The Design Process

[Alex Miller]

I'm including it, but I didn't think of Ballyneal when I chose it because I haven't played there.

If it's the best greensite (and its a damn good one in that part of this topo) then use it. 

[Ben Sims]

I'm keeping my 12th as is. And then walking to the next tee through the gap, the problem is, I have no idea where to go from there to get three holes in before getting back to the 16th tee.  And damn it, I really like those three finishing holes!!

[Ben Sims]

Iteration #3.  

Sorry Tom, 13 isn't what you're looking for.  I can't figure it out.  But 15 is much better than expected.  I'm just lost after the 12th green.

Changes:

13) Par 4, 430-450 yards.  Downhill left to right tee fairway and landing area give way to flat creek bottom.  Can you carry the creek with the second?  Green pushed back to allow for run up shot, but don't go long, or left.

14) Par 3, 150-170 yards.  Green set in natural three sided bowl.  Possibly blind green surface.

15) Par 4, 340-360 yards.  Elevated fairway requiring a 150 yard forced carry to get to.  Topped shot makes this a three shot hole.  Anything over 260 yards off the tee requires a blind approach from a hole on the left.  I think this has some hogsback qualities.



http://cid-8d0729b4bf4a8128.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/AAC/Sims_AAC_Routing_3.skp

[Tom_Doak]

I would have taken #13 further, as a par five, across the next little bend of the creek to the higher ground which pokes in beyond [just at the edge of your last screen shot].  Then you could play a long par-4 back to the little knoll above the number "14" in your plan, with the tee shot coming up short of the creek and the second shot diagonally across ... maybe big hitters could even drive it across from the tee.  Then you could play 15 from more to the left so the green to tee walk wasn't so far.

Or, on the other hand, the terrain to the right of the ridge after #12 (right of the 15th and 16th) looks really cool for a hole playing north.

[Ben Sims]

I would have taken #13 further, as a par five, across the next little bend of the creek to the higher ground which pokes in beyond [just at the edge of your last screen shot].  Then you could play a long par-4 back to the little knoll above the number "14" in your plan, with the tee shot coming up short of the creek and the second shot diagonally across ... maybe big hitters could even drive it across from the tee.  Then you could play 15 from more to the left so the green to tee walk wasn't so far.

Or, on the other hand, the terrain to the right of the ridge after #12 (right of the 15th and 16th) looks really cool for a hole playing north.

Before I start, thanks for doing this.  I think a bunch of folks are learning here.

Okay, so I wasn't as far off as I thought?  Question:  You were thinking the 13th as you describe it would be the best hole on the course as drawn right now?  That's kind of what I take from your post of this afternoon.  Even so, I hate creeks crossing twice in one hole.  So maybe Carnoustie isn't my joint.  

I also like par 3's, I just think a course needs 4 (even though my gate to Narnia, NGLA, only has three) so the back has to have three.  14 is  a solid par three IMO.  I like 15 as a target/hogsback fairway with the green tucked behind that "button".  

So to further the idea behind the thread and educate me and others, how many more routings would you do if you had 5 more days to look at the topo?

PS--I spent a solid 1.5 hrs staring at the ground to the east and north of what is now 12 and 15.  The problem was finding a way to route three solid holes--13, 14 and 15--in that area.  I think I got two solid and one really cool hole out of doing what I did though.

[Kyle Henderson]

I love the positioning of the prominent bunker on orange #8, but the proportions of the hole would be difficult to perfect in order to make the alternate fairway parcel across the creek relevent to the strategy of play. As drawn, the left fairway is wide, offers a shorter route and a nice flat lie. That bunker would have to be placed and shaped very carefully to reward those going to the right.

[/quote]
The first hole I found was Green #4 followed by Green #5. Then I found Blue #8. Then I found Green #s 6-9. After that I can't remember it all, accept that Orange #8 was one of the last if not the last.

The favorites that I wanted to keep no matter what were Green 4 and Blue 8. I also had a strong liking for Green 6. This combined with a few other ideas and other pet holes lead me to 27. Orange #8 is also now a favorite. I felt like the way to make a split fairway hole work wasn't to give a distance advantage for the more difficult fairway, but some other advantage. In this case better helping slopes and an open view of the green.

Everyone please let me know what you think.
[/quote]
I love the positioning of the prominent bunker on orange #8, but the proportions of the hole would be difficult to perfect in order to make the alternate fairway parcel across the creek relevent to the strategy of play. As drawn, the left fairway is wide, offers a shorter route and a nice flat lie. That bunker would have to be placed and shaped very carefully to reward those going to the right.

Okay Ben, since you gave me leave to post a routing, below is what I've got thus far. Not all of the holes are there. I'm in the process of routing 27 holes because I found a few favorites that I couldn't stitch together within 18 holes (unless I wanted to make par 7s and 8s). Also, many of the holes do feel like "connector" holes. Nevertheless, I'd greatly appreciate any critiques anyone would be willing to give. I can also post ground-level 3D images as well. I'll post the routing and put a few comments below it.






The first hole I found was Green #4 followed by Green #5. Then I found Blue #8. Then I found Green #s 6-9. After that I can't remember it all, accept that Orange #8 was one of the last if not the last.

[Charlie Goerges]

Thanks for the response Kyle. You're more than likely correct, but tomorrow I'll post a close-up of the hole and you'll be able to see some of the subtler contours that made me think it could work.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

See my notes inside your response, below. 

Before I start, thanks for doing this.  I think a bunch of folks are learning here.

Okay, so I wasn't as far off as I thought?  Question:  You were thinking the 13th as you describe it would be the best hole on the course as drawn right now?  That's kind of what I take from your post of this afternoon.  Even so, I hate creeks crossing twice in one hole.  So maybe Carnoustie isn't my joint.      I wasn't thinking you would necessarily have to play over the creek twice, you could play wide right on your second shot to avoid the little bend short of the green on your third.

I also like par 3's, I just think a course needs 4 (even though my gate to Narnia, NGLA, only has three) so the back has to have three.  14 is  a solid par three IMO.  I like 15 as a target/hogsback fairway with the green tucked behind that "button".  This is the classic "rookie mistake" ... you have broken the plan down to two nines in your mind (even though it doesn't come back to the clubhouse), and you are thinking that one of the nines is perfect already, so you're limiting what you can do with the other nine when there is no need to think that way.  You can almost ALWAYS find a good par 3 somewhere near the end if you need to.

So to further the idea behind the thread and educate me and others, how many more routings would you do if you had 5 more days to look at the topo?  I haven't looked outside the page that Charlie is showing, yet.  The key is not how many routings you do but how certain you are that you've got the best one.  I would keep going back to this every day or two for a week, and then keep going back to it every week for probably 3-6 months.  But, I'd know when I was totally happy with it.

PS--I spent a solid 1.5 hrs staring at the ground to the east and north of what is now 12 and 15.  The problem was finding a way to route three solid holes--13, 14 and 15--in that area.  I think I got two solid and one really cool hole out of doing what I did though.  Again, you are assuming that you have to find exactly three holes there.  And your standard [two solid and one really cool hole out of three] is too low.  I would not be happy in this area until I had 2-4 really cool holes.  It's not a transition area, it's some of the best property there.

[Charlie Goerges]

For Kyle and anyone else interested, below is a close-up image of my green complex for Orange #8. I'll put some explanation below.





The main thrust for me in creating a split-fairway option is that the more difficult tee-shot give some advantage other than just a shorter 2nd shot. As you can see, the green slopes away pretty significantly from a player in the main fairway. While from the alternate fairway the slopes are quite helpful for most of the green. Additionally the view from the main fairway is blocked by one additional contour line (i.e. a mound about 2 feet high) which when combined with the fact that the green slopes away means the player won't be able to see any green surface at all.

So when the hole is cut near position "A" the alternate fairway has a significant advantage, whereas when the hole is cut in position "B" that advantage is somewhat reduced.

[Alex Miller]

edit

[Charlie Goerges]

I'd recommend not posting if you're planning to compete, because then your entry won't be anonymous to the judges. (I can't compete as I'm running the contest, otherwise I could rig the whole thing to win the MAJOR AWARD!) So if Tim Nugent , for instance, has it in for you because you criticized his latest work, it might affect his judging.

Sorry to pick on you Tim!

[Tim Nugent]

Charlie, No Problem, all GCA's must have thick skin. As must you, if you are willing to post your solutions for the multitude to disect  Besides, we remember how our early routings were disected by our mentors after we thought we had nailed it.

[Ben Sims]

This is the classic "rookie mistake" ... you have broken the plan down to two nines in your mind (even though it doesn't come back to the clubhouse), and you are thinking that one of the nines is perfect already, so you're limiting what you can do with the other nine when there is no need to think that way.  You can almost ALWAYS find a good par 3 somewhere near the end if you need to.

I haven't looked outside the page that Charlie is showing, yet.  The key is not how many routings you do but how certain you are that you've got the best one.  I would keep going back to this every day or two for a week, and then keep going back to it every week for probably 3-6 months.  But, I'd know when I was totally happy with it.

Again, you are assuming that you have to find exactly three holes there.  And your standard [two solid and one really cool hole out of three] is too low.  I would not be happy in this area until I had 2-4 really cool holes.  It's not a transition area, it's some of the best property there.

Tom,

Your latest post got me to thinking.  If all I'm doing--preliminarily--is finding holes, when does the fabric get woven?  I am supremely concerned with pacing and getting to the great holes without sacrificing the entire routing.  I believe that sometimes a golf hole should be used to cover ground, as is the case with holes 9 and 11, possibly even 14--if I'm honest--on the current iteration.  But "quality of fabric" is very important, so to speak, not just individual parts of the garment. 

It is challenging for sure to know that there are myriad possibilities.  Question:  How many times in your career have you looked at a topo and had an "a ha!!" moment?  Plenty I'm sure.  But how many times do you have an "a ha!!" moment after staring at the map for weeks?  You said, "But, I'd know when I was totally happy with it."  How?

Last thing.  Have you ever challenged yourself and your crew so that you weren't generic?  I find myself about the draw a hole to a green site I like, then being concerned--if fleetingly--that someone less creative than me has already seen that feature and routed or shaped it the same way.  My favorite hole, #4, feels a little obvious.  But a hole like #15, feels very unique.

Call me beard puller, but I'm having fun....

[Steve Lang]

   This thread sure screws up the AA Contest..   

Charlie G should mash the red button and restart..

[Alex Miller]

  This thread sure screws up the AA Contest..   

Charlie G should mash the red button and restart..

Personally I have maybe 1 hole the same on my current best layout and only 1 other shared greensite.

I think there's a lot to be learned from this, but anyone who takes away anything should realize it's only relative to Mr. Sim's routing. I'm not saying it sucks, but one should be able to come up with a different layout which seems better to them.

[Charlie Goerges]

Why do you say that Steve?

[Steve Lang]

  ITs not the ability to do an original routing that's at issue, it that the "contest" is now tainted.  That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, period,  no more discussion by me.

[Ben Sims]

  This thread sure screws up the AA Contest..   

Charlie G should mash the red button and restart..

Sorry you feel that way Steve.  I just didn't want to get thrown in the deep end and drown.  

I knew for sure I wasn't going to win, and I wanted to learn something about the VERY subjective art of routing

[Ben Sims]

  This thread sure screws up the AA Contest..   

Charlie G should mash the red button and restart..

I guess I should apologize for seeking truth and knowledge in golf course alchemy...

[Tim Nugent]

Steve, I wouldn't worry about it being tainted.  Ben's just taking advantage of a very generous Mr. Doak.  Besides, it's just a stick routing.  So much more is derived from the flushing out of individual hole design/straegy.  Granted, on some holes, that can be derived from the existing contours, but other's like Charlie's #8 shows that how he treats the green design has as much impact on the hole as does the routing. (now if Charlie can figure out how to figure green slopes, he won't risk getting lynched by golfers)

[Tom_Doak]

It is challenging for sure to know that there are myriad possibilities.  Question:  How many times in your career have you looked at a topo and had an "a ha!!" moment?  Plenty I'm sure.  But how many times do you have an "a ha!!" moment after staring at the map for weeks?  You said, "But, I'd know when I was totally happy with it."  How?

Last thing.  Have you ever challenged yourself and your crew so that you weren't generic?  I find myself about the draw a hole to a green site I like, then being concerned--if fleetingly--that someone less creative than me has already seen that feature and routed or shaped it the same way.  My favorite hole, #4, feels a little obvious.  But a hole like #15, feels very unique.

First question:  You are probably right ... some holes you see pretty quickly, and then you go out in the field and you may find something there that wasn't obvious on the map, but you rarely get an idea off the map three months in.  But, often, I find that my routing will come together after I put the map in a drawer for three weeks and go away from it, and when I come back to it my brain has sorted out most of the things that won't work, and I very quickly see a new way to connect the dots.  You are trying to connect the dots before you've looked for them all.

Second question:  Generic?  The last thing I want to be is generic; that's why I am always trying to put different combinations of people on the next project, and always looking on the topo for a hole I haven't seen before.  It is hard to come up with a golf hole that really feels original, especially once you have seen 15,000 holes ... but we usually manage to do it a couple of times on most of our projects, and occasionally more than that.  Yes, I've built a few Redans, but I sure wasn't looking for one in Florida.

Honestly, some of the best holes I have built were holes that I originally thought of only as connectors, where I just had to get over an awkward piece of ground, and wound up building something way better than I would have guessed.  You usually don't figure out that sort of stuff on paper -- it comes from going out on the ground and finding something you hadn't seen on paper.  But a lot of times, the fun part is that the landing area is fairly eccentric and you have to hit a real golf shot to counter the slopes and get yourself in position.

But here are a few holes that DID come flying off the page at me:  Rock Creek #7 and 10 and 11; Pacific Dunes #6 and 16; Sebonack #2 and 11 and 15; Tumble Creek #9; High Pointe #5 and 12 and 14;  St. Andrews Beach #2 and 7 and 9; Old Macdonald #4.  I knew all of those would make the final cut before I ever saw the ground in question.

[Ben Sims]

1) But, often, I find that my routing will come together after I put the map in a drawer for three weeks and go away from it, and when I come back to it my brain has sorted out most of the things that won't work, and I very quickly see a new way to connect the dots.

2) ...and always looking on the topo for a hole I haven't seen before.  It is hard to come up with a golf hole that really feels original, especially once you have seen 15,000 holes ...

3)...it comes from going out on the ground and finding something you hadn't seen on paper.  But a lot of times, the fun part is that the landing area is fairly eccentric and you have to hit a real golf shot to counter the slopes and get yourself in position.

Three things that stood out in your reply.  

1) What is your primary consideration when connecting those dots?  Green sites or fairways?  Let's both be honest and not include tees into that conversation.  In my opinion, much of what is wrong with so called "cart ball" courses is that points for tee boxes are sought out at the expense of interesting greens and fairways.  Back to the point.  A hole like Pac Dunes #6 called to you from paper you said.  Was it the green site you saw and wanted to include, or the fairway, or the whole package?  

2) This might be a bit proprietary; but have you ever sacrificed a really good--but not unique--hole that was obvious to the ground for the sake of building a unique hole to your style?  On the current topo, I find myself not putting what would be a great hole into a spot because it's been done before.

3) This is the most depressing part of this project.  There is so much to be gleaned from seeing a site.  I can't even begin to tell you how many times I look down at the ground everyday and see a macro-feature (bowl, knoll, hump, swale) and wonder how it would affect a golf ball.  I think every hobbyist/wannabe should get to see a raw site start to finish once in their life, just to "get it".

By the way.  I'm sitting on the routing until the end of the contest for two reasons. 1) I'm getting death threats from the competitors that this thread is tainting the otherwise sanctimonious competition of routing a fake golf course on a fake topo by people with jobs other than that of golf course architect and 2) Your point above makes a lot of sense.  Please continue to participate when it gets rolling again.  I'm just going to look for dots right now....

[Tom_Doak]

1.  It is features that cry out to you ... it can be a green site or a landing area or even, yes, a tee.  But those features have to relate to each other.  6 at Pacific showed me a skinny green site along a ridge, a gap in the ridge which you play through on the tee shot (between the start of the 9th fairway and going up to the green on the 6th ... it looked like an open gate on the topo, but you play into it on such a diagonal that probably no one here thinks of it that way), and the fact that the ridge where the tee is was just the right distance from those two features. 

Also, a huge part of routing is that a green site is really not that useful unless there is a good place to start another hole close by.

2.  I don't know that there is a good answer to that.  Jim and I spent a couple of months on the 17th at Pacific Dunes trying to figure out how to build something other than a Redan there ... and we tried to start a different sort of par-3, but when it wasn't working, we gave into the obvious because it was a perfect setting for one.  Obviously, on Old Macdonald, we had to seek out certain themes.  But generally, I am hoping to find something new and different.  On this Florida project I don't think you would say that any of the par-3's are a template.  One of the par-4 holes will certainly be called a Cape by some people, I guess, but it just fits into the routing so well you'd be crazy to fight it.  And there is one hole that's sort of like the 6th at Pacific Dunes, as it starts out, but I would not be surprised if it morphs into something different before we are done with it, because there is a lot of earthmoving to be done there.

Have fun trying to connect the dots.

[Tim Nugent]

Ben, to sum up what I think Tom is trying to say is A) don't go in with preconceived ideas, B) be flexible, and C) don't fight get or not get something that naturally fits.  There are times when you build a hole, thinking it's original, and it was what fit, only to see it on another course.  Would I not have built it "if I knew then, what I know know"? Hell ya.  There is nothing wron with holes that have the characteristics of other holes and a main reason why you see so many that have the characterisitics of "Template" holes is because there is something inherant to them that just plain works.  While I wouldn't shy away from these, I think most architects will try to come up with something "a little bit different" that gives it it's own identity. 

We once built the essentialy the same par 3 on 3 courses built by the same shaper, but each had variations in it.  When building the 3rd one, he asked me some field questions and I responded, "hell, what don't you get? You've already built it twice before". See, even a professional 20 yr shaper didn't see it.

Another example: just did a short par 5, dogleg left with a hard left sloping fairway around a lake that narrowed at the greensite into a creek that was on the left side of the water, built into a wooded hillside.  Sound like a famous par 5 we all know and revere? Only this one needed a stone wall to resist erosion and a break in the hillside allowed drainage to flow behind the green.  Those 2 elements made the design of the greensite totally different than ANGC#13 but, on paper, it looks rather similar.

[Emil Weber]

For Kyle and anyone else interested, below is a close-up image of my green complex for Orange #8. I'll put some explanation below.





The main thrust for me in creating a split-fairway option is that the more difficult tee-shot give some advantage other than just a shorter 2nd shot. As you can see, the green slopes away pretty significantly from a player in the main fairway. While from the alternate fairway the slopes are quite helpful for most of the green. Additionally the view from the main fairway is blocked by one additional contour line (i.e. a mound about 2 feet high) which when combined with the fact that the green slopes away means the player won't be able to see any green surface at all.

So when the hole is cut near position "A" the alternate fairway has a significant advantage, whereas when the hole is cut in position "B" that advantage is somewhat reduced.

Charlie,

what program did you do that sketch with?