as Gary and I agree, it is the 14th.

I'm trying to study everything I can, feel free to enlighten every chance you get oh mystical swami...

Oh this is tooo good. I really don't want to talk about the hole so I can hear some more of these responses.


All I will tell you is that I hit a driver - 8 iron into this green.



And since people are asking about #8 I am still looking for Tom's permission to post a photo that will sell memberships just because that is what John K is looking for.

Michael check your PM's.

A former poster here suggested in an e-mail this morning that I had done this to illustrate just how quick people were to jump to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions based on one photo.  Actually, Ron sent me the photo yesterday morning.  It's my favorite hole on the course and the first time I've seen it with grass on it, so I asked him to post it.  But then I went out to play golf at Crystal Downs with a group of visitors from the east coast, and haven't looked in here since.

Jeez.

This is a photo of the tenth hole at Rock Creek.  From the back tee it's 600 yards; the photo is taken from a bit up and to the right by the middle tee.

The scale of Rock Creek is different than most courses so a lot of the conclusions drawn about the photo are silly ... just as Ron noted in his other post about the course yesterday, the scale is big enough that distances are VERY deceptive.  The road in the distance (over the trees behind the green) is about 3-4 miles away.  The front nine holes are on the other side of the creek and are obscured by trees and by topography.  The tee shot is about sixty feet downhill to those first bunkers on the left ... it's something like 305 to carry them (possible at elevation 4800) and get a huge turbo boost another 40 feet downhill to the bottom, so the bunkers are there to make most people play to the right where the ball will stay up.  From there it's a very long second shot over a deep valley and back up to a green set on the edge of a bluff with a steep drop to the right.

Your grandma plays from the forward tee way out to the right, has to carry it about 40 yards to reach the fairway, then it's 400 yards downhill and the last 80 back up with about seventy yards of fairway to play through.  She'll probably think it's pretty.

The eighth green is over there on the right, through the fairway, but the knob with native grass in the very corner of the photo protects it from being seen. (The eighth green was moved a bit back from the routing plan drawing but just because we thought the hole would be too hard if it was as long as originally planned ... it wouldn't have been in play on #10 anyway and it certainly isn't now.)

It's my favorite hole in large part because it is the first hole that drew my eye when I started working with contour maps of 3000 acres (the central piece of the 80,000 acre ranch which seemed to make sense as the location of the golf course).  The hanging green site was a natural one ... at first I looked at it as a short par-4 from the landing area, but then I realized I could add a full shot to it and that you would be able to see all the key features from the tee in very dramatic fashion.

And thanks for posting, Ron.    It was fun on more levels than I had anticipated.

----- Post this picture of Rock Creek.  He has some interesting things to say about this hole.  I expect him to comment on this thread.  This is one of those holes where you just know it is fun to play the moment you step on the tee:

I'm guessing it's a 600 yard par-5.

I didn't see those guys in front of those bunkers the first time.  Those bunkers look deep!  It'll take a lot of courage to try to fly those.

A former poster here suggested in an e-mail this morning that I had done this to illustrate just how quick people were to jump to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions based on one photo.

It's always nice to be reminded that anonymous former posters are sniping at current posters in e-mails. That must be fun.

But I'm curious. Which "ridiculous conclusions" did people jump to based on one photo? I'll admit that I haven't read every word of this thread, but I didn't see too many "conclusions" of any sort as I skimmed it.

And I remain curious about this: Why did the hole require so many big bunkers?

Quote from: Tom_Doak on September 12, 2007, 09:02:14 AM

A former poster here suggested in an e-mail this morning that I had done this to illustrate just how quick people were to jump to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions based on one photo.

It's always nice to be reminded that anonymous former posters are sniping at current posters in e-mails. That must be fun.

But I'm curious. Which "ridiculous conclusions" did people jump to based on one photo? I'll admit that I haven't read every word of this thread, but I didn't see too many "conclusions" of any sort as I skimmed it.

And I remain curious about this: Why did the hole require so many big bunkers?

Tom

Hopefully the anonymous former poster also chastised you for encouraging that this one photo be posted.  As is Dan, I am confused as to why there are so many bunkers, all seemingly out of reach except for the gorilla (off the tee) and the duffer (in two or three), but I'll wait for more pictures to be posted before I am even thinking about coming to a conclusion.

Rich

Dan K TM:

I thought the suggestions that the hole was a par-3, or that I'd built top-shot bunkers 270 yards out, that it couldn't be #10 because you would see #3 and #4, or the suggestions about my motivations were kind of ridiculous.  Really, it was just ridiculous that so many people attempted to figure out the whole thing on their own on the basis of one picture with no guidance, instead of waiting to find out something about it.

The big bunkers are there because the scale of the course is enormous and we didn't think smaller features would fit.  The fairway bunkers left all sit into a broad natural roll in the ground.  Everything in the "native" areas is rocky and often unplayable, so when we were tying into a native feature we went for lots of sand and just a fringe of native/rock so you could still get a club on the ball if you went for the carry and came up short.

The first set of bunkers was also flashed up to the horizon of the ridge they sit into, so that they would start to blend in with the bunkers short of the green when you're standing on the back tee, to distort the distance perspective a bit.  There's a good 200 yards of ground between the top of the one bunker and the one beyond it.

The big bunkers are there because the scale of the course is enormous and we didn't think smaller features would fit.

Thanks, Tom, for your answer.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that an enormous-scale setting requires enormous-scale golf features. In fact, I'm pretty sure I disagree with that. But I do understand the thinking.

As for the "ridiculous" conclusions: I think most of them were speculations, not conclusions -- and advertised as such. Several of them were clearly facetious!

Quote from: Tom_Doak on September 12, 2007, 11:20:47 AM

The big bunkers are there because the scale of the course is enormous and we didn't think smaller features would fit.

Thanks, Tom, for your answer.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that an enormous-scale setting requires enormous-scale golf features. In fact, I'm pretty sure I disagree with that. But I do understand the thinking.

 

Quote from: Dan Kelly™ on September 12, 2007, 11:30:58 AM

...
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that an enormous-scale setting requires enormous-scale golf features. In fact, I'm pretty sure I disagree with that. But I do understand the thinking.
...

I think the position of the photographer probably makes those bunkers look disproportional to what they would appear from the tee or fairway where the whole width of the fairway could be seen.

Just for the record: I'm not attempting to generate discussion of THOSE bunkers or THAT golf course, which I've never seen -- but of Tom Doak's general proposition (at least that's how I took it) that enormous-scale settings require enormous-scale golf features, because small features wouldn't look right in enormous settings.

Dan K TM:

I thought the suggestions that the hole was a par-3.........

C'mon Tom....you know darn well from my posts that I was pulling chains.....I don't believe for a second you thought that was a serious comment. Now I suppose I'll have to invent a Tom Doak smiley.......

Joe:

Actually, somebody else suggested it might be a par-3 or a par-4 a few posts after yours, or I wouldn't have included that.

Mike N:

If the mountain in the back lines up with anything on #10 tee, that's pretty much an accident, because I drew that hole on paper without having any idea what the background might be.  Which is not to say that Eric didn't adjust the positions of the bunkers, etc., with those features in mind ... I didn't notice if he did or not, it just looked right to me.

Tom,
I haven't had time to read all of the posts on this thread, but from what I read it was amazing the conclusions people drew from just a picture.  This really looks like a fun hole.  I sent the photo to Tom because I liked the course and this hole stood out in my pictures taken, but also because I really liked the feel of the hole as I viewed the hole and course with Mat the Keeper of the Greens.
ref