Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tony Ristola on June 11, 2008, 01:31:34 PM
-
Which is better?
Any questions about the possibilities… I’ll answer.
Please reply ASAP.
There is a chunk of land. It can fit a par-4, or par-3.
9th Hole.
The land: It is a forced carry over a gorge of some 7 meters in depth (20 feet).
As a par-4: Length 300 meters (330 yards).
As a par-4
1. You have 230 meters to the edge of the canyon from the tee.
2. The layup area is between trees. A target of 26 meters wide, by 36 deep (to the very edge). There is a sentinel pine to the right of this clearing.
3. There is a tree in the 26 by 36 meter landing area.
4. Short of the target landing area, is a big hollow which will direct the ball left. To the right it’s pretty flat, then a hillside, then OB.
5. Miss left and you are punching the ball back into play. Miss right and you should be OK; you may have to loft it over the mature pine. Too long, as in missing the 26 x 36 target area and you are most likely punching the ball back into play.
6. You cannot see the gorge unless you hit you tee shot right up towards the edge of it.
7. They play Stableford in Europe, and if they rack up a huge number, the ball goes into the pocket. You have the other 17-holes to score points on.
As a par-3:
1. The ball is on a tee. Perfect lie.
2. The distance is known. From the member’s tee it can be as short as 120 meters. 105 to carry the Gorge. From the back… it doesn’t matter, but just FYI, it’s 150m (165 yards).
3. The gorge is visible.
4. The ladies could play the hole as short as 60 meters (70 yards); 45 to carry the Gorge.
5. The walk from the 8th green to this tee is about 165 meters. About 1 minute 50 seconds.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h135/agolfarchitect/DSC_0019_842x560.jpg)
Par-4 Tee shot.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h135/agolfarchitect/DSC_0006_842x560.jpg)
From behind the lay-up area and clearing.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h135/agolfarchitect/DSC_0007_842x560.jpg)
Short of the 36 by 26 clearing.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h135/agolfarchitect/DSC_0012_842x560.jpg)
From the right side of the fairway short of the clearing.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h135/agolfarchitect/DSC_0011_842x560.jpg)
View across the 36 by 26 clearing.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h135/agolfarchitect/DSC_0010_842x560.jpg)
View from the end of the fairway and the view from the Forward-Ladies Tee.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h135/agolfarchitect/DSC_0013_842x560.jpg)
View from the Par-3 Tee.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h135/agolfarchitect/DSC_0014_842x560.jpg)
Close up photo.
-
sounds like a much better par 4 to me. i love short par 4s.
are you planning on leaving the lone tree on the right side of the fairway being it looks very tall and skinny allowing the golfer to play around it. (then again it might be a little weird if were actually in the short grass)
with a forward tee box it sounds like the green could even be reached which could make if really fun. otherwise hybrid club and wedge.
-
First blush:Take out the lone pine and make it a par 4......
-
I agree with Jeff, par 4 and take out the tree. I might consider using some of that scruffy looking rough as the hazard if the player fails to make it to the green.
-
I agree about the tree.
There are 4 short 4's.
-
There are 4 short 4's.
Are they "easy" short par 4 or "hard"? Maybe the length will induce those to go for it, while the tree will make it play harder? Do you have any other means to make the hard look easy and play hard - perhaps a fall-away green front-to-back?
-
If you can fly it 300 yards, actually 310, then you can go for it.
There is a gorge running in front of the green. 20 feet deep. Your lie? Sand, rough, scrubby (roulette).
The gorge starts at the 250 yard mark or so.
So 90% of the golfers are forced to hit a "fit" shot. A lay-up.
-
I like the par 3 better. The par four involves too many layups short of the gorge - 1 on the tee shot and potentially another if the player is out of position.
If the gorge can be played out of, I would shorten it and make it a par 4 that is potentially driveable.
-
I go for the perfect lie.
Bad karma to end a 9 with such a par 4.
-
Are they "easy" short par 4 or "hard"? Maybe the length will induce those to go for it, while the tree will make it play harder? Do you have any other means to make the hard look easy and play hard - perhaps a fall-away green front-to-back?
There are shorts on 1, 5, (9?), 13 and 16. Only the first would be tame, but then it depends where the flag is on the rolling green. Anywhere along the flanks or back and it has teeth too. The rest have challenge... teeth.
My guess is the ground game (bounce and release) will often be the wise play into these holes. The owner is committed to maintaining for hard and fast and not color. It he could get grass to grow on concrete... he would.
-
My vote is for the 4. I don't know why, but I actually like the idea of leaving the pine in there. And then, if you can somehow position the green to entice a player to play closer to the gorge for a better angle or better use of a slope, all the better. Maybe too far left somehow blocks out or reduces the angle into the green?
-
My vote is for the 4. I don't know why, but I actually like the idea of leaving the pine in there. And then, if you can somehow position the green to entice a player to play closer to the gorge for a better angle or better use of a slope, all the better. Maybe too far left somehow blocks out or reduces the angle into the green?
Left and short of puts you 6 to 7 feet below the 26 by 36 gap. See photo above.
Far left and you're blocked out.
The pine tree is beautiful. That's why it's still there. Will it stay?
If you lay up right you'll have to skirt the pine or hit a short iron over it.
The green is tight to the edge of the canyon. It's split... lower right. You can work the ball off the spine to the right hole position. (It's been shaped for both holes).
Your choices... to varying degrees and mixes:
1. Go for the 26 by 36 gap.
2. Lay-up right potentially bringing the pine into play.
3. Layup center-left and have a blind approach over the gorge.
3.5 Somewhere between 2 and 3.
4. Left is no option.
5. Fly the gorge.
-
Tony,
Since there are already 4 short-ish par-4's I'd go with a long par-3 and leave the tree in the fairway. Good shots will easilt sail over the tree and the gorge. Poor shots might have to deal with one or both.
- Peter
-
Par 4. I am assuming that the ravine will be playable with a penalty of less than a full stroke. Make it so the penalty is more severe if you lay-up but roll in slighlty, and somewhat less so if you go for it, but fall a bit short.
Place a forward tee and design the green so that it can be played as a long par 3 for serious competitions.
-
Tony,
Since there are already 4 short-ish par-4's I'd go with a long par-3 and leave the tree in the fairway. Good shots will easilt sail over the tree and the gorge. Poor shots might have to deal with one or both.
- Peter
The par-3 in the photo is a different angle. The tees are left of the clump of trees left of the 26 by 36 gap. Building a tee in the par-4 fairway to provide two distinct angles has been discussed, though the bottom of the gorge wouldn't be visible. It isn't visible on most approaches for the par-4.
-
Tony,
Short par 4 is much better to close the 9th hole than a par 3. Based on the pictures the ravine is really nice and I would leave the pine in the fairway area. It adds to the mystique of the hole. I would create a green complex that gives you two routes to the hole.
1. Pull your driver and take a direct line threading the needle between the lone pine and the trees on the left (the fairway would look like a sliver but, these are the shots golfers love)
2. Pull a hybrid or iron and lay up right of the lone pine and have to play a short delicate wedge approach over a bunkers or a waste area of native grasses.
The reason I like the par 4 is that the walk from #8 green just seems to long and having #9 tee closer to #8 green just feels more natural. The land you have looks like it is rolling and easy to walk so the shorter walk will be very nice. I would have maybe 5 tee boxes allowing the angle to fairway and green change regularly so you can shake it up for tournaments and different days on the weekends. Looks like a great golf hole in the making!
-
Par 4. I am assuming that the ravine will be playable with a penalty of less than a full stroke. Make it so the penalty is more severe if you lay-up but roll in slighlty, and somewhat less so if you go for it, but fall a bit short.
Place a forward tee and design the green so that it can be played as a long par 3 for serious competitions.
The ravine has steep banks. You'll be able to recover from the greenside bank (my job to make it so), but I don't think recovery is possible from the fairway side... and we won't be grading it. The gorge is 20 feet deep. A mix of sand, and light rough. For depth think left of the 16th green at PGA West.
-
Look forward to the replies... see you in several hours.
-
Tony:
I'm not exactly sure why but whenever I ran into a decision with something like you've described there, as I understand it, my instinct has always told to me to go with a par 3. I think the reason why might be because a par 3 seems to maximize that neat feature more.
But how about what comes before the choice and after it? How is that affected by either choice?
-
Build both of them and evaluate after some play.
-
Look forward to the replies... see you in several hours.
I would remind you that the replies you get here are not from the average golfer.
Regards,
The average golfer ;)
-
I'm in the loose the tree camp, make it a short par 4, and replace the tree with bunker incorporated with as moderate of a turfed area in the ravine as as practically possible.
Forgive me if I didn't catch it, but did you describe if there is another 180-200 yards backwards from the tee to make a short par 5, with a go, no-go LZ, sans tree?
The tree is only there until the next lightening bold, disease or wind allows it. If you build a strategy around it, it is not a long term wise decision, IMHO.
-
...
The tree is only there until the next lightening bold, disease or wind allows it. If you build a strategy around it, it is not a long term wise decision, IMHO.
Yes, but the bunker is only there until about the 3rd Green Committee Chairperson.
;)
-
with a forward tee and a 280-310 yard carry AND a penalty of only a half of a shot from the ravine i am trying to drive it on the green in any condition but a direct headwind.
i can't carry the ball that far of course, but with only a half shot penalty form the long grass in the ravine i will take my chances from 50 yards.
i usually lose my gamble, but that is what makes short par 4s so much fun.
-
I like Chips suggestion about making it a driveable par 4. I also really like the idea of creaitng the par 3 as well so that it could be a push (19th) hole for tournaments. If you make the middle tee somewhere around 275 from the white tees I would guess that 90% of the players would go for the green from the tee.
Replacing a tree is no big deal if this one lone pine dies. I have a friend that does it all the time for private and resort courses. When a 40' gets nailed by lightning he removes the old one and replaces it with a new one 40' tall only prettier in shape.
Short par 4's are some of the best holes you can have on a golf course so have a collection of a couple of them will make your course really fun to play.
-
... If you make the middle tee somewhere around 275 from the white tees I would guess that 90% of the players would go for the green from the tee.
...
90% of the players can't hit it past 230 regularly.
-
Tony,
First off, thanks for providing such in interesting interactive thread.
My opinion is that a 26 wide by 36 deep landing area is just too small. The shot from this area over the gorge is bound to be a good looking shot but in my opinion, too few players will get to play it.
Also, it is hard to tell from the photos but the tee shot looks awkward hitting towards the trees as a par 4.
-
Tony,
Given the choices I'd choose the par 4.
I think there is another option though.
Consider the following:
1- remove the tree
2- cut in the green surface between 3- 4 feet with a frontal redan type feed leaving a rear roll / bounce plate of 3-4 feet
3- take that cut and soften the ravine a bit, spread out the cut though
4- shelf a bunker into the ravine - redan type bunker
5- move back tee up to about 265 tothe rear of the green so its a fractional driver with the play being either a runner up the right or a rebound of the back plate. You could even put a rear green slope in to enhance the roll back to the green.
2 cents
JT
6- adjust other tees accordingly.
-
Par4, leave the tree
-
Tony:
I'm not exactly sure why but whenever I ran into a decision with something like you've described there, as I understand it, my instinct has always told to me to go with a par 3. I think the reason why might be because a par 3 seems to maximize that neat feature more.
But how about what comes before the choice and after it? How is that affected by either choice?
Sandwiched between a reachable par-5 and downhill par-3 about 210 yards.
-
Build both of them and evaluate after some play.
We plan to. The par-3 tee has been roughed in. Must wait for work to be comepleted before we can get to the par-4 tees.
-
Look forward to the replies... see you in several hours.
I would remind you that the replies you get here are not from the average golfer.
Regards,
The average golfer ;)
Was going to ask everyone to post their handicap.
Would you?
-
I'm in the loose the tree camp, make it a short par 4, and replace the tree with bunker incorporated with as moderate of a turfed area in the ravine as as practically possible.
Forgive me if I didn't catch it, but did you describe if there is another 180-200 yards backwards from the tee to make a short par 5, with a go, no-go LZ, sans tree?
The tree is only there until the next lightening bold, disease or wind allows it. If you build a strategy around it, it is not a long term wise decision, IMHO.
No chance for a par-5.
The walk is forward to the par-3 tee.
If we loose the tree, a bunker would go left... in the bank.
-
...
The tree is only there until the next lightening bold, disease or wind allows it. If you build a strategy around it, it is not a long term wise decision, IMHO.
Yes, but the bunker is only there until about the 3rd Green Committee Chairperson.
;)
LOL.
It's going to be run by dictatorship.
We'll have a book documenting the course in its original state and guidelines for maintenance for the time the dictatorship turns into mobocracy.
-
with a forward tee and a 280-310 yard carry AND a penalty of only a half of a shot from the ravine i am trying to drive it on the green in any condition but a direct headwind.
i can't carry the ball that far of course, but with only a half shot penalty form the long grass in the ravine i will take my chances from 50 yards.
i usually lose my gamble, but that is what makes short par 4s so much fun.
If you make it through the 26-yard wide gap that is.
If you make it to the bottom of the ravine that is.
I don't know about it being a half shot. For what caliber of golfer? 20-foot bank... sand, light rough... scrub.
-
Can you show a routing plan?
Cheers
-
I like Chips suggestion about making it a driveable par 4. I also really like the idea of creaitng the par 3 as well so that it could be a push (19th) hole for tournaments. If you make the middle tee somewhere around 275 from the white tees I would guess that 90% of the players would go for the green from the tee.
Replacing a tree is no big deal if this one lone pine dies. I have a friend that does it all the time for private and resort courses. When a 40' gets nailed by lightning he removes the old one and replaces it with a new one 40' tall only prettier in shape.
Short par 4's are some of the best holes you can have on a golf course so have a collection of a couple of them will make your course really fun to play.
I like short 4's as well; we have 4 short 4's.
This is country where you just can't dial up a 40' tree.
90%? The average golfer doesn't hit it more than 220 yards. That would get them to the end of the landing area if they manage to hit it straight.
-
Tony,
First off, thanks for providing such in interesting interactive thread.
My opinion is that a 26 wide by 36 deep landing area is just too small. The shot from this area over the gorge is bound to be a good looking shot but in my opinion, too few players will get to play it.
Also, it is hard to tell from the photos but the tee shot looks awkward hitting towards the trees as a par 4.
-
Tony,
First off, thanks for providing such in interesting interactive thread.
My opinion is that a 26 wide by 36 deep landing area is just too small. The shot from this area over the gorge is bound to be a good looking shot but in my opinion, too few players will get to play it.
Also, it is hard to tell from the photos but the tee shot looks awkward hitting towards the trees as a par 4.
Cheers.
It's a nice group of Linden (left), with a couple firs, pines, and birches (right).
On Saturday of Sunday I'll close the thread with my thoughts.
-
Tony,
Given the choices I'd choose the par 4.
I think there is another option though.
Consider the following:
1- remove the tree
2- cut in the green surface between 3- 4 feet with a frontal redan type feed leaving a rear roll / bounce plate of 3-4 feet
3- take that cut and soften the ravine a bit, spread out the cut though
4- shelf a bunker into the ravine - redan type bunker
5- move back tee up to about 265 tothe rear of the green so its a fractional driver with the play being either a runner up the right or a rebound of the back plate. You could even put a rear green slope in to enhance the roll back to the green.
2 cents
JT
6- adjust other tees accordingly.
First... thanks everyone... from the sparse info and doing this from photos... not easy.
Jim:
1. No room for a reverse Redan. Green is shaped.
2. We're happy with the green.
3. You can work the ball from the center of the green to the right using the contour cutting through the center of the green. That is more critical from the par-3 than par-4.
4. Softening the ravine isn't an option. We'd lose greensite or fairway, or both.
5. Rear green backstop would be tough with the sparse trees beyond, and would look artificial (I know... the job would be to disguise it, but with the trees beyond... fat chance.
-
Can you show a routing plan?
Cheers
Here is a rough sketch...
The tee is actually further back... didn't measure it... but you get the idea.
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h135/agolfarchitect/DSC_0050-1_804x529.jpg)
-
If that plan is generally to scale, there is no way my 18 HC could land a shot in that area, so I'd either lay-up short of the first scrub (boring tee shot and long {really long?} second, or try to drive the green and take my 6 that way.
-
Look forward to the replies... see you in several hours.
I would remind you that the replies you get here are not from the average golfer.
Regards,
The average golfer ;)
Was going to ask everyone to post their handicap.
Would you?
19.6
-
If that plan is generally to scale, there is no way my 18 HC could land a shot in that area, so I'd either lay-up short of the first scrub (boring tee shot and long {really long?} second, or try to drive the green and take my 6 that way.
Yeah, pretty much to scale.
-
Tony,
How important are those trees to you? The more I look at them, the more they ruin the hole as a par 4 for me.
Would it be possible to remove the trees on the left and move the par 4 tee slighty left, creating more of a diagonal carry over the ridge? Even if you kept the current teeand had a 50 yard wide fairway that extended down the hill on the left, it would be cool for me as the player who could hit the small area on top of the hill would have the easiest shot in but the one who missed left would still have some shot. Of course this might not fit in with the course.
Even removing some of the tees on the right and making a bigger bail out area would be good to me.
-
Tony,
How important are those trees to you? The more I look at them, the more they ruin the hole as a par 4 for me.
Would it be possible to remove the trees on the left and move the par 4 tee slighty left, creating more of a diagonal carry over the ridge? Even if you kept the current teeand had a 50 yard wide fairway that extended down the hill on the left, it would be cool for me as the player who could hit the small area on top of the hill would have the easiest shot in but the one who missed left would still have some shot. Of course this might not fit in with the course.
Even removing some of the tees on the right and making a bigger bail out area would be good to me.
Do agree about tree clearing 100%. Denuding virtually the entire area would be of benefit...
...But...
Only two more trees can come out (three if we count the pine... shaking for its life)... ugly firs... but they won't widen the gap, as there are pines behind. We are at the maximum of the cut. This was decided before my arrival. As Porky Pig says... "B'da, B'da, Bda... Th.. Th.. Th.. that's all folks" (as far as the cut goes). We can only hope for a vicious wind storm.
-
In my opinion, the Par-3 looks a better hole... The Par-4 looks forced...
The extra walk is a big minus though and I could see the Par-4 working quite well if the left side of the landing area (and the dip before) was softened by taking out a lot of those trees... You're still going to end up with a lot of golfers in the gorge but if the ball is findable, why not?
-
What's interesting is how benign the gorge looks. I'll try to get a shot with someone at the base.
-
My thoughts:
The par-4.
1. Fitting the shot into the gap is something the average golfer (who can’t break 100) cannot accomplish with regularity. Miss the tee shot some, and you’re laying-up or punching out… even if the gap is made a bit wider than the current 26 wide.
2. If the axiom… “if you are going to lay-up, then lay-up” is honored, few will get their tee shot onto the plateau. I would never try… wouldn’t even entertain the thought as there is no advantage; it’s potential suicide. That means most golfers will have an uneventful lay-up for a tee shot.
3. Unless you hit your shot on the plateau (36 deep… 26 wide), you won’t get a view of the Gorge.
I think the Gorge is the most dramatic vista on the course. Having it invisible on the approach… ?
Not everything has to be visible, but when Mother Nature gives you a gun, isn’t it wise to shoot it? When you have 500HP, isn’t it wise to use it? If you have 500HP moments galore… then restraint is wise.
Whistling Straits is somewhat repetitive with their par-3’s, but Dye used the full 500HP every time he could. At Teeth of the Dog he does the same. Pasatiempo’s 18th. Pebble’s 7th. Is this hole that dramatic? We don’t have the Pacific or Atlantic, or a lake the size of a sea, but we do have some abrupt elevation which fits the Tillinghast theory of using rough ground to bridge holes… and create drama.
4. As one poster noted, the par-4 comes across as forced... as filler. Trying to fill the gap so as to get 18-holes, or worse… 18-holes to the tune of par-72.
5. Women. As a par-4 the hole is virtually unplayable.
Even with the hole 220 yards long, it will be a drive for most, and a lay-up (see Point 1’s axiom). Then most will be faced with a mid-iron or fairway wood from a fairway lie. My bet is most will find the bank or bottom of the 20 foot canyon.
Facts about female golfers: The average women hits it about 110-yards… carry and roll, and their flight pattern is low and doesn’t have tremendous spin. Their average handicap in the US; 36.
The average 21-yeard old female has the physical strength of how old a man? Answer at the bottom of this post.
6. Where is the strategy? The strategy is how far back do you want to lay it up. I find that boooooring. Perhaps I had an overdose of such holes having played a lot in Scandinavia and the Pacific NW and have yet to fully recover.
If the hole were narrow without the Gorge… OK… you would have the chance of going for the green on the recovery, but with the Gorge it’s a punch-out. Not too exciting.
Without the Gorge I would say it’s a better hole, with the Gorge, vastly inferior. We cannot fill the Gorge or soften its banks.
7. Using Mackenzie’s principle about playing a hole from tee to green with a putter? This hole fails that measurement.
Four fir trees have found their fate since the start of this thread, and though it makes the hole appear more roomy, nothing has changed fundamentally. The plateau is still the same small plateau and if you hit it left or right you’re punching for position. The gorge prevents a low recovery to the green. Trying a recovery through the trees, the ball would have the same fate as Wiley Coyote in all those Road Runner cartoons… ssssssssssssssssssssssplat at the bottom of the Gorge.
As a par-3 (65, 120-145, meters for the members; subtract 15 for the carry):
1. You can tee the ball up; perfect lie.
2. You know the exact distance. To carry from the ladies-forward tees, the hole can be as short as 60 meters; the carry… about 40 to 50. This is manageable, and provides a thrilling shot. It would put a medium to short iron into the hands of most ladies; a rarity for women to approach with such a club on any hole. For most male members, the shortest carry would be 105 meters.
3. From where the tee is built and the photo taken, you get the best, most dramatic view. The edges of the canyons overlap one another, allowing you to look right into the mouth of the beast and see its base.
4. Using Mackenzie’s principle about playing a hole from tee to green with a putter? This hole fails that measurement too, but at least golfers have a half-assed chance of getting to the green.
5. Finishing the outward-9 with a par-3 doesn’t even enter the calculation. Nor does the walk. I’d rather play vastly superior holes and have a small trek on occasion, than a short walk and an inferior hole. Please note the words “on occasion”.
6. This is a hole where the golfer can hit a memorable shot. It fits the Mackenzie theory of making holes look tougher than they really are.
ANOTHER OPTION:
It would be a better par-4 with the green on this side of the canyon, so:
1. If someone went long, down the bank of the gorge behind the green, they could recover back to the green.
2. You could hit a running shot though the trees to the (small) green.
3. It would beg people to take a rip at the green… (and we could cut a bunker strategically in the slope of the 26 by 36 area).
4. You would or could follow with the par-3 to the other side of the Gorge.
This exercise shows how tough it is to make the best design decisions from maps and photos. It’s always best to be out in the field.
I’d forgotten to note the hole plays into the prevailing wind.
I’d also neglected to say the land for the par-4 could be sold for housing as “A” lots. Parcels on a hilltop (think Riviera but not quite so high) overlooking 8 holes… generating some 7 figures in income. The course has a few holes with houses buffering… but not many; around the 2nd green, along the short 3rd, behind the 4th tees, behind 11 green, above 8 green (and to the right of 9 tees?). Forget the US standard of residential golf development... houses do not infect the site. It's a core course with some housing at a few if its fringes.
After posting the thread I thought… man… the par-4 looks super in photos. May look good from afar… but to me it is far from good. :)
Thanks very much to everyone who chimed in.
I’ve kept a daily blog about the project: http://sandvalleygolf.blogspot.com/
65