[Garland Bayley]

I'm afraid dark green is doomed. He has the drop shot par 3 sickness that afflicted Chambers Bay and has been so roundly criticized on this site. (I guess they couldn't find anything else to criticize)


Never mind that me and everyman love the drop shot 9th there.

[Andy Gray]

I'm afraid dark green is doomed. He has the drop shot par 3 sickness that afflicted Chambers Bay and has been so roundly criticized on this site. (I guess they couldn't find anything else to criticize)


Never mind that me and everyman love the drop shot 9th there.

I'm not sure I follow you Garland, I can only see one drop shot par 3 among the dark green's holes...

Steve, that's an interesting observation, do you see this as a strength, weakness, neither or both?

[Garland Bayley]

Andy,

Do you see 4 par 3s playing down hill?

I may have exaggerated by calling them "drop shot", but the CB critics typically exaggerate the down hill nature of the par 3s there too.

[Jim Colton]

Sounds like Mike and Tim have their votes in...how long 'til we can start going with the course profiles?  Am I the only one, as my wife says, biting at the chomp?

[Andy Gray]

Andy,

Do you see 4 par 3s playing down hill?

I may have exaggerated by calling them "drop shot", but the CB critics typically exaggerate the down hill nature of the par 3s there too.

To be honest, I don't know that much about Chambers Bay, or the criticism it draws. But I revise my previous statement, I see two fairly downhill, 1 slightly downhill, 1 about flat (playing from high point to high point), 3 slightly uphills and 1 fairly uphill. There are going to be some pretty cool par 3's judging by the lollypop map...

Jim, I cannot wait to see the results, and any comments the judges have made for each course. Always nice to get an insight into the mind of a professional. At least I have my thesis to distract me most of the time.

[Tim Nugent]

Downhill par 3's look like low-hanging fruit but are harder to perfect (I know it's counter-intuitive) than one might realize. Sure you can visually get it all out there in front of the golfer. But if it's too down hill, you end up filling against grade to get the putting surface to hold a shot.  Some resort to a redan-style Front-to-Back slope green to lessen this need but that increases the difficulties as optically it may still appear to be Back-to-Front  (3-4% vs 10-15%). 

[Andy Gray]

Downhill par 3's look like low-hanging fruit but are harder to perfect (I know it's counter-intuitive) than one might realize. Sure you can visually get it all out there in front of the golfer. But if it's too down hill, you end up filling against grade to get the putting surface to hold a shot.  Some resort to a redan-style Front-to-Back slope green to lessen this need but that increases the difficulties as optically it may still appear to be Back-to-Front  (3-4% vs 10-15%). 

Tim,

That is something I have never really thought about before, but makes complete sense. I'm assuming you're referring to a green which is still at the grade heading away from the player? If so, can the same be said for a downhill shot to a green in a flat area? Personally, I would think not as the green would comfortably sit at the natural grade, be playable and still look natural. Also, just a quick thank you for being a part of this competition and participating so actively on this thread.

Andy

[Tim Nugent]

Andy, no problem, it's the reason I'm here.
As for downhill to a flat area...better but still depends on HOW MUCH downhill.  To get it to "Look" right, it's all about perspective angle.  At a big angle, even flat will appear to be tipping back at the golfer and if the area around the green doesn't reflect this, it FEELS artificial as it is against the grain.  There are a couple of tricks that can be employed to alieviate this feeling like contouring the green to create ridges and valleys perpendicular to the line of play and push any rear support further back and have a low area between the rear of the green and support.  This can allow for the top of the support to actually be lower than the putting surface but not FEEL or LOOK like it nor play like it.

It is usually easier to get everything to fit together if you attack downhill approaches from an angle, then your low slope is off to one side and you can balance the green site by cutting into the high side and filling the low side.  If the cross-grade is severe, you can "makeup the grade" with either a steep grass face slope or some bunkering (if you wish to stop balls from careening further down slope or want to use the visual destinction of the sand to highlight the elevation difference).

[Andy Gray]

Tim, I understand what you are saying, it all makes sense. I guess these are all things that can only be tackled "in the field", even if by looking at a topo map you may recognise that there may be one of the problems you outlined, it is all about visuals and perspective.

In general, which type of hole (par, and perhaps short/medium/long) do you feel was designed/routed the best by the contestants? I would find it interesting if there was a trend, as it may outline a type of hole which is generally harder to design, albeit by amateurs.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Andy, I would say that all of these things should be tackled on paper by the designer who tenders the work for construction... (still the majority of designers by a distance)....

This thread is good... I'm enjoying reading it... Just wish I had more time to study the topo and come up with some ideas myself... maybe this weekend...

[Andy Gray]

Andy, I would say that all of these things should be tackled on paper by the designer who tenders the work for construction... (still the majority of designers by a distance)....

This thread is good... I'm enjoying reading it... Just wish I had more time to study the topo and come up with some ideas myself... maybe this weekend...

What you are saying is the designer should have a general idea of the problem and the most likely solution? I'm guessing this would involve an approximation of the cut and fill work needed in order to price the job properly or to a certain degree of accuracy?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Andy, I would say that all of these things should be tackled on paper by the designer who tenders the work for construction... (still the majority of designers by a distance)....

This thread is good... I'm enjoying reading it... Just wish I had more time to study the topo and come up with some ideas myself... maybe this weekend...

What you are saying is the designer should have a general idea of the problem and the most likely solution? I'm guessing this would involve an approximation of the cut and fill work needed in order to price the job properly or to a certain degree of accuracy?

It is the designer's job to estimate the cut and fill required...

All I'm saying is that an experienced designer who uses this method to work (I think Tim does?) should in theory have all of his sightlines and these problems tackled within his tender package... In the ideal world, there should be no significant change on site... In the real world, there will be of course but they should be minimal... Major changes should not be as a direct result of design errors...

Doesn't apply to Design / Build method...

[Tim Nugent]

Andy, Allie is correct - from my perspective  (although maybe not others).  You do this long enough, you get a pretty good understanding from the topo map.  Couple that with years of experience marrying paper design to field construction and Wholla!

It also depends on the process you employ to build the course.  Design/Build allow a for a bit more flexibility re: ascertaining quantities, than Hard Bid.  However, even with D/B,  unlees you have some kind of Time & Material contract, it behooves one to iron out all the wrinkles on paper because the ground can deceive.  What might appear to be a gentle slope may in fact be too great for a putting surface and you end up tearing up more area, after the fact, to recitfy the situation (and the more you tear up, the more you have to restore). Also, 'in the field' sounds romantic but remember, many times you are dealing with dense vegetation or forest,  where you can't get a true view of the land until it's cleared and grubbed.  This then becomes a chicken-or-egg situation when doing a routing.

Even with topo, one must field review the routing and specific green/tee/hazard locations to insure that the topo is true - especially when it comes to vegetated sited.

I use a 10:1 verticle to horizonal profile on paper (actually now my computer models this for me which save alot of time) and start with a +4' eye-line.  This will show me what one would be able to see and what would be obstructed.

[Andy Gray]

I see, thanks for the explanations. Can you please outline the "design / build" method and the other one you mention (but didn't name)? I work in the construction industry so I'm guessing the "design / build" method would be similar to the "design and construct" method in construction, where the design is (for lack of a better word) incomplete and only finalised during construction?

[Andy Gray]

Andy, Allie is correct - from my perspective  (although maybe not others).  You do this long enough, you get a pretty good understanding from the topo map.  Couple that with years of experience marrying paper design to field construction and Wholla!

It also depends on the process you employ to build the course.  Design/Build allow a for a bit more flexibility re: ascertaining quantities, than Hard Bid.  However, even with D/B,  unlees you have some kind of Time & Material contract, it behooves one to iron out all the wrinkles on paper because the ground can deceive.  What might appear to be a gentle slope may in fact be too great for a putting surface and you end up tearing up more area, after the fact, to recitfy the situation (and the more you tear up, the more you have to restore). Also, 'in the field' sounds romantic but remember, many times you are dealing with dense vegetation or forest,  where you can't get a true view of the land until it's cleared and grubbed.  This then becomes a chicken-or-egg situation when doing a routing.

Even with topo, one must field review the routing and specific green/tee/hazard locations to insure that the topo is true - especially when it comes to vegetated sited.

I use a 10:1 verticle to horizonal profile on paper (actually now my computer models this for me which save alot of time) and start with a +4' eye-line.  This will show me what one would be able to see and what would be obstructed.

As usual, it seems I have under estimated or simplified what is involved in the design and construction of a golf course. I think I have a romanticised view on the subject. Much to learn!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Andy, Charlie (and others),

I was thinking that the next armchair architecture contest should be to design a green complex… It is easier to judge in a way because the considerations can be a lot more practical than routing… (e.g. drainage, slopes etc…)… It also doesn’t require any computer skills… In fact, all the designs should be hand drawn… Plus the brief is much less ambiguous… Most routings are compromised by restrictions that we don’t have in this contest…

Those more skilled can draw their own contours… Those less skilled can just show general slopes with spot-heights… Although the former is preferred if enough people feel they can tackle it…

Anyway, I don’t want to take away from this thread… It might just give a good idea of what goes in to detail design in addition to the conceptual design of routing the course…

What do you think?

[Tim Nugent]

Andy, "ya mean ya jus don't mow the grass shorter?"  Thank for realizing.  As for D/B or D/C - I believe they are the same.  What can be more important is how one is compensated, D/B can save on design time and hence design fee but without a complete design and specification upfront, it's hard to nail down the upside cost.  Owners generally like to know what there exposure is going to be (although I think Pete Dye (or one of his clients) has been quoted in jest as saying "I was given an unlimited budget and exeeded it").

What no builder wants is to be forced into a Time & Material with a Guaranteed Maximum as this put's the downside risk on the builder and the upside savings to the owner.  But without detailed designs and specifications, T&M is the only fair way to handle it - but then the owner needs a representative to ascertain the validity of the billing - which is another cost to be incurred.

[Emil Weber]

Ally,

I don't like your idea for a couple of reasons.

1. A green complex isn't nearly as interesting to design as a whole course.
2. Many people, including me, have not much knowledge of the practiacal parts, drainage etc.
3. This year and least year were not just routing a course. Hole details and even green contours had to be considered, too, as far as I know.

[Tim Nugent]

Allie, maybe a bit too simplistic.  A green by itself, out of context relating to the routing, other greens, and individuals holes would be rather hard to judge.  Charlie has indicated that the next AAC will be an actual, real world site - with actual real world constaints.  Maybe including one green detail design could be a requirement.

Emil, re:#3, I only assessed the raw green locations and existing topo.  I had to extrapolate (if no other written or drawn info was provided) as to the ease or difficulty of construction a green would be and what it would cost (could I build it with a tractor or would I need heavy equipt?)

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

I don't like your idea for a couple of reasons.

1. A green complex isn't nearly as interesting to design as a whole course.
2. Many people, including me, have not much knowledge of the practiacal parts, drainage etc.
3. This year and least year were not just routing a course. Hole details and even green contours had to be considered, too, as far as I know.

No problem Emil... It was just an idea for a quicker, additional contest to show another (very interesting in my book) side of the design process...

I didn't mean sub-surface drainage by the way - I just meant general slopes / surface drainage...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Allie, maybe a bit too simplistic.  A green by itself, out of context relating to the routing, other greens, and individuals holes would be rather hard to judge.  Charlie has indicated that the next AAC will be an actual, real world site - with actual real world constaints.  Maybe including one green detail design could be a requirement.

That seems to make sense... Firstly, good news that there will be a real site with real constraints...

I like the idea of showing the detail for one green site too...

I'm not sure I agree that an individual green would be hard to judge though... Anyway, it was more a process of showing people what went in to a design... Maybe a better idea is for some designers to post up a detail drawing of a green that they have designed and to let others interpret the drawing...

[Andy Gray]

Allie, maybe a bit too simplistic.  A green by itself, out of context relating to the routing, other greens, and individuals holes would be rather hard to judge.  Charlie has indicated that the next AAC will be an actual, real world site - with actual real world constaints.  Maybe including one green detail design could be a requirement.

Emil, re:#3, I only assessed the raw green locations and existing topo.  I had to extrapolate (if no other written or drawn info was provided) as to the ease or difficulty of construction a green would be and what it would cost (could I build it with a tractor or would I need heavy equipt?)

Tim, last year's contest used the Erin Hills site, which no one guessed until Charlie revealed the location. That had clubhouse and entrance road restraints (and if I remember correctly a driving range too). That was quite a severe piece of land, much more so than this year.

Ally, although I don't think your idea would be good for a competition as such, a demonstration would be very informative to a majority of people on this site. I would be very interested to learn more about it. I'm finding the sub-surface drainage mechanisms quite interesting at uni at the moment. We have been designing landfill liners etc, kind of opposite to what's required on a golf course (retention rather than drainage), but the concepts would be the same.

Note: just read your post Ally, exactly what I was thinking re: the design process for a green.

[Tim Nugent]

Andy, I remember last years but i think Charlie is looking for something a bit more confined and detailed, not just a topo, but an actual site with the elements spelled out - ie: veg, trees, existing utilities, maybe lakes/wetlands, soil type etc.  I spent a day w/Bob Lang on the EH site and there were alot of elements that Charlie left off AAC1 that would have impacted some routings.

Emil, you learn by doing and having the end result critiqued.  You don't know what you don't know until someone tells you.  This is what life as an apprentice GCA is like.

[Charlie Goerges]

I am pleased to no end at the interesting and educational directions this thread has taken. Thanks everyone for all of the interest and time. (I only wish I had a bit more time to spend mulling everything over.)

On a related note, I'm going to take my buggy whip to the remaining judges in an effort to get the results finished up. Time will tell whether corporal punishment will be effective as a motivator or if they are "into" that sort of thing .

[Alex Miller]

If they are "into that sort of thing" they should play my course from the tips! The fun they would have!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()