Wouldn't soft and slow landing areas have the same effect?
So you would just overwater the landing areas ?
No. Just making a point that killing bounce and roll is killing bounce and roll, regardless of the method used.
Would you cite five courses that engage in that practice ?
No
Would you also indicate the additional maintenance costs associated with that practice ?
No, because I don't advocate it.
I don't see anything particularly special about an inclined landing zone in and of itself. I don't dislike them, but I also don't think they're especially brilliant conceptually.
That's because you probably never noticed them.
It's a subtle pitch, not a pronounced one, and it's very clever because golfers like yourself never figure it out
No, I do notice them. I'm just not that impressed. My tastes are very advanced and much more complex than "Uphill is good. Me like uphill landing areas." I do envy the bliss you must enjoy from being so easily dazzled. Being a whore for nuance really sucks, but it's the cross I bear.
What really impresses me architecturally is when that landing zone has less incline on one side or the other, or when it's routed over a hill crest such that a ball hit down one side has a chance to bound over and catch a speed slot while a ball on the other side will hit into the face of the hill and stay further back. Donald Ross did those sorts of things better than anyone, creating preferred sides to challenge off the tee and often building extra risk into the side that offered the friendliest bounce for a good shot.
Could you name ten courses where Ross did that ? Could you cite the specific holes as well ?
Ten is a bit of a war of attrition don't you think? I know that your general argumentative strategy is to create such a war, but why don't we just discuss golf courses today? It's probably not as fun for you as spending a cold day in greater New York turning GCA.com into your own personal Call of Duty, but it will be a lot more gratifying.
It's all over the place at Pine Needles. There are multiple holes out there where holes are routed diagonally over ridges so that drives down one side get a kick forward and drives down the opposite side hit into an upslope. Ran's review mentions this effect on the second hole, as well as the sixth.
Mid Pines does the same, although with a different effect. A drive at the short fourth up the left side hits into an upslope, but actually benefits the player as his ball lands with control and gets a nice angle of approach, albeit from a slightly longer distance. A drive up the right, along the line of charm, hits less into the upslope and more on a sideslope, bounding down further right and leaving a terrible angle with tree trouble as well. The 7th works similarly, while the 15th works more traditionally like Pine Needles where a ball too far right hits dead in the upslope while a ball up the right center catches the slope of the fairway and runs.
Granville employs the effect as well. On the 5th hole, a drive up the left side will hit into an upslope and die unless you really smash it. A drive up the center right hits more on a sideslope, allowing more forward run but risking more sideways run too and potentially funneling the ball off the fairway. It's a very uncomfortable tee shot as the player has to choose between length and safety. Similarly, a drive up the middle on 8 runs farther than a drive up the right side, which will hit into a more pronounced upslope. But again, go too far left and you'll be funneled off the fairway by the very slope you're trying to take advantage of.
So yeah, it's a Ross tendency that I see on 7 of the 8 Ross courses I've played. It's very clever because golfers like yourself never figure it out.