[Thomas Dai]

I believe Big Jack made a comment along these lines.

Variety can be nice but do folk herein reckon that golf is generally a game better played downhill and do GCA's try to route courses to maximise downhill playing opportunities?

atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

I believe Big Jack made a comment along these lines.

Variety can be nice but do folk herein reckon that golf is generally a game better played downhill and do GCA's try to route courses to maximise downhill playing opportunities?

atb

Hi Thomas,

I don't really agree that golf is a game better played downhill and without stating the obvious, most courses have a net zero elevation change given they start and finish in the same place.

That said, I'd rather play all downhill than all uphill and I can think of at least two examples of modern builds where the elevation change has been shot with 2 or 3 big drop-shot holes, leaving the overall impression that you are playing the majority of the round uphill. Big flaws in the routing in my opinion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,

In general, yes.  I believe Jack was promoting perfect visibility. If you see the golf hole well, you are probably playing at least a little downhill.  Granted there are uphill holes with good visibility.   As Ally points, out, every course needs a few uphill holes to get back to the clubhouse (or other high point) how they get uphill matters - a gentle slide is okay, steep grades usually aren't.

While many here post about quirk and non standard holes, I wonder if we did a survey of favorite holes if most wouldn't be downhill a bit.  I think the call for more uphill holes is rooted as much in nostalgia or myth or desire to see at least a few holes on any course be unique and different.  The latter is where I think sharply uphill holes should fall. 

[Bill_McBride]

All downhill is made possible by golf carts.  Drive up to every tee and play downhill.  Yawn.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff
I prefer variety and originality, not nostalgia.

Thomas
I have heard anecdotally that at least one big name assesses a routing based on the number of downhill holes.

Cheers

[Tom_Doak]

Mr. Nicklaus' first comment to me about my routing for Sebonack was the number of uphill shots it had.  He'd counted them.

By the same token, when we were building #14 with its uphill tee shot, I was going to build up the tee (since it was below #13 green and would result in more overall climb), but Jack's input was that if the hole was uphill anyway, it might as well really be uphill.  So he is not against the idea in general, he just tries to limit the numbers.

Personally, I don't think it matters -- if you are walking the course, you always* finish where you start, and it doesn't matter if you are playing or walking during the climb.  So, I just look for the best holes and don't worry about how many of them are uphill or downhill.  I've been told I'm biased in favor of downhill par-3's, and that's true on at least some of my courses, but that's because I thought they were the best holes.

* You always finish where you start, except at Black Forest and Dismal River where they're not in the same place    And yes, that was done to avoid the steep climb up away from the river at Dismal.

[Peter Pallotta]

To state the obvious, even a hack like me can tell when a course flows and builds naturally to a point of higher ground, and then the resulting downhill hole usually looks and feels and plays really well: a treat as it were, an honestly achieved vista, and some well-earned hang time. (Those are nice downhill holes.)  But even I can tell when there just seems to be too many downhills tee shots for the site, some disproportionate attempt by the architect to get as many vistas and as much hang-time as possible, and invariably the individual holes are not as good and (just as importantly) the cumulative effect is a kind of boredom.  As Darwin noted a long time ago, a rabbit doesn't want to feel like he's being treated as a rabbit, doesn't want to be reminded too often that he's not a tiger -- and all those dishonestly achieved vistas and all that un-earned hang time feels like the architect is patting us on the head and saying, "There, there little rabbit, don't worry your pretty little head, you short little drive will go farther here on this downhill hole, and for once you'll feel like a tiger!!".  Yuck!

(The subtlest of today's architects, I think, are the ones who DO in fact treat the rabbit as a rabbit, and who actually provide that rabbit with a disproportionate number of downhill holes -- but who manage to do so without us dumb little rabbits ever noticing, and who help us to believe that all the vistas are honestly achieved and all our hang time is well earned. And I think those subtle and clever architects are able to pull this off because -- and here's my old favourite subject -- they're able to hide the hand of man.) 

Btw, Golf is a game better played side-hill.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

td,

I think Jack has it about right, as do you.  Try for downhill holes, but most sites would probably allow a few more than half, cleverly routed, but not 18, unless the cart ride to the next elevated tee.  Usually, it falls out in a nice balance, unless we are in housing courses, where the road crossings/cart rides are a given, and with the extra space, it often seems easier to find more downhill holes, at least on the two routings I am working on right now.....

[Paul Gray]

......So, I just look for the best holes and don't worry about how many of them are uphill or downhill........

I'll probably be accused of some terrible crime (admiration for an architect or something) but this kind of common sense approach always impresses me, be it from TD, Harry Colt or whoever else.

It's just such a shame that, to my mind, so many others throw unnecessary criteria in the way of the creative process.

With the most sincere respect for Mr Dai, golf is best played on whatever best suits the land in question.

[Sean_A]

Thomas

Yes, I do think archies look for downhill holes because they best frame scenery and golfers feel a bit better whacking downhill.  I bet most of the really famous holes in the world are at least a bit downhill.  The one hole, perhaps the most famous of all, Redan, is uphill and most copies create a downhill version.  In fact, CBM created his at NGLA and more or less said its better because the hole can be seen - very dubious reasoning if you as me.  Just as Jack seemed to do suggest at Sebonack, if an archie has taken a routing choice he should stick with it.  Don't try to elevate tees to minimize the effect of where the previous holes run.  Jeepers, thats half the battle of getting good variety, why eliminate it with lots of elevated tees?

Unlike Tom, I do think it matters where uphill and downhill holes fall in round.  My favourite course, Kington, finishes with a fairly big dropping par 4.  I love the hole and part of the reason is it comes last - all the hill climbing is done when the legs are fresh.  I would hate to have the same elevation uphill for the last.   

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for your thoughts folks. Most interesting. "All downhill is made possible by golf carts. Drive up to every tee and play downhill. Yawn.". Love it - another nomination for quote of the year. I'm not an all down hill fan either - hence the - in the thread title - although such holes do photograph pretty well which may be part of the appeal and hitting up a hill and not being able to see the ball land can be a pain at times.  Bit of variety, up, down, sidehill etc and all jumbled-up and in moderation and with no knackering walks.
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Wasn't present at the conversation between JN and TD, but I would surmise JN and most archies would look to see if visibility could be achieved via grading, and then if not, accept the blindness.  JN usually touted even seeing the base of the pin from the tee.

So, on that 400 yard, 1200 foot long hole, the green could be 24 feet above the tee, assuming it tilts at golfers at 2%, presuming no intervening hills that aren't removed.  If some combo of raising the tees and lowering the green got that hole to less than 24 feet uphill, most of us would consider doing it.  If not, then we would immediately change to the "occasional blind hole is great for variety camp!"

Paul Gray, you really have it wrong.  Design is for golfers, not the land.  The land cannot experience the design, so no point in leaving the land just because of some principle.  GCA is about arranging the land to fit the golfers needs, wants, etc., not fitting the golfers needs to the land.

IF it can be done with no earthmoving, that is a laudable goal, and cheaper to boot, but its not the prime focus.  
And yes, I think most golfers prefer some approximation of nature, but given the choice, they would want to see where they are going to plot an attack, and would prefer to avoid uphill climbs (at least those 50 and over.....) so the job of the gca is to change the land, but do so in a way that appears natural.  Let's face it, they give up on pure nature once they step on the first tee, unless there were ever amoeba shaped sand blow outs spotted around, lets say, Iowa.  It is a man made approximation of nature.  Golfers like to see golf features.

I believe the tenants of gca that favor visibility will stay in place for a while, unless this merry band of 1500 gca zealots finally manage to convince them otherwise.  Even then, I think it would be a case of Groucho Marx asking, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

Just food for thought.

[JMEvensky]

Sean,

Wasn't present at the conversation between JN and TD, but I would surmise JN and most archies would look to see if visibility could be achieved via grading, and then if not, accept the blindness.  JN usually touted even seeing the base of the pin from the tee.

So, on that 400 yard, 1200 foot long hole, the green could be 24 feet above the tee, assuming it tilts at golfers at 2%, presuming no intervening hills that aren't removed.  If some combo of raising the tees and lowering the green got that hole to less than 24 feet uphill, most of us would consider doing it.  If not, then we would immediately change to the "occasional blind hole is great for variety camp!"

Paul Gray, you really have it wrong.  Design is for golfers, not the land.  The land cannot experience the design, so no point in leaving the land just because of some principle.  GCA is about arranging the land to fit the golfers needs, wants, etc., not fitting the golfers needs to the land.

IF it can be done with no earthmoving, that is a laudable goal, and cheaper to boot, but its not the prime focus.  
And yes, I think most golfers prefer some approximation of nature, but given the choice, they would want to see where they are going to plot an attack, and would prefer to avoid uphill climbs (at least those 50 and over.....) so the job of the gca is to change the land, but do so in a way that appears natural.  Let's face it, they give up on pure nature once they step on the first tee, unless there were ever amoeba shaped sand blow outs spotted around, lets say, Iowa.  It is a man made approximation of nature.  Golfers like to see golf features.

I believe the tenants of gca that favor visibility will stay in place for a while, unless this merry band of 1500 gca zealots finally manage to convince them otherwise.  Even then, I think it would be a case of Groucho Marx asking, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

Just food for thought.

JB,just wanted to give you props for the Groucho quote.

Personally,I'm a sucker for uphill holes--even uphill 3-pars.

[Lou_Duran]

All downhill is made possible by golf carts.  Drive up to every tee and play downhill.  Yawn.

Yep, Sand Hills and Prairie Dunes really prove that point!  

Design is for golfers, not the land.  The land cannot experience the design, so no point in leaving the land just because of some principle.  GCA is about arranging the land to fit the golfers needs, wants, etc., not fitting the golfers needs to the land.

I believe the tenants of gca that favor visibility will stay in place for a while, unless this merry band of 1500 gca zealots finally manage to convince them otherwise.

JB,

While you may never be labeled an aesthete, your deference to the customer suggests that you'll eat well.  At least you won't have too many golfers walk off the course on the front side due to a singular focus on not disturbing the site.  BTW, the "merry band" is far smaller than 1500.  I think it is reasonable to agree with the subject given the importance of the visual in golf as well as in so many other facets.  Even the skyline green is particularly attractive not because of the climb, but due to the background.  

[Bill_McBride]

All downhill is made possible by golf carts.  Drive up to every tee and play downhill.  Yawn.

Yep, Sand Hills and Prairie Dunes really prove that point!  

Design is for golfers, not the land.  The land cannot experience the design, so no point in leaving the land just because of some principle.  GCA is about arranging the land to fit the golfers needs, wants, etc., not fitting the golfers needs to the land.

I believe the tenants of gca that favor visibility will stay in place for a while, unless this merry band of 1500 gca zealots finally manage to convince them otherwise.

JB,

While you may never be labeled an aesthete, your deference to the customer suggests that you'll eat well.  At least you won't have too many golfers walk off the course on the front side due to a singular focus on not disturbing the site.  BTW, the "merry band" is far smaller than 1500.  I think it is reasonable to agree with the subject given the importance of the visual in golf as well as in so many other facets.  Even the skyline green is particularly attractive not because of the climb, but due to the background.  

Are you saying every hole at Sand Hills and Prairie Dunes plays downhill?   I haven't played either.   

[Garland Bayley]

...
Paul Gray, you really have it wrong.  Design is for golfers, not the land.  The land cannot experience the design, so no point in leaving the land just because of some principle.  GCA is about arranging the land to fit the golfers needs, wants, etc., not fitting the golfers needs to the land.

I have no idea what "arranging land to fit the golfers needs, ... not fitting golfers needs to the land" means.

IF it can be done with no earthmoving, that is a laudable goal, and cheaper to boot, but its not the prime focus. 
And yes, I think most golfers prefer some approximation of nature, but given the choice, they would want to see where they are going to plot an attack, and would prefer to avoid uphill climbs (at least those 50 and over.....) so the job of the gca is to change the land, but do so in a way that appears natural.

So golfers prefer to play on flat prairie farmland? Why then did golf originate in hilly dunes?

Let's face it, they give up on pure nature once they step on the first tee, unless there were ever amoeba shaped sand blow outs spotted around, lets say, Iowa.  It is a man made approximation of nature.  Golfers like to see golf features.

Yep, best play Iowa farmland, with of course golf course features built into it.

I believe the tenants of gca that favor visibility will stay in place for a while, unless this merry band of 1500 gca zealots finally manage to convince them otherwise.  Even then, I think it would be a case of Groucho Marx asking, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

Just food for thought.

Here's food for thought. Only a tiny percentage of golfers have much need to see the bottom of the pin, because only a tiny percentage of golfers have the ability to hit it close to the bottom of that pin. The average golfer sees a green with a pin somewhere, and hopes to hit it somewhere near the green. It seems to me that you are advocating designing for the tiny percent, like your friend Notah, whereas the John Kirk unified theory of golf enjoyment says the rest of us like the mystery of hidden pins and the like.

[Paul Gray]

Jeff,

I think (hope) you deserve a little slack here and have simply misunderstood my meaning of 'best suits the land.' The point I'm making is about the inherent benefit of 'finding the holes,' rather than forcing them. If a course happens to be on the links lands I'm lucky enough to experience, great. However, even on flat, otherwise dull land I'd rather play on a humble, natural course which uses the limited features well than on something with all sorts of artificial nonsense going on. I'm not a fan of any form of golf where architecture meets Disney.

You may or may not agree.

[Lou_Duran]

Are you saying every hole at Sand Hills and Prairie Dunes plays downhill?   I haven't played either.   

No.  Is it even physically possible to have a course that starts and ends near the same general area to have every hole playing downhill?

I am saying that Sand Hills and Prairie Dunes both have a number of holes where you drive or walk up to elevated tees to then hit to downhill targets.  IMO, the visual benefits they provide far outweigh the difficult walks (specially at PD where you have to climb stairs to get to some of them).  Both of these courses and a number of others which quite often use elevated tees for enhanced visibility never put me to sleep, but perhaps I am more easily entertained than others.

[Bill_McBride]

Are you saying every hole at Sand Hills and Prairie Dunes plays downhill?   I haven't played either.   

No.  Is it even physically possible to have a course that starts and ends near the same general area to have every hole playing downhill?

I am saying that Sand Hills and Prairie Dunes both have a number of holes where you drive or walk up to elevated tees to then hit to downhill targets.  IMO, the visual benefits they provide far outweigh the difficult walks (specially at PD where you have to climb stairs to get to some of them).  Both of these courses and a number of others which quite often use elevated tees for enhanced visibility never put me to sleep, but perhaps I am more easily entertained than others.

The Nicklaus course at PGA West might have the best example of the "drive up, play down" style I can think of.  The design dug a lot of big lakes out of basically flat desert and built big mounds out of the spoil.  On several occasions there is an elevated green sliced out of one side of a mound and an elevated tee on the other side.    It's one of my least favorite courses in the Palm Springs area.

[Garland Bayley]

So Jeff, who are you building golf courses for?

... As a low single digit golfer, playing to a flag or putting surface obscured by a mound or similar is way harder than pitching over a bunker but seeing the whole target area.

As a high handicap golfer, i.e., average, the opposite is true. Pitching over the bunker almost always sends the ball to the back of the green, whereas pitching to a obscured flag can leave the ball short, long, or even  near the pin.

[Dwight Phelps]

This topic has me asking myself which course I've played with the largest gap between 1st tee and 18th green elevation.  Not sure of the numbers, but the Babe course at Industry Hills comes to mind, with the (non-functioning) funicular between 18 green and 1 tee (clubhouse) at the the top of the hill.

Any other courses with similar 1 tee-18 green elevation gaps?

[Garland Bayley]

This topic has me asking myself which course I've played with the largest gap between 1st tee and 18th green elevation.  Not sure of the numbers, but the Babe course at Industry Hills comes to mind, with the (non-functioning) funicular between 18 green and 1 tee (clubhouse) at the the top of the hill.

Any other courses with similar 1 tee-18 green elevation gaps?

Gold Mountain Olympic course. Quite a hilly course and then they leave you at 18 with a very steep walk back up to the clubhouse.

Indian Canyon has had the nines reversed so that although Egan left the 18th green near the clubhouse, it now has what was the 9th green as its 18th green and well below the clubhouse.

[Thomas Dai]

This topic has me asking myself which course I've played with the largest gap between 1st tee and 18th green elevation.  Not sure of the numbers, but the Babe course at Industry Hills comes to mind, with the (non-functioning) funicular between 18 green and 1 tee (clubhouse) at the the top of the hill.

Any other courses with similar 1 tee-18 green elevation gaps?

Pretty significant height difference between the 1st tee and 18th green at, whisper it very quietly as it's not much loved by folk herein, on the 2010 Ryder Cup course at Celtic Manor. A long way from the Clubhouse to the 1st tee as well and the 15th hole is IMO definitely an example that the game is not 'played better uphill'!
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

GJ,

You could win the "black and white thinking award" for your post 17.  Just because the architects arrange the holes for visibility as much as they can, doesn't mean it can only be done on the worst sites ever (i.e., Iowa cornfields....actually, courses I have worked on in NB and Iowa have GREAT rolling golf land, rarely a flat lie, but not so hilly that its a goat climber.....so even your presumption of bad sites is way off.)  That one could get you on my "Bite Me" thread, only because I hear so many either or one off examples on this site justifying whatever.

Suffice to say, Ross, Mac, CBM and others preached the mantra of visibility, and especially visibility on approach shots to plan the strategies they were trying to implement.  My take is the accepted blindness more than, say Fazio, because they didn't have the earthmoving capability to do it every time, in every situation, whereas modern architects do.

I will agree with the statement that only a few golfers can used the base of pin visibility greatly, although I do like (as a golfer) to see the base of the pin to know how far from the edge it is, which might affect even MY strategy.  However, never really thought of it until I heard JN or other pros in design tout its virtue.  Since then, I try to do it, but don't really obsess over it either.  In general, its better if you can do it, but on probably 3-9 holes, it just isn't possible (usually, the uphill ones)  Even then, I try to push the bunkers to the outside edges of the green if visibility is possible, and they would block it.  I just prefer aiming at the green as a target, rather than aiming between bunkers to a flag.  Maybe not everyone does.

To answer your question, I don't really design for tour pros.  On the other hand, the best golfers seem to mimic what they say, including base of pin visibility, and they can generate buzz and become tastemakers.  If good players give your course a bad review (or raters trained to look at such things) even average golfers can tend to not like it, even if they don't really understand why.  

Hate to accuse golfers of a sheep mentality, but I have seen it.  Eventually, golfers of all levels will find courses they like best and suit their games, but in the instant marketing world of golf, at least pre-recession, it was hard to convince owners to build a course that golfers would "eventually" grow to love.

[Paul Gray]

GJ,

You could win the "black and white thinking award" for your post 17.  Just because the architects arrange the holes for visibility as much as they can, doesn't mean it can only be done on the worst sites ever (i.e., Iowa cornfields....actually, courses I have worked on in NB and Iowa have GREAT rolling golf land, rarely a flat lie, but not so hilly that its a goat climber.....so even your presumption of bad sites is way off.)  That one could get you on my "Bite Me" thread, only because I hear so many either or one off examples on this site justifying whatever.

Suffice to say, Ross, Mac, CBM and others preached the mantra of visibility, and especially visibility on approach shots to plan the strategies they were trying to implement.  My take is the accepted blindness more than, say Fazio, because they didn't have the earthmoving capability to do it every time, in every situation, whereas modern architects do.

I will agree with the statement that only a few golfers can used the base of pin visibility greatly, although I do like (as a golfer) to see the base of the pin to know how far from the edge it is, which might affect even MY strategy.  However, never really thought of it until I heard JN or other pros in design tout its virtue.  Since then, I try to do it, but don't really obsess over it either.  In general, its better if you can do it, but on probably 3-9 holes, it just isn't possible (usually, the uphill ones)  Even then, I try to push the bunkers to the outside edges of the green if visibility is possible, and they would block it.  I just prefer aiming at the green as a target, rather than aiming between bunkers to a flag.  Maybe not everyone does.

To answer your question, I don't really design for tour pros.  On the other hand, the best golfers seem to mimic what they say, including base of pin visibility, and they can generate buzz and become tastemakers.  If good players give your course a bad review (or raters trained to look at such things) even average golfers can tend to not like it, even if they don't really understand why.  

Hate to accuse golfers of a sheep mentality, but I have seen it.  Eventually, golfers of all levels will find courses they like best and suit their games, but in the instant marketing world of golf, at least pre-recession, it was hard to convince owners to build a course that golfers would "eventually" grow to love.

Forgive me, but are we really talking about what's best or what sells?

And, following your comment regarding the acceptance of blind shots before technology allowed for more land to me moved, does this mean Prestwick is an inferior golf course because of the lack of a digger?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()