AAC-III Entry No. 3

[Neil White]

All,

Following a very kind PM from Alex I have decided to post my entry for public critique.

I must say I was quite pleased with how it came out.  I made a couple of mistakes in reading the topo which led to a couple of semi-blind shots into greens eg holes 4 & 9.  In addition hole 13 played more uphill than I had envisioned but all in all I felt the holes used the land really well and provided a nice mix of required shot types.  I was extremely happy with how holes 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17 & 18 came across when viewed in the video.

As this was primarily a routing competition I can see others entrants views that those entries that were more graphically enhanced were more visually appealing and thus more voter friendly as being part valid.  That said, it was permitted for certain features to be drawn to provide more clarity for the routing and ultimately the designers intent.  What did surprise me was in some instances where greens / bunkers had been drawn was an apparent disregard for scale.  In my design I attempted to keep things 'real' so kept away from enormous bunkers and green complexes.

My feedback was predominantly favourable, with comments regarding my good use of the land and overall strong strategic design of the holes.

One area which came back to haunt me though was the dreaded 'transition' - I hate that word 

I'm not sure if it is due to a voters geographic location that they get so hung up on transitions but personally I don't mind the odd long walk from green to tee provided it is not unnecessarily uphill or convoluted.  Bill Brightly made a very valid point regarding locating tees extremely close to an adjacent green - would it be accepted on the grounds of safety?  Probably not, which begs the questions how far is too far or how close is too close? 

My average walk came in at ~60 yards - that was from green to back tee in a majority of cases - but I chose to do that in order to best utilise the ground and natural topography I had without the need for any earth movement etc.  I thought (wrongly?) that people wouldn't mind a few extra yards walk provided the next hole was a solid architectural challenge and didn't present as a blind or semi-blind drive or worse still a blind green location. 

Bill also made the point that, and I paraphrase, anyone can design great hole after great hole if they aren't concerned with transition or are using a buggy.  I accept his point in part but again the issue is how far are golfers prepared to walk?  I for one don't believe there is or should be a 'magic' number.

Did my entry suffer because of transitions - without a doubt,  could I have made alterations - yes, but they would've been only a handful and the difference possibly would not have swayed the vote.

I must say I was surprised at some entrants location of the 18 green in relation to the clubhouse, in that they were either a long way away from each other or not visible from one another.  This was one part of my design that I was also very happy with.

Another area that my design possibly didn't quite nail the brief on was 'sunset golf'. 

I guessed that a 6 hole combination would be sufficient so allowed for holes 1 & 2 along with holes 6, 16, 17 & 18.

If more time was available then you could play holes 1 thru' 6 and then holes 16 thru' 18 for a 9 hole combination.

In hindsight I possibly should've made a greater effort in making other hole combinations as is the case with other entrants but chose not to at the expense of the overall routing.

Finally I would like to thanks Alex for organising the competition and Jim for taking the time to create the videos - it's a shame that they weren't utilised as well as they could've been.

Anyway, here is my entry: -

[Paul Gray]

Neill,

Firstly, congratulations on both your design and your courage in opening up discussion on your work. I honestly thought your plans were excellent but, since you ask, my main concern was as follows:

As a golfer schooled out on a links course I felt you didn't take enough risks and thus there wouldn't be enough of a sense of really being out amongst the dunes. I felt the high group to the west of the site really needed to be utilised and, on a more micro scale, too often your plans worked around rather than over the land and this was reflected in the somewhat squiggly nature of some of your fairway lines. I didn't feel that was always the case; the 13th hole and approach to 11 in particular looked harmonious and not too apologetic to the natural terrain. 

I hope this doesn't sound too harsh because, again, overall I liked your plans and wholeheartedly congratulate you.

[Jim Colton]

Neil,

 Can you talk a bit about the decision to put a creek in on the 5th hole? I had a hard time envisioning how this would've been built in the Sand Hills.

 

[Neil White]

Paul,

The reason I chose to 'work around' the topographic features as opposed to over them is due to my using Google Earth to help me determine what could and couldn't be used.  Many of the features in GE are considerably more prominent than as seen on the videos created by Jim.

In most cases they would've left blind shots into fairways and greens - the videos flatten the ground quite a bit.

Jim,

As above I looked to use GE to get a better idea of the ground I was working with - I looked for actual sand scrapes, larger blowouts and darker green areas which I considered to be due to higher levels of moisture.  See below the area I used for the 5th green complex.



You can make out the 4 / 5 oval areas which are represented as pools on the plan and the sand scrape below the furthest left area which I incorporated as a bunker / hazard.



In retrospect I possibly should've shown the creek more as a dry ditch than as a creek with water in it - I would still use it as a hazard however.

Cheers,

Neil.

[Alex Miller]

Neil,

Can you describe the process a little bit? Did you start around a certain feature, hole, or where the clubhouse is?


My favorite holes of yours were 2, 9, 10, 15, and 17. All seemed to sit really well on the land and use the geography very strategically/

[Mike Nuzzo]

Howdy Neil
Playing from the middle tees I would not enjoy the length of walks - like playing 3 extra par 5's
I would also prefer more area to play around the greens
Cheers

[Jim Colton]

Neil,

  For what it's worth, I had your average green-to-tee distance at 82 yards, with a "score" of 86/84. This assumes that 150 yards in real life equals 100 yards on the topo, which looks like is very close to the assumption you used.

CH to 1: 36 yds (up 7 ft)
1: 111 (-6)
2: 124 (0)
3: 101 (-3)
4: 80 (6)
5: 67 (5)
6: 47 (-2)
7: 59 (2)
8: 50 (-1)
9: 105 (7)
10: 97 (4)
11: 47 (1)
12: 81 (-3)
13: 68 (3)
14: 89 (-2)
15: 48 (4)
16: 103 (1)
17: 111 (9)
18 to CH: 60 (4)

On a open, treeless site, I often found myself trying to visualize how to get to the next green and where to start. On your third hole, for example, I'd finish putting out on the 2nd green, see the cool green for 3 across the way and wonder why I'd have to walk 100 yards in somewhat the opposite direction in order to hit to it. The urge would be to plunk a tee down just off the 2nd green -- still a 190-yard shot.

The only other opportunities I saw for a shorter walk without jeopardizing the routing would be 10/11. 15 I wouldn't mess with.

Your 18th hole is great, btw.

[Adam Lawrence]

Neil - I agree with Mike here. I've seen so many courses that are basically arranged in linear fashion - you walk off a green in the direction of the next tee, and you have to walk past the back tee(s) to get to the one you want to use. Better to have the most commonly used tee closest to the previous green. If there's a bit of a walk back to the tips, so be it.

[Garland Bayley]

Neil,

 Can you talk a bit about the decision to put a creek in on the 5th hole? I had a hard time envisioning how this would've been built in the Sand Hills.

 

This is what immediately disqualified your entry from consideration for me. This topo was particularly hard to read over ones used in the past. To me it looked like the stream was routed on higher ground than what surrounded it.

[Neil White]

Howdy Neil
Playing from the middle tees I would not enjoy the length of walks - like playing 3 extra par 5's
I would also prefer more area to play around the greens
Cheers

Thanks for the comments Mike.

I think going forward (excuse the pun) I'll look to place my tees closer to the previous green.  Transition, transition, transition...... I'll only make this mistake once.

Adam,

Agreed - this was an interesting project and has been quite a steep learning curve - especially now the comments are coming in.

There is only one way to really learn..........

[Neil White]

Neil,

Can you describe the process a little bit? Did you start around a certain feature, hole, or where the clubhouse is?


My favorite holes of yours were 2, 9, 10, 15, and 17. All seemed to sit really well on the land and use the geography very strategically/

What process did I use?

Straight off the bat I saw the abrupt ridge that runs at about 45 degrees on the 2nd.  I wasn't sure at first if I wanted to use it as a hazard hard against a green site or as it is.  I went on to Google Earth and saw the depression and small knoll on which the green is situated and that made my mind up.  Working back from there I placed my tees which play over a low area before you reach the fairway.  Originally there was to be no fairway bunker and the edge of the fairway ran along the top of the ridge but I felt it would be best if I gave a visual indication as to the 'easy' and more 'brave' play so plumped for the bunker.

The next hole or at least green site was the 4th (which I imagined from the topo was located in a small head of a valley - turned out I misread the plan) and I tried to work out how it would fit into the plan.  So I went back to GE and found a nice little ledge which became the 3rd green and hence a par 3.  Annoyingly I didn't check the 4th green on GE so continued with it as I saw it in my minds eye.

EDIT: Jim makes a very valid point about the 3rd tees - noted.

The next hole I 'saw' was the 6th or at least its hogs-back fairway - the hole evolved from that point being the prospective LZ for the drive.  As with the 2nd green I managed to use a feature just short of the green that looked pretty interesting so was included. 

The 5th and 7th came about from looking for interesting features on GE - the 5th was the faux creek and the 7th was a large blowout which separated the green from the fairway.  Again I was fairly happy with how they turned out, obviously the 'creek' may have been one decision too many......

If I recall correctly I left the design alone for a couple of days as I couldn't see how the rest of the course was going to fit - I wasn't sure about the high ground in the middle left of the plot, what came to be called the 'Chicken Head' - my first thought was that it was too steep and rose and fell too quickly to not leave blind shots from one point or another.

Returning to the design I saw the 10th, 11th and 15th green sites and played around with them quite a bit to see how I could incorporate them into the design.  Again I used GE and felt the features too severe to play over so decided to use them as apex points and again was pleased with the result - especially on the 10th which was such a simple concept.  The 15th was my attempt at a 'faux Alps' and I take on board the view that it could've done with being a few yards shorter.

Another look at GE found the green sites for the 9th and 8th - the latter saw me find a low ridge which ended being set up as a Reverse Redan (which seemed to work when viewing the video).  The 9th didn't work out quite as well as the green seemed to be blind right up to the last second but it may have worked.

That left me with a gap between the 11th and 15th and 16th thru 18th to find.

The 18th came next as I envisioned the fairway sliding around a large bowl feature to the right and short of the green.  I felt the hole would work as a drivable option especially as the intent was for golfers to make their own mind up where they tee'd it up from.  Again it was another hole which I felt worked well and used the land to its best.

More to come.......

[Cameron DeVries]

Neil,
 
yours was one of my favorite entries in the contest; it seems like only little things kept you out of the final 8, which is too bad.  Without a doubt this experience will make you an even better designer in the future. 

The holes in the northwest portion of the property were well executed (I thought 10 & 11 took on some cool terrain) and holes 8 + 12 were among my favorite par 3's in the contest.  Yeah, you took some risks in not having multiple sunset loops (I made the same 'mistake' with my entry) and there were a couple long walks but the overall routing was solid and there were many interesting holes. 

I think having a creek going through 5 was OK, because it fit the site.  I still quite don't understand why having a water feature (if it fits the terrain and aligns with the areas that are already collecting moisture) on this site was such a bad thing.  I guess I have a lot to learn!

[Alex Miller]

Neil,
 
yours was one of my favorite entries in the contest; it seems like only little things kept you out of the final 8, which is too bad.  Without a doubt this experience will make you an even better designer in the future.  

The holes in the northwest portion of the property were well executed (I thought 10 & 11 took on some cool terrain) and holes 8 + 12 were among my favorite par 3's in the contest.  Yeah, you took some risks in not having multiple sunset loops (I made the same 'mistake' with my entry) and there were a couple long walks but the overall routing was solid and there were many interesting holes.  

I think having a creek going through 5 was OK, because it fit the site.  I still quite don't understand why having a water feature (if it fits the terrain and aligns with the areas that are already collecting moisture) on this site was such a bad thing.  I guess I have a lot to learn!

People did seem to be turned off by the water features. It didn't kill my opinion of Neil's design, but I don't think it helped either.

I think putting in some "blue", when the closest thing I've seen/read of a Nebraska Sand Hills course having water is the dry river beds on the new Dismal Doak course, was a risk. In AAC II there we were just given a map and told to design whatever. The winning design had trees while I did not envision any on my own. This contest had a "real" location (Nebraska) so I think that made adding in water features more invasive.

[Garland Bayley]

... I still quite don't understand why having a water feature (if it fits the terrain and aligns with the areas that are already collecting moisture) on this site was such a bad thing. ...

If it was judged by a client trying build a course there, and he knew there was a creek there, it would be no problem whatsoever. However, it was an added artificial water feature given what most would know about the site. As writing teachers used to say back when I was in school, "know your audience".

One design had what was clearly the irrigation pond added outside the core area of the course. Had it been put interior to the course to serve as a hazard, I would have eliminated the design from consideration.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Neil, here is the contours for layed over the Google Earth image - note the position of the windmill, I took this area to be scratched up due to cattle drinking area, and the dark green as scrub/bushes.

[Brett_Morrissy]

and here is the whole site:

[Brett_Morrissy]

Neil,
much has already been said, so I will just reiterate, from my notes on your course, that the course lost significant points for the walks, I am surprised you dont think this is an issue, if this was your home course, and you were made to walk all that extra way, it would wear thin pretty quickly - AND as the owner, reviewing your porposal, I would not be prepared to take that risk.

I think if you were made to go back and cap your walks between green and tees to say 40-50 yards - you could do it, there is truck loads of features everywhere, and you would no doubt find it. To me this the key that separate the likes of us entering a AAC contest from the Pro's, it is their ability to find the right kind of compromise - C&C had to do it at Sand Hills.

I didnt like the water inclusion, but it wasnt a deal breaker - along with the walks mentioned above, the other element that knocked you out of my top 5 was the length - again I dont see the need to build 7,500 yard course - with the shortest par 4 at 392 yards - that is no fun for me, and no fun for our members...

my favourite holes are 12, 13, 15 & 18.
 

[Matthew Rose]

I think putting in some "blue", when the closest thing I've seen/read of a Nebraska Sand Hills course having water is the dry river beds on the new Dismal Doak course, was a risk. In AAC II there we were just given a map and told to design whatever. The winning design had trees while I did not envision any on my own. This contest had a "real" location (Nebraska) so I think that made adding in water features more invasive.

I'll speak from the perspective of someone who put in a large irrigation lake and pretty much eliminated myself from contention in the process.

My impression was that this was a "design whatever you like" contest.... I also recall something in the rules about there being an accessible aquifer which didn't necessitate an irrigation pond but perhaps came across to me as an invitation to put water wherever you wanted without worrying about the practicality of it.

Almost immediately, it was "you can't put a lake in the Sand Hills, it's insane!". I saw one person on another entry say they would automatically disqualify any entry that used an irrigation pond, full stop.