What's Easier to Route/Design: Uphill vs. Downhill Holes

[Mike Hendren]

The Sagebrush thread got me to thinking:  Generally, are downhill holes easier to route or design than uphill ones?  Golden age architects did not have the benefit of utilizing green to tee transitions to climb back up the site, relying on carts to ease the golfer's pain.  Accordingly, they likely compromised some ideal downhill holes just so they could find a way to route the golf course back up a severe hill.  

For one, I find Chambers Bay's uphill holes to be stellar and an enhancement to the routing.  But generally speaking, are there as many great uphill holes being designed today as there were in the past?

Mike

[Adam Russell]

To me it would be easier to accommodate a downhill hole into a routing than to try to fit in a good uphill hole that wasn't a long trek. People like to walk (or ride) down more than up, plus the views would tend to be more expansive. I think good uphill holes are harder to design, and people accept a downhill hole's flaws easier than an uphill simply based on climbing vs. coasting.

[Wade Whitehead]

Amateurish, but: I've played far fewer good uphill holes, so it must be harder to design or route or build them.

WW

[Jeff_Brauer]

No question downhill holes are generally easier.

If going uphill and wanting to maintain vision from tee to lz, tee to green and lz to green a lot of math goes into it!  Basically, if the green will slope forward at no more than 2%, the elevation difference cannot be greater than 0.02 x the distance from seeing zone to what has to be seen.  On a 400 yard (1200 feet) hole, the green can only be 24 feet above the tee and perhaps 8 feet (0.02 x 400 feet) above the main landing areas, or it will be blind from there.

If that is not possible, then generally we add some kind of markers - like bunker front left and front right (one of the few times I will use that overwrought combo) so the golfer knows where they are going.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

I don't know which is easier to design -- you really can't have one without the other, although everyone cheats with uphill transitions.

A gently uphill hole does have the advantage of presenting innumerable bunkering opportunities -- you really need a facing slope in order to build a decent bunker.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike -

I always feel silly posting on a topic after the professionals have spoken, but here goes: I'd imagine that in order to design a great uphill hole (especially a Par 5) it cannot be a secondary consideration or an afterthought, ie the architect would have to 'begin' his routing with the great uphill hole/Par 5 in mind and then 'work around' it.

I had the priviledge and pleasure of playing Crystal Downs this week - the Par 5 eighth hole is one of the very few Par 5s that I've ever liked.
I wonder if that hole was one of the first that Mackenzie saw/envisioned.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bunkering can be stout on an uphill hole, providing the tee is elevated with a swale just in front and then the entire fw goes uphill.  I do find that bunkers that are on uphill shots (as opposed to down and up views from the tee) can be problematic.  You need to build a very simple front and even the back needs fewer curly cues because where the capes dip down, they tend to disappear.  More front to back dimensions help the bunkers be visible, so they get bigger, too.  And, they must be built above grade as digging a hole on an uphill shot simply makes them disappear.

Another factor that is a wee bit easier on uphill holes is that the slope kills roll, so sometimes you can get away with slightly greater cross slope than on a downhill hole, where the downslope accelerates roll and cross slopes too easily direct shots into the rough.

You have to factor in less roll, so I know some gca's figure the uphill holes are good candidates for par 5's to make them play artifically longer.

Peter,

Wasn't the par 3 ninth added quickly after they routed only 17 holes?  If so, I doubt the 8th was figured as it stands now to start with, or even first!

[JC Urbina]

 Michael,

Some of the best holes at Pasatiempo and The Valley Club are the uphill holes.  # 5,13,15,and 18 at The Valley Club.  #3, 9,11 at Pasatiempo are fine golf holes.  You could argue that Mackenzie was one of the best at building uphill holes. 

I am convinced that uphill holes provide more variety as compared to downhill ones.  I understand that visibility is important to what is perceived to be fair.

The 18th at The National is  the best uphill finishing hole in golf. 

Of my five favorite golf courses.  Three finish with uphill holes.  One does ever so slightly and ones plays slightly down hill.

Adam, I agree people like to coast rather then climb.

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I think whether a par-5 hole is the foundation of the routing would vary from course to course.  I know that a couple of times, I've used a long uphill par-5 as a connector hole after I had a bunch of other holes in place, and needed to get back up a hill at some point ... mainly, just to avoid having two consecutive uphill holes.

The eighth at Crystal Downs is a special case.  I would imagine it was one of the first puzzle pieces in the routing of the front nine just because there weren't many other stretches out there where a par-5 was conceivable, and it does hug one side of the property.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff, Tom - thanks.

I'm an average guy and an average golfer, save for the fact that I have a dislike for Par 5s and have rarely had one surprise me or change my mind. I actually wasn't looking forward to the 8th (after having read all I could about the course). With the vast majority of Par 5s I've played, there is always a middling shot thrown in there and required, seemingly will-nilly, and no amount of bunkering or dog-legging ever seems to change the fact (for me) that most Par 5s are no more (in essence) than a long drive and a decent short approach.  But I found -- like everyone else does, I assume -- that there is a great genius in that 8th hole at CD: somehow the length and the fairway undulations and the uphill-ness and the semi-blindness and the smallish and difficult green all work together perfectly...greater than the sum of the parts...and there is absolutely nothing middling about the design or the playing of it, each and every shot...and yet it is utterly natural in its appearance and in the playing. I just had to assume that Dr M 'saw' it right there, right away.

Peter  

PS - I'm guessing that it probably helps a lot that Dr M didn't feel compelled to find/create FOUR par 5s on the same course. I really do think this is a problem when it comes to creating memorable Par 5s -- you put that many on a course and they can't help feeling sort of the same...

[Jaeger Kovich]

I can see pros/cons to both, but in general I think that average/decent downhill holes (not including par 3s) are cut more slack by most players because they get to hit the driver a little bit longer. I think the added excitement by the avg member and sunday hacker, not the gca guru, makes the holes at least more fun, if not better.

[Sean_A]

Michael:

I don't know which is easier to design -- you really can't have one without the other, although everyone cheats with uphill transitions.

A gently uphill hole does have the advantage of presenting innumerable bunkering opportunities -- you really need a facing slope in order to build a decent bunker.

Tom

Take a look at the Cavendish thread and re-aquaint yourself with that design.  Is it a bit unusual in the routing with the 3 drop shotter par 3s and one uphill par 3 to transition the much of the most severe terrain?  

Ciao

[Adam Russell]

Perhaps I was thinking more to the idea of routing, because I can see how an uphill hole could offer a great hilltop greensite or grand bunkers. Most clubhouses go off a high point, and I just think the odds of finding a downhill par-3/4/5 would be greater or easier than coming across the inverse in terms of looking at raw land. I just can't see an architect searching land to piece together a routing and stumbling across a great uphill hole first thing. It would seem more likely to me that the uphill hole would be found as a connection, rather than a starting point.

[Bill_McBride]

I had the priviledge and pleasure of playing Crystal Downs this week - the Par 5 eighth hole is one of the very few Par 5s that I've ever liked.
I wonder if that hole was one of the first that Mackenzie saw/envisioned.

if you enjoyed #8 at the Downs, you probably didn't pull your tee shot and your second shot into the left fescue and make 8 like I did.

I did the same thing on #16 after playing #10-15 in even 4's.  Tough par 5s at Crystal Downs.

[Philippe Binette]

Actually,

downhill holes and uphill holes are hard to route and execute properly...

the easiest holes to route would be a tee followed by a 25 foot drop over the first 100 yards then followed by a 15 - 20 feet rise slowly all the way to the green.
the reason for this is that on all downhill holes, it's hard to make the features visible, you have to bulk up your mounds against the general slope in order to see the bunkers for example.

Think 14th at Shinnecock and many many holes are in that type of configuration

[TEPaul]

"Think 14th at Shinnecock and many many holes are in that type of configuration."


Phillippe:

When one first looks at Shinnecock's 14th they seem to assume it is basically one beautiful natural valley landform (natural grade) from not far off the natural high ground of the tees. I think the vast majority of the fairway on that hole basically is a lovely valley landform at natural grade but the truth is the greensite and probably a number of yards running out into the approach is a fill operation which makes it play somewhat uphill from the approach. I don't know WHY Flynn did it that way but I suspect the main reason was to get water from both sides of the valley walls directed away from that green both in front and particularly in the rear. If you play it take special notice of how much lower it is behind that green for about 30 yards or until you run into what appears to be a man-made earthen bridge landform that's a walkway coming off the 15th tee. That back there I believe is the natural grade that the area of the 14th green site was once.

[Mike Hendren]

Michael,

Some of the best holes at Pasatiempo and The Valley Club are the uphill holes.  # 5,13,15,and 18 at The Valley Club.  #3, 9,11 at Pasatiempo are fine golf holes.  You could argue that Mackenzie was one of the best at building uphill holes. 

I am convinced that uphill holes provide more variety as compared to downhill ones.  I understand that visibility is important to what is perceived to be fair.

The 18th at The National is  the best uphill finishing hole in golf. 

Of my five favorite golf courses.  Three finish with uphill holes.  One does ever so slightly and ones plays slightly down hill.

Adam, I agree people like to coast rather then climb.

JC,

Interesting observation about Mackenzie, supported by the 8th at Augusta National which is a very good hole with an incredibly intimidating uphill second required.

I'm with you on the 18th at NGLA.  I'll go a step farther and say that I believe it is one of the finest finishing holes in the game.  I do so love a finisher that plays past the club house as opposed to directly at it.

Mike