News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« on: May 06, 2013, 11:38:50 PM »
My course and green diagrams. Would love to hear others favorites and criticisms and I'd be happy to answer any questions. This was a lot of fun (the design part)!






Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2013, 11:41:02 PM »
Tommy Naccarrato says:

Two things: This color you put on the topo has got to go! It makes it very hard to see the great use of topography your accomplished! The other thing is the greens are a bit too busy for my tastes. Stop trying to impress Tom Doak and start trying to impress George Thomas!

Seriously, you’ve got some brilliant strategies here that work , great green shapes and some very good contours in them., although I think you have to show some restraint for the land in terms of  the greens; let the land do its job as god and Mother Nature intended!

Your green drawings are tops by the way! Explains a lot about the routing which I can barely see thanks to that color you applied!

Also, a less reliance on sand and more reliance on land is whats more important to the strategies. I see a lot of bunkers that are unnecessary—all sixty of them!

We have a new leader in the clubhouse! But if I compare to one of the others, and the restraint comes into it, it might be a deciding factor to an otherwise brilliant routing!


Ron Whitten says:

   First thing I noticed was the practice range, positioned due east, which is not quite into the morning sun on summer mornings, but still into the rising sun enough to make it awkward for morning golfers. Plus they’ll be constantly fighting a strict crosswind from right to left, overemphasizing draws and misleading slicers into thinking they’ve straightened things out.

   The next thing I noticed was the massive amount of irrigated turf used on this course. If the scale is accurate, over half the holes are more than 100 yards wide (including the approach to the par-3 15th!)  While I love the fact that the architect used the vast site to exercise some flights of fancy with regard to width, alas, he has everyone teeing off from precisely the same angles. (Indeed, this design looks like it could have been prepared by Robert Trent Jones in 1960.) 

   My personal feeling is that the best golf holes are those that look and play differently from each tee on a hole. I don’t see that here. (Only the par-3 eighth has a tee box in a considerably different angle from the others, and that exists to present a “sunset round.” Nice touch, but I would have liked to have seen much more of that.)

   Also, the course is very long from the front tees at 6,565 yards.  Barney Adams’s recent “Tee it Forward” studies have shown that to hit greens in regulation on a 6,400 yard course, a golfer must be able to drive it an average of 250 yards per tee shot. That’s well beyond the range of mid to high-handicap golfers, for whom this golf course will rely upon for income.

   Also, I notice another of my pet peeves. In order to make a course easily walkable, it’s ideal if tees are close to previous greens. (Most architects don’t do that these days because of a variety of reasons. Litigation is a primary one. Cart paths are also a frequent contributor.) Here, the architect thinks he’s accomplished the task, but the problem is, he/she has the back tee closer to each previous green. Which defeats the purpose, since few golfers use the back tees.  It’s much better if the regular tees are closest to previous greens, and back tee players walk back to their tees.

   Since this design has considerable width on most of its fairways, I expect to see all sorts of alternate routes and options. But most holes don’t seem to provide many options.  Only the short par 4s seem to pose different avenues of attack. The architect suggest three routes on the 310-285 yard par-4 second. Playing to the far left, over the carry bunker, would certainly leave a good angle into this diagonal green?  But if a golfer can hit it 275 yards to that spot, why wouldn’t he play up the middle of the hole? It might not be quite as good of an angle, but it’s only a sand wedge shot anyway.  And would anyone deliberately play to the right? The bunker over there seems penal, simply to punish a slicer. On a hole this short, this much width seems like overkill.  The strategy would work better, I should think, on a longer par 4, where the thought of trying to hit a long iron or hybrid into a diagonal green with a front bunker would dictate trying to get as far left to approach into the long axis of the green.

   The short par-4 10th is merely a mirror image of the second in terms of design philosophy. Here I question the architect’s scale. If the second is indeed 310 yards, the 10th is not 305-280 yards long.  I measure it at closer to 400 yards.  Which is fine. The strategy works better on a longer hole. I like this hole much better, because some players will aim down the left side of the hole because the entire hole slopes left to right. Others will play down the right side to get that better angle (although I doubt anyone drives it 385 yards as shown), and the strategic bunker on the far right is more of a savior than a punishment.

   I just wish the architect had provide more holes with these sort of options. The 13th, although flight-lined to show two options, really doesn’t have two options. It’s too long, uphill and into the prevailing wind, to be a realistic drivable par 4 for all but a few professionals, so no one will attempt to carry the fairway bunker on the right, simply to leave themselves an awkward half-wedge into the green.

   Speaking of awkward, the most awkward hole on the design is the par-4 11th, playing uphill from the tee, with the proposed landing area (albeit 380 yards from the tee) down in a hollow, from which the next shot would be uphill and presumably semi-blind. (As a “back loop” par 5, playing to the 16th green, the hole is actually better in terms of visibility and probably playability. Which makes me wonder why the architect didn’t design 11 as a par 5 to that green in the first place, and re-route the 16th to some other location. 

   Other observations: two of the four par 3s play in exactly the same direction (four and 17), never a good thing, even though each is bunkering differently. Eight, from its alternate “sunset” tee, plays in the same direction as 15.  More variety is needed.  There is better variety in the alignment of the four par 5s. Three plays more or less downwind, while the other three face differing crosswinds. Which is good.

   I also reviewed each green plan provided by the architect, and while I wasn’t certain of the dimensions of the ridges in these greens, I was a bit concerned that so many greens contained so many distinct ridges.  It became monotonous. While I agree that greens in a sandhills location ought to emulate the rugged nature of the surrounding terrain, I also think that balance is needed. There doesn’t seem to be a subtle green anywhere on the property. Some seem unfair. The fourth green appears to me to be a series of tiers dropping right to left, rather cruel on a hole where the prevailing wind is right to left.  The 12th green has a knob diagonally through its middle, which would dictate that pin positions would be needed around the perimeter of the green. Yet there are knobs and slopes at several points around the edges. Where, exactly, is a superintendent supposed to locate holes?

   However, I did like the 16th green, which appears to tumble left to right as viewed from the 16th fairway, and from right to left when played from the 11th fairway as part of the “sunset” back loop. 
CONCLUSIONS TO ENTRY 13: Should this architect be hired, I would urge him to re-examine his scale of features and rethink a few of his par 5s, which seemed to blur together. The overall routing is not that bad, but a few more twists and turns within some of the holes might vary the wind directions.  The strategies used on the short par 4s ought to be adapted to longer ones.

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2013, 11:47:33 PM »
Just want to say, regarding scale, my 10th did come out a little long for some reason (not 400 yards), but the tee shot on 11 is correct. I just remeasured it...

Complex greens which dictate strategy and wide fairways to allow playability and diverse angles of attack was my goal. While that wasn't as widely received as I'd hoped, I definitely feel like my end product was close to what I had hoped to achieve.

Connor Dougherty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2013, 04:53:36 AM »
Alex,

I'll make a quick comment now and come back later to comment more on the course.

Tommy Naccarrato made an interesting comment on the greens. I really like both the creativity and variety of green complexes, but wondered what would the golfer be forced to do if he found himself on the back left/back right forced to putt to a pin on the other side of the bunker. I know that this is a pet peeve for a lot of us out there, and most golfers say that if there is a way to place that putt close to the hole makes it forgivable. It doesn't seem like this green has this feature, but is there something I'm missing that allows the golfer to putt to all regions of the green when he's on the putting surface?

I actually found Ron Whitten's comment about the location of the back tee next to greens very interesting, and I certainly ran into the same problem doing my own routing.
"The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it." --Bart Bradley

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2013, 10:42:53 AM »
Alex,

I'll make a quick comment now and come back later to comment more on the course.

Tommy Naccarrato made an interesting comment on the greens. I really like both the creativity and variety of green complexes, but wondered what would the golfer be forced to do if he found himself on the back left/back right forced to putt to a pin on the other side of the bunker. I know that this is a pet peeve for a lot of us out there, and most golfers say that if there is a way to place that putt close to the hole makes it forgivable. It doesn't seem like this green has this feature, but is there something I'm missing that allows the golfer to putt to all regions of the green when he's on the putting surface?

I actually found Ron Whitten's comment about the location of the back tee next to greens very interesting, and I certainly ran into the same problem doing my own routing.

Hi Connor,

I assume you are talking about the 4th green? The ridge which runs up closest to the bunker on the green is sloped so that it could help a ball move back-left to back-right or visa-versa. That is generally a pet peeve of mine too, so I appreciate the concern there. If you were talking about 16 I think there is a similar sloope and strategy to the approach.

The 4th hole is a mutated redan of sorts. The spine in the kick-plate short of the green forces the golfer to think carefully if he is going to run it up so that they do not go to the wrong portion of the green.

Jim Colton gave me the very helpful critique (after I finished of course), that the 3rd, 4th and 5th all have elements of blindness, and while they may each work as golf holes (I love my 5th), they are all back-to-back-to-back.


As for the back tees being closer... well at least they're very close! In order to traverse the site to the degree I wanted while still having short transitions often the back tee needed to be closer, but there are many many exceptions (3, 5, 7, 15, 16, 18). Even so, I think my green to front tee transitions were shorter than most.  ???



Quote
Since this design has considerable width on most of its fairways, I expect to see all sorts of alternate routes and options. But most holes don’t seem to provide many options.  Only the short par 4s seem to pose different avenues of attack. The architect suggest three routes on the 310-285 yard par-4 second. Playing to the far left, over the carry bunker, would certainly leave a good angle into this diagonal green?  But if a golfer can hit it 275 yards to that spot, why wouldn’t he play up the middle of the hole? It might not be quite as good of an angle, but it’s only a sand wedge shot anyway.  And would anyone deliberately play to the right? The bunker over there seems penal, simply to punish a slicer. On a hole this short, this much width seems like overkill.  The strategy would work better, I should think, on a longer par 4, where the thought of trying to hit a long iron or hybrid into a diagonal green with a front bunker would dictate trying to get as far left to approach into the long axis of the green.

Anyone have thoughts on this? I thought the contours and narrowness of the green would encourage the angles, but perhaps it was not enough incentive?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2013, 10:57:16 AM »
As Ron indicates, angles are more important on long approaches. However, it seems silly to criticize width. If he wants to play narrow pinched corridors, then let him go play RTJ, and PGA Tour design courses. Most golfers cannot hit a target area with any regularity. Therefore, width is to be encouraged. The golfer that can hit his target with the drive, most likely will be the one that can hit his target with the approach. He has an advantage no matter how wide the course. Let's make golf fun again and not pander to the so called stick that wants to obtain more advantage than he should be due, just because he is more accurate. Accuracy, like distance, has its built in advantage.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2013, 02:02:48 PM »
3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18                 

The holes I liked when judging.

Isn't there elevation gain right in front of the 2nd tee? How blind is the drive there? Although Ron had other criticisms of #2, wouldn't it be a better hole if the green were located a little farther SW? This is if I know what SW is (down and right).
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2013, 02:52:05 PM »
3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18                

The holes I liked when judging.

Isn't there elevation gain right in front of the 2nd tee? How blind is the drive there? Although Ron had other criticisms of #2, wouldn't it be a better hole if the green were located a little farther SW? This is if I know what SW is (down and right).

2 is downhill to the fairway and up to the green. Overall it is fairly flat, and one of my favorites.  :)

What was your least favorite hole? Mine was probably 14. If I had to do it again I would probably route it farther north (up) so that the mound would be on the outside of the dogleg. 15 would play slightly different starting farther north too.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 02:55:05 PM by Alex Miller »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2013, 03:02:25 PM »


2 is downhill to the fairway and up to the green.

When I take a wider view in the topo, I see that now. I have trouble seeing the elevations in your post so have to look at the topo in another window enlarged to the section of the hole.

Overall it is fairly flat, and one of my favorites.  :)

What was your least favorite hole? Mine was probably 14. If I had to do it again I would probably route it farther north (up) so that the mound would be on the outside of the dogleg. 15 would play slightly different starting farther north too.

Didn't keep track of "least" favorite. If it didn't seem to have what I wanted, I just moved on. Would have to relook to determine least favorite.


"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2013, 06:46:06 PM »
Not sure if I'm up for writing a rebuttal to any judge's comments, but would really love to hear more thoughts if anyone has them!

I realize, as Tommy pointed out, that I did not use the ideal colors or high-contrast map, so I'd be happy to explain/clear up anything that's not easily discernable too. I did not envy the judges.  :)

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2013, 07:00:55 PM »
Next time the rules should say that black lines outline fairways, greens, and bunkers. Nothing else! Let the underlying topo show through to the utmost.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2013, 07:24:56 PM »
Next time the rules should say that black lines outline fairways, greens, and bunkers. Nothing else! Let the underlying topo show through to the utmost.


I should have done that! Especially since there's no maintained rough.

Mike Viscusi

Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2013, 12:42:19 PM »
Alex, this was a really strong effort across the board.  As you know, you were one of my 5 finalists.

What I really liked:
  • The sunset loops.  In addition to returning 9's you added two very clever 4-hole loops.  This reminds me a lot of the Cobb's Creek plan where Gil Hanse did a similar thing on the Karakong 9/composite holes.
  • The overall consistency. I don't see any holes where I thought something just flat out didn't work or was too severe.
  • It's a great walking course.  You can get around the entire facility (cabins to the clubhouse to the practice areas to the first tee, etc) very easily without long walks or the need for a cart.
  • Good variety in your par 3's.

My biggest issue is that your practice range, positioned due east, which is not quite into the morning sun on summer mornings, but still into the rising sun enough to make it awkward for morning golfers. Plus they’ll be constantly fighting a strict crosswind from right to left, overemphasizing draws and misleading slicers into thinking they’ve straightened things out...  :D Just kidding!  I guess we all needed to build a 360 degree range to satisfy Ron.

On a side note, for someone so in tune with the prevailing winds of the site, Ron seemed to completely ignore the almost 4,000 feet of elevation on the site, calling out a lot of us for making the member tees too long.  By my math a 6,500 yard tee would play less than 6,100 yards, which seems perfect to me.

Moving on, something that I actually noticed that I'm not sure that anybody else mentioned was with your par 5's.  Although they had directional variety, they all seemed very similar in regards to having these kick-out fairway layup areas short and left of the green (especially 9, 12 and 16, and 3 to a lesser degree).  Did you notice that?  I feel like the par 5's would become very monotonous, especially 12 and 16, which although they play in opposite directions, they are parallel to each other and both play down from an elevated tee and then back up.

I did tend to agree with Tommy and Ron regarding the greens.  It just seemed like too much after a while with so many ridges and bold contours.  Maybe they are intended to be more subtle in spots than I am interpreting them as, but I feel like these would just eventually wear the golfer down after 18 holes.  I'd like to see more variety with some greens relying solely on the slope of the land without such bold internal contours.

I'm not so sure about #2 either, but I can't tell what the scale is.  How far is it to carry the diagonal bunkers on the left and then how far to reach that bunker on the far side if you do clear the diagonal ones?  It just seems like too much risk for the reward, especially since it appears to be a pretty simple wedge from most other spots in the fairway. I'd remove the fairway bunker on the right and try to enhance the reward more for those who decide to go left.

I much prefer #13 of your short par 4's, I think that's my favorite hole.

My last criticism is that even though I thought the design was very consistent without any glaring weak spots, I thought a number of the holes were a bit vanilla and didn't really do much for me in terms of memorability or strategy.  To my eye I just didn't see many mid or long par 4's where the golfer really had to think off the tee.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2013, 01:11:56 PM »
...
My last criticism is that even though I thought the design was very consistent without any glaring weak spots, I thought a number of the holes were a bit vanilla and didn't really do much for me in terms of memorability or strategy.  To my eye I just didn't see many mid or long par 4's where the golfer really had to think off the tee.

Alex, I'm sure your self-confidence is really crushed after that! ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: AAC III- Course 13 (home of the Short Grass Society)
« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2013, 03:11:49 PM »
...
My last criticism is that even though I thought the design was very consistent without any glaring weak spots, I thought a number of the holes were a bit vanilla and didn't really do much for me in terms of memorability or strategy.  To my eye I just didn't see many mid or long par 4's where the golfer really had to think off the tee.

Alex, I'm sure your self-confidence is really crushed after that! ;D



I think that last line is very true and when I look back on the course I have to agree. 6, 7, 11, and 14 all do not have much directional strategy off the tee at all. Mike's criticisms are very helpful and I appreciate how he has presented them! I agree with them to a much greater extent than Ron's...

I also see the sameness in Par 5 strategy, though with different terrain and green undulations I don't think it was as bad as the par 4 vanilla issue. 12 and 16 definitely have some similarities too, but 16 comes across the hill and I think the visuals on those holes are fairly different.

I would definitely work on illustrating the ridges on my greens in a more subtle way, but also having less of them.

Regarding #2, there is probably 30 yards between the left bunker carry and to the right bunker, however I think the bunker just short of the green would make the golfer choose one side of the fairway to play to or the other. In my mind that still works, but who knows?

Oh, and 13 took a long time to figure out for me. At first I had it doglegging left out on that plateau, but I felt there wouldn't be much going on on the ground (shocking!). It definitely evolved from a perceived weak spot to one of my favorites as well!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back