Holes with significant vertical rise - examples and how much is too much?

[Sean_A]

The 18th at Reddish Vale is notable not only for its 110ft vertical rise, but also for the fact that the first 200 yards are perfectly flat!





All that 110ft rise has to be tackled in the next 150 yards to the green.





A few years ago Ryder Cup player and local boy Jamie Donaldson visited Reddish to play with our own touring pro at the time (who has since reverted to amateur status)


They messed about on the 18th tee hitting drivers and legend has it that Donaldson got to within 20 yards of the green. That's 330 yards and 100ft uphill.

Duncan

Where does the 110 feet measurement come from?

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

Not sure of the verticals rise by would think it to be thirty feet at Ballyhack's first hole.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Does anyone have a pic of the the 5th hole at Ballyhack?

This does not show the elevation change well but the second shot must gain forty feet in elevation.

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is taken from the bottom of the hill from where the second shot is hit.

[Brian Bowman]

Hyde Park CC in Cincinnati is an old Ross gem (one of my favorite's) whose 4th hole plays flat out into the fairway, then significantly uphill to the green, I wish I had a picture to share.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan

Where does the 110 feet measurement come from?

Ciao

That is the figure I was told by a fellow member who is a surveyor.


Sounds about right if you look at the photo. The clubhouse is on 3 floors - 2 with very high ceilings - so it must be 50' high to the chimney pots.


It sometimes feels like a LOT more than 110 ft!

[Scott Macpherson]

David:


The 11th at Pasatiempo is 90 feet uphill ... that's the biggest I know of on any hole that people actually think is a good hole.  [The ravine on the second shot helps it from feeling as uphill as it is.]  I used that knowledge when we were building Stone Eagle:  the 5th hole there is also around 90 feet uphill.

Tom,


You're probably right, but can I check, I thought the 11th at Pasatiempo was about 110 feet uphill?


Scott

[Niall C]

I haven't gone through this thread from start to finish so don't know if any of these Scottish examples have been mentioned but various holes at Gullane eg. 2nd on No. 1, 3rd on No. 3, 2nd on No. 2 and so on.


Also Murrayshall near Perth has a par 4 that drops from a great height.


Niall

[Marty Bonnar]

BRILLIANT little article about playing the Bishopshire at Loch Leven:

https://kinrossgolfcourses.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/tackling-the-bishopshire-golf-course/

Must get there one day. It's only about ten miles away...

F.

[Kevin Lynch]

Used Google Earth to check several of those in question here:

Reddish Vale - The rise is approx. 60 feet on the 2nd shot (187' - 245').  While the 110 foot rise is a bit exaggerated, that's still pretty steep considering it's all in one shot.

Pasatiempo 11 - Tom had the 90 feet nailed pretty much to the foot.


Ballyhack - I know Carl thinks the 5th is the tough one, but the 1st hole is much more uphill.  The 1st climbs from ~1,040' to ~1,090' from approx 145 yards out.  Number 5 only climbs from 1,025' to 1,060'.  The latter probably feels tougher because the climb is severe just short of the green, which makes it feel less "attainable" while the 1st is a much more steady rise.  To me, the toughest really is the 14th (approx. 40 foot rise), because the green is so exacting in its demands.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Used Google Earth to check several of those in question here:

Reddish Vale - The rise is approx. 60 feet on the 2nd shot (187' - 245').  While the 110 foot rise is a bit exaggerated, that's still pretty steep considering it's all in one shot.

I'm delighted to hear that Kevin. The next time someone complains to me that the 18th is too severe and spoils what is otherwise a great course, I shall point out that it is only 60ft and that they are making a mountain out of a molehill!


 

[Kevin Lynch]

I'm a self-professed "elevation whore," so my tolerance of these uphill holes is probably much higher than most. The "Golden Age" rule that Tom referenced earlier (25 feet per shot) is probably a bit conservative for my tastes.  On approach shots, I'm fine with not seeing any green surface as long as I have a piece of the flag to target.  There's nothing more thrilling to me than the anticipation you experience when you think you've knocked one close and walking up the hill for the "reveal."


To me, elevation is one of my favorite elements that keep the game from becoming too formulaic.  A 150 yard shot on a relatively flat course is the same throughout.  But add in elevation and the psychological hazard of partial blindness, and the game is much more thrilling and varied.


But if you want to see what a true 140 foot climb hole looks like, here's the 17th at Holiday Valley in Ellicottville, NY.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czV-fC8SIBg

http://www.holidayvalley.com/summer/golf/

It's a short par 5, that moves from ~1585 to 1,650 on the tee shot, ~1,650 to ~1,710 on the second, and then a mere 1,710 to 1,725 on the 3rd.  I was surprised the first time I measured the climb, because the scale of the land there is big and it doesn't feel as steep as some of the other examples here.  I think the hole works because of the scale (but again, I'm the elevation whore).   Of course, what goes up, must come down, so the 18th is ~420 yards, but falls ~115 feet (mostly on the tee shot).

Incidentally, the routing of these two holes was changed several years ago.  The old 17th used to play up the current 18th, and was a hole that was a bit over-the-top (approach was a bit steep and the fairway was much narrower).  Putting the uphill climb on the more expansive par 5 made both holes more playable. These also aren't the steepest holes on the course.  The Par 3 15th falls 100 ft over 200 yards and the Par 4 13th drops from 1,890' to 1,690'!!!

[Kevin Lynch]

Used Google Earth to check several of those in question here:

Reddish Vale - The rise is approx. 60 feet on the 2nd shot (187' - 245').  While the 110 foot rise is a bit exaggerated, that's still pretty steep considering it's all in one shot.

I'm delighted to hear that Kevin. The next time someone complains to me that the 18th is too severe and spoils what is otherwise a great course, I shall point out that it is only 60ft and that they are making a mountain out of a molehill!


 

You'd NEVER hear that complaint from me given some of the other holes I mentioned - seems right in my wheelhouse.  Besides, I looked at the RV website flyover, and it seems like you could use the left slope by the green to kick a shot towards your target.  A pretty generous landing area filled with fun possibilities.  A fairly interesting finish to a round, I'd say.   

[Duncan Cheslett]

You'd NEVER hear that complaint from me given some of the other holes I mentioned - seems right in my wheelhouse.  Besides, I looked at the RV website flyover, and it seems like you could use the left slope by the green to kick a shot towards your target.  A pretty generous landing area filled with fun possibilities.  A fairly interesting finish to a round, I'd say.

Unfortunately, the 18th just isn't a popular hole - even with some of our own members!  Mention you play at Reddish Vale to any golfer within 20 miles and the response is always the same - "Great course, except for the 18th!".


It has various nicknames on the same theme; Heart Attack Hill, Angina Hill, Cardiac Hill etc etc. There are a couple of recorded instances of members dying by the 18th green after the climb. One famously had quite a card going in a major competition but never got to putt out!


Your news that it is a mere 60ft from fairway to green surprises but pleases me. It is a difficult shot from 150 yards out for average players - at least two extra clubs are needed but there is a problem getting sufficient height on the shot once you get down to a 5 or 6 iron. Most RV members carry a 7 or 9 wood especially for this hole.


You are right about the green. It is hollowed out of the slope so that the ball is fed on from either side. The problems don't end however, when you reach the putting surface. A ball above the hole will often run off the front with the slightest nudge. Four putts interspersed with a couple of chips are not unheard of!


Personally, I have grown to love our unique closing hole and am rather proud of its notoriety. It is an inescapable fact however, that it costs us a lot of money each year in lost membership subscriptions. Only the very hardy can face playing it 2 or 3 times a week!

[Doug Siebert]

The problem is that there isn't a good way to easily measure elevation. Google Maps is not reliable for something like comparing the tee and green of a hole - its elevation "estimates" don't have nearly the resolution that would be require. Likewise consumer GPS is notoriously inaccurate where elevation is concerned.

My favorite course near has ridge cutting across the otherwise rather flat property that's pretty high. I've estimated it at 80' but I don't have a way to know how accurate that is. All I know is the 325 yard par 4 10th plays all the way up to the top of the ridge has some good sized trees along the driving range before the rise starts. Judging by having seen someone standing under them from a distance I think it is safe to say they are at least 40' tall. When you are up on that green you are well above the level of the tops of those trees, so if it isn't 80' it can't be far from it.

While you have to hit a fairly high drive like I do (and have a good breeze behind you and the ground can't be too soft) it is possible to drive that green, at least I've done it a few times. I've even been over the back twice.

Because the rise doesn't start until about the 150 marker, from the tee you are far enough back that you can see the top of the flag so I suppose it would be possible to 'shoot' that pin. From the place where it rises the most steeply from the 150 marker to the 100 marker you either can't see the pin at all, or see only the very top if it is a front position. I'll try to remember to take a picture next time I play there, but as always pictures never do a slope justice. Actually the picture from the green looking down at the tee (and the tops of those trees etc.) would probably be more instructive, though it is very nice looking skyline green from the tee

[Sean_A]

Used Google Earth to check several of those in question here:

Reddish Vale - The rise is approx. 60 feet on the 2nd shot (187' - 245').  While the 110 foot rise is a bit exaggerated, that's still pretty steep considering it's all in one shot.

I'm delighted to hear that Kevin. The next time someone complains to me that the 18th is too severe and spoils what is otherwise a great course, I shall point out that it is only 60ft and that they are making a mountain out of a molehill!


 

Yes, I think 60 feet is more like it.  I think the slope is well beyond ideal, but it isn't the approach which is the bad part.  Its the very narrow drive area which takes driver out of the hands of many just when its critical to crank out as much yardage as possible. Not a hole I admire in the least. 


Ciao 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally: What about 4 and 15 at Strandhill?  You likely only have a short iron for the approach, but I recall steep enough inclines on each.

Hi JJ,


Yes - 15 is a significant rise but it's still not much more than 30 feet (see picture below)...





As to what Kevin states at Holiday Valley, that is one of my pet peeves with a routing... I'm OK with holes with big elevation changes but what I don't like (as in his example of the 17th and 18th) is to walk up a hill just to come straight back down. I think it's important that once a routing rises to a height, the architect takes every opportunity to stay up there for a hole or two before descending again... Not always possible of course...

[Garland Bayley]

Used Google Earth to check several of those in question here:

...

Google Earth elevations are not to be trusted. The 80 foot drop on the 9th at Chambers Bay shows up as 1 foot on Google Earth.

[Jaeger Kovich]

David:


The 11th at Pasatiempo is 90 feet uphill ... that's the biggest I know of on any hole that people actually think is a good hole.  [The ravine on the second shot helps it from feeling as uphill as it is.]  I used that knowledge when we were building Stone Eagle:  the 5th hole there is also around 90 feet uphill.

Tom,


You're probably right, but can I check, I thought the 11th at Pasatiempo was about 110 feet uphill?


Scott

Tom


Was just there Monday. In addition to having the best ultra steep hole, Pasatiempo also probably has the green with the most vertical ft change as well on 16! And I'd be totally content playing that course everyday! So glad I went back, I liked it even more the second time.


Tom, do you have the topo for SFGC? Was back there yesterday and both #2 and #8, if you measure from the lows in front of the tee, up to the green may be pretty similar. They have the raised tee shot, but are ultra long and super steep par-4s. I am amazed how Bob gets the grasslines so tight to the bunkers on some of those slopes!


PS - Don't they call them Barranca's in Cali

[Kevin Lynch]

Used Google Earth to check several of those in question here:

...

Google Earth elevations are not to be trusted. The 80 foot drop on the 9th at Chambers Bay shows up as 1 foot on Google Earth.

Not sure what you're reading, but Google Earth just showed me the 9th goes from 109' up to 218', so it may be a user error, not application error.     


For the most part, measurements I've looked at are fairly reasonable.  I trust them more than most people's eyeball estimates.

[Kevin Lynch]

As to what Kevin states at Holiday Valley, that is one of my pet peeves with a routing... I'm OK with holes with big elevation changes but what I don't like (as in his example of the 17th and 18th) is to walk up a hill just to come straight back down. I think it's important that once a routing rises to a height, the architect takes every opportunity to stay up there for a hole or two before descending again... Not always possible of course...

I would agree with that pet peeve.  In this case, it really was somewhat unavoidable.  The course is set within a ski resort, so usable land was more difficult to come by.  These "high points" are actually the "lower/middle portions" of the ski slopes.  The front nine essentially uses the base of the hills (a fairly simple out & back routing), while the back nine tackled the more difficult routing up on the hillside.  There are a number of holes earlier in the back 9 that play across some flatter plateaus among the slopes, while the 17th & 18th was landlocked between a road and a much steeper ski-hill.


While not ideal, I was impressed that they made the switch from the initial design to make the the two holes more playable and used the grand scale to make a 140 foot rise feel manageable (which I suppose was the initial premise of the thread). 

[John Foley]

Hole #7 @ Greystone outside Rochester NY is 90 ft tee to green and approx 60 ft from landing area to green. Big fan of that second shot and dont feel that it's out of line at all.

[Garland Bayley]

Used Google Earth to check several of those in question here:

...

Google Earth elevations are not to be trusted. The 80 foot drop on the 9th at Chambers Bay shows up as 1 foot on Google Earth.

Not sure what you're reading, but Google Earth just showed me the 9th goes from 109' up to 218', so it may be a user error, not application error.     


For the most part, measurements I've looked at are fairly reasonable.  I trust them more than most people's eyeball estimates.

Or, it could be that they have improved their database since I measured the 9th.

[MClutterbuck]

Used Google Earth to check several of those in question here:

...

Google Earth elevations are not to be trusted. The 80 foot drop on the 9th at Chambers Bay shows up as 1 foot on Google Earth.

Not sure what you're reading, but Google Earth just showed me the 9th goes from 109' up to 218', so it may be a user error, not application error.     


For the most part, measurements I've looked at are fairly reasonable.  I trust them more than most people's eyeball estimates.

Or, it could be that they have improved their database since I measured the 9th.

Both elevations (more likely) and distances (less likely) can be very innacurate in Google Earth if the angle of the satellite picture is fairly significant and/or if the picture is slightly off their real latitude and longitude.