Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Charlie Goerges on March 14, 2009, 04:53:50 PM
-
(you'll have to scroll down to see the mystery course)
In anticipation of the forthcoming results of the Armchair Architecture Contest I wanted to get the thread started by thanking our judges. After that I’ll add a brief intro and tour for the actual course built on the site that we used. I’m doing it because I don’t think that at this late stage it will affect the judges’ rankings much.
Anyhow, on to the judges. Luckily I was able to track down some photos of them in order to let you know who you’re dealing with as well as such biographical data as I’ve been able to glean from their posts/websites.
Yannick Pilon “The Rebel”
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/jamesdean.jpg)
Yannick has been working for Graham Cooke & Assoc. Inc., out of Montreal, Quebec, since 1997 working on dozens of courses, from preliminary routings to final feature shapes out in the field.
“Papa” Paul Cowley
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/hemingway.jpg)
Paul works with Davis Love III as well as being a general rabble-rouser on GCA.com
Dave “Shivas” Schmidt
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Sean_Connerygolf.jpg)
In addition to his ground-breaking work on the history and restoration of the Reverse Jans National golf course and its associated club The Honourable Company of Reverse Jans National Golfers, he has led the armed resistance to the use of the “Cheater Line”.
The Emperor Thomas Naccarato
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Emperor.jpg)
Though not currently an active member of GCA, the emperor’s influence is still apparent to all.
“Agent” Jeff Brauer
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/JeffBrauer1.jpg)
Jeff has designed many acclaimed courses including 3 in my home state of Minnesota (I’ve not played any yet :-[, but I plan to change that soon) including the Quarry and Legend courses at Giants Ridge and the Wilderness at Fortune Bay.
Mike “it’s not Rocket Science” Nuzzo
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/einstein.jpg)
Mike has worked with Finger, Dye, Spann and more recently has completed his first solo design at Wolf Point Club.
Rich Goodale “The King”
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/TheKing.jpg)
Rich has published numerous books including “Experience Royal Dornoch” and the forthcoming “Experience the Reverse Jans National”.
We also started out with 2 additional judges. They may not be submitting rankings but I’d like to thank them for their support and feedback which helped me get this thing going.
“Sir” Ian Andrew
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/lawrence.jpg)
Ron “The Condor” Farris
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Redford.jpg)
And because I never tire of trotting out this picture, my dad and me hoisting “The Industrial Cup”
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/P1030598-1-1.jpg)
So watch this space for the next day or two for the unveiling of the “real” course, with contest results to follow.
And once again my deepest thanks to the judges!
-
Thanks for running the show, Charlie. Now the fun begins! My only suggestion would be to show the submissions in a series, but hold off on revealing the final scores/winner until the end. JMO.
PS: Homemade trophies rule.
-
Sounds like a good plan Tom. That way I can get started sooner and not have to try to post everything all at once. I'll still get started with the actual course tonight I hope.
Charlie
P.S. My dad and I drank much of the "Champagne of Beers"(i.e. Miller High Life) out of that trophy.
-
You judges are doing Charlie, and all of us, a great favour - and you well deserve our thanks. But a few of you probably owe Charlie a big thank-you -- I'm guessing the photos he posted are the best and coolest pictures of yourselves imaginable... :)
Peter
-
Peter, you are very right.
It was recently said on another thread...I don't remember which, but after reading this one, I have to agree and proclaim that Charlie is clearly a breath of fresh energy and a great asset to this site. Your talents can probably be claimed by many, but few have the energy to execute as well as you Charlie--thanks for all the sparkle. Not sure where you have been hiding all this time, but we are glad you finally crawled out from under that desk and if I may say so, keep up the good work ;) ;)
Looking forward to seeing the results of this effort.
-
Thanks for the kind words Peter and Scott. (Honestly though Peter, it's tough to find a bad picture of "Papa" Paul ;))
Okay now is the moment of truth. The course I chose and depicted in the image below is…
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/armchairarchitecturecontestoriginal.jpg)
OOOOOOOHHHH, can you feeeeeel the tension!
Erin Hills!
The reason I chose it was because it was generally regarded as a good, natural site that wouldn’t need a ton of earthmoving, but provided a rollicking landscape on which the contestants could let their imaginations go. I also chose it because if I chose a venerated old course I’d be taking my life in my hands.
A couple of shots from the electronic course (the drives depicted represent about a 250 yard shot):
Hole 4
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Hole4.jpg)
Here the back tee is in the lower right corner, the shot is from a middle tee.
Hole 14
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Hole14.jpg)
Here the shot is from the back tee.
A couple of caveats. I know that the Topo was relatively accurate, but smaller things like the shelf for the green on the 15th hole didn’t really show up, so the contestants couldn’t necessarily “find” those kinds of spots. Also, I’ve not played the course, and I had a hard time verifying that things worked out quite right as far as my reproduction of the course goes. Lastly, I didn’t draw a separate fairway line so all of my “fairways” actually encompass the fairways and maintained rough areas.
So there you have it. Here is a link to download the file if you wish.
http://cid-f73fd6728c175582.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Armchair%20Architecture%20Contest/Erin%20Hills.zip
You’ll have to unzip it (as well as install google sketckup) to view it. Questions/Comments are welcome.
Alright Contestants, I’m going to follow the protocol that Tom Dunne suggested above. So anyone who has completed their “show and tell” images/text, let me know when you’d like to post via PM. If you need some help I’d be happy to do so. I think we’ll start tomorrow.
-
Thanks Charlie
I'm glad you didn't submit this one as it wouldn't have won in my book.
Nice work and great choice.
My friends call me Mr. Einstein.
-
Einstein......
Elvis Einstein.
Shaken not stirred.
-
Thanks Charlie
I'm glad you didn't submit this one as it wouldn't have won in my book.
Nice work and great choice.
My friends call me Mr. Einstein.
Wow! Did you guys read that! Let's bulldoze the course there and build a real US Open worthy course from the winning entry.
;D
-
I am not familiar with Erin Hills, but I am sure surprised to see so much back and forth holes on this property! Have to wonder if they were channelling Dugger when they built it!
;) Sorry Michael I couldn't resist. Your compensation should you choose to accept it is a free round of golf at my place.
-
Erin Hills. Wow.
-
I actually figured out when I opened the first armchair architecture thread that it was Erin Hills, as I worked on the construction crew that built it, and have a bunch of topos. It should be interesting to see what people came up with without actually seeing the site or knowing what course it was. The site has some really beautiful specimen trees, and Holy Hill to the East that could certainly be used as off site eye candy to help add to potential holes. I also noticed that they didn't have the mighty Ashipin(sp?) River ::), which is on the North side of the property in the topo that Charlie found which may have been an element that some one may have wanted to use. I am looking forward to seeing some entries.
As a side note, for fun I spent hours looking at the topos trying to come up with my own routing but never could come up with something I liked. I think that knowing the routing made it impossible for me. I already had green and tee sites and playing corridors that I really liked from the chosen routing.
Brendan
-
Charlie,
I think you made the 2nd green twice it's actual size! Erin Hills was a great choice for the contest and I'm interested is seeing the other entrants. In one of my original routings, I had a hole just like the real 15th but there was no way I get out to that back corner and return the nine without it simply going straight out and back. Of course, EH solved this problem by thinking outside the box and adding an extra hole. I wonder, if like Mike suggested, an extra hole would've disqualified the actual entry or at best mean big negative points in the routing category. Personally, I don't view routing as EH's strong suit and I'm sure many entries would likely beat the real thing in this category at least on paper.
I pasted your EH routing on top of mine and I have greens in the exact same spot as the 2nd, 6th and 7th, which I thought was pretty cool.
Thanks again for organizing Charlie. It was a cool experience and I definitely have even more respect for those who do the real thing.
-
Well, at least Erin Hills seems to have been a good choice based on the topopgraphy.
Brendan, the phenomenon that you ran into is the reason I didn't want to tell anyone what it was. I thought that knowing would only complicate matters. Jeff Brauer had figured it out right away as well.
Jim, I did a file with everyone's routings overlaid and found that a few spots got used multiple times. Surprisingly the entire 4th hole was used by at least 2 of the contestants.
Garland, whenever you're ready, feel free to post your show and tell. I'll post everyone's routing anonymously and then you can start. After that everyone can follow as they finish. Once the results are in and everyone's show and tells are posted, you'll get the judges judgements.
-
Here are the aerials of the contestants with Erin Hills first. The order is just the randomized order I created to send to the judges. The last two are Tom Dunne’s routing (unfortunately too late for the contest), one without hole numbers and one with hole numbers.
Erin Hills:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/armchairarchitecturecontestoriginal.jpg)
001:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38988.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/001.jpg)
002:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38996.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/002.jpg)
003:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39001.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/003.jpg)
004:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38984.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/004.jpg)
005:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38987.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/005.jpg)
006:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39036.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/006.jpg)
007:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39140.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/007.jpg)
008:
Hole by Hole Tour Part 1: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39023.0.html
Hole by Hole Tour Part 2: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39024.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/008.jpg)
Tom Dunne:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/TomDunneA.jpg)
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/TomDunneB.jpg)
-
Wow!
I had no clue it was Erin Hills as I was judging this thing!! But it became evident as soon as I saw the routing!
I appologize for the guy who had hole no. 10 as the first hole of his routing! I trashed the hole right out of the gate!!! :-[ Just by looking at the contours, I was sure that this hole would never work! I guess I would need to see the real hole, thought, before I make a final judgement call!
This is going to be fun....
YP
-
Tom, it seems I've managed to shrink the images of your routing too much. I'll re-output them and post when I get a chance.
Also, anyone else who'd like to get started posting their "show and tells" go ahead and get started. To get the images out of sketchup, just go to File>Export>2D Graphic and save the image. For those of you who have communicated with me to post your show and tell, just proceed as discussed.
Charlie
-
I was going to enter, but I went over my monthly bandwidth and got bumped back to dialup speed... as a result I had trouble downloading everything. I wish I'd gone through with it now.
I still have my paper routing that I did somewhere.
-
I am truly amazed at the drawing skills of some of these guys using that tool. Was #006 really done with Sketchup? WOW!
-
Deleted
-
expired.
-
I am not familiar with Erin Hills, but I am sure surprised to see so much back and forth holes on this property! Have to wonder if they were channelling Dugger when they built it!
;) Sorry Michael I couldn't resist. Your compensation should you choose to accept it is a free round of golf at my place.
It's okay Garland. Yer lucky I couldn't get my sketchup to work worth a damn or I'd be bringing this trophy home.
-
I'm glad you guys (the contestants) are able to come out of your shells enough to be able to post your hole by holes ;).
In the immortal words of Garland Bayley, "I've spent a lot of time on this, if you guys think you're going to get away without sitting through a hole-by-hole description, come hell or high water, you've got another thing comin'!"
I'll add links to each show and tell thread to the post with all of the aerials in order to facilitate finding them more easily. For individual comments feel free to post on those threads, but if general discussion and discussion of multiple contestants could be done on this thread, it would make it easier for folks to follow.
Also, I plan on hopefully having the results available tonight.
Great job everyone!
-
Charlie,
I'm not sure why I could not open the files - so I'm sorry I had to bail out on the judging - but I could only see one entry.
When I worked for Doug, we were one of the companies selected to submit an entry - and I still did not recognize the site - although that was a long time ago and Doug did the routing.
Good choice of sites.
Best,
Ian
-
No problem Ian. I didn't have any idea so many archies submitted on that site. I'm glad I chose it, but what would have happened if I'd chosen Merion!?!?!? I shudder to think.
-
No problem Ian. I didn't have any idea so many archies submitted on that site. I'm glad I chose it, but what would have happened if I'd chosen Merion!?!?!? I shudder to think.
The thought crossed my mind that you might have chosen Merion, but the acreage was too much for that to be. I actually looked on Google Earth to see if you had chosen Shinnecock, or the Rawls course. Interesting that the judges compared some designs to Shinnecock.
Did I really mispell think like you have it above?
-
Did I really mispell think like you have it above?
Probably not, I was typing from memory, so you may not have typed it quite like I did either.
However, I don't seem to be able to locate the misspelling either, perhaps I really am losing it! ;)
-
...
However, I don't seem to be able to locate the misspelling either, perhaps I really am losing it! ;)
If you are using a spell checker, it won't find it either as thing is a perfectly good word.
-
Yep, I'm lost. The one place I see the word thing is the second to last word of the quote. I thought that word was supposed to be thing. Am I nuts?!?!
Don't answer that.
-
Let me quote my mother for you.
"If you think you can get away with that buster, then you have another think coming."
You see, it is not supposed to be thing.
But, we digress.
-
I want to see all the other architects preliminary routings.
Why didn't H&F put a single par 3 from 14 green to 17 tee and keep the bye hole?
Problems with a returning 10?
Are 15 & 16 both that good?
Back to back par 3s twice is something I wouldn't do.
Would the USGA ignore a course if it didn't have returning 9s?
They start off the back now too.
-
I'm pretty sure the USGA has used an out and back routing and ferried players out to 10, and back from 9.
They certainly did it for the Women's open at Pumpkin Ridge.
Part of the reason I remember that is the infamous Michelle Wie bumping incident was at the separate scorer's tent off the 9th green.
-
Mike, 15 is a short par 4.
Also, I believe I saw on a thread here recently that they are not going to use the 7th hole in the US Open, in favor of using the bye hole.
At any rate it seems that returning nines seem to be a prerequisite (edit: Garland proves me wrong once again ;)). Though (generally speaking) I don't think they need be, as long as the 10th tee is not in some terribly far away place, they should be able to manage.
-
#10 at Pebble Beach is pretty darn far away...
-
I want to see all the other architects preliminary routings.
Why didn't H&F put a single par 3 from 14 green to 17 tee and keep the bye hole?
Problems with a returning 10?
Are 15 & 16 both that good?
Back to back par 3s twice is something I wouldn't do.
Would the USGA ignore a course if it didn't have returning 9s?
They start off the back now too.
Mike,
I think 15 is one of the best holes on the course and probably one they wanted to make sure was incorporated into the final routing. I have no idea what the thought process was in the final design...I'd love to hear more about it (part 2 Dana Fry interview?) Maybe certain parties really wanted the 15th, the Dell and the 10th green and they had to work around it.
Charlie, when I was out there last year there was talk of building a second course. The starter told us Bob Lang was already carving out a routing (he also told us that Mr. Lang 'basically designed the first course', so take his comments with a grain of salt.) The website says they have 650 acres. Maybe it's a good candidate for the next armchair contest. You do realize that you volunteered yourself as organizer for a lifetime term, don't you?
-
#10 at Pebble Beach is pretty darn far away...
Charlie,
You have any pictures of Einstein flogging himself? ;)
-
In comparing Ballysnoop to Bighorn Cliffs, I notice a significant difference. I know it shows a couple of prejudices of mine, and wonder if it was consciously done by Jim. In particular, I often write on this website that difficult terrain makes little or no difference to me when walking and playing a golf hole. However, it is not appreciated when walking between holes. Another factor in play is that I will allow carries over ponds off the tee, but am not a fan of them in front of the green, or as hazards by the green. Small streams, burns, etc. are OK almost anywhere. This led to my design having the player walk down to 13 tees from the previous green, and up to 4 tees. Jim was almost the exact opposite. He has the player walk up to 14 tees and down to 3. Since he located greens near ponds, and I located tees near ponds some of that is explained. I am wondering if we each went overboard, and should have moderated.
-
A view of the course during construction.
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/troonster/GCA posts/erinhillsgoogle.jpg)
-
Considering that image was pretty much all I had guiding me to hole placement, it was a miracle I got the holes on the map at all.
-
It doesn't look like we'll get the final results tonight. Sorry guys.
-
In comparing Ballysnoop to Bighorn Cliffs, I notice a significant difference. I know it shows a couple of prejudices of mine, and wonder if it was consciously done by Jim. In particular, I often write on this website that difficult terrain makes little or no difference to me when walking and playing a golf hole. However, it is not appreciated when walking between holes. Another factor in play is that I will allow carries over ponds off the tee, but am not a fan of them in front of the green, or as hazards by the green. Small streams, burns, etc. are OK almost anywhere. This led to my design having the player walk down to 13 tees from the previous green, and up to 4 tees. Jim was almost the exact opposite. He has the player walk up to 14 tees and down to 3. Since he located greens near ponds, and I located tees near ponds some of that is explained. I am wondering if we each went overboard, and should have moderated.
Garland,
I count 7 uphill climbs of more than 10 feet in my design, so maybe that is going a bit overboard. I guess I don't mind an uphill walk to an elevated tee box as long as it's worth the extra effort when you get there. I don't know what's average or normal but I calculated the average distance from green to the next tee box as 44 yards. Based on Charlie's sketch of EH, the average distance between holes is 75 yards with the benefit of the bye hole. Looking at my routing in more detail, if I had been more cognizant about it, I probably could moved some greens or tees closer together to lessen the elevation change, but at least 3-4 of the them were unavoidable.
Hole (Green --> Tee) -- Distance to next tee (yds) -- Elevation Change between Green and next tee (feet)
1 --> 2 19 2
2 --> 3 23 1
3 --> 4 75 29
4 --> 5 41 2
5 --> 6 48 3
6 --> 7 42 22
7 --> 8 20 1
8 --> 9 43 19
9 --> 10 127 -8
10 --> 11 32 3
11 --> 12 82 21
12 --> 13 21 12
13 --> 14 45 -9
14 --> 15 23 17
15 --> 16 41 19
16 --> 17 33 4
17 --> 18 46 -11
-
In a gentle bit of cajoling for our holdout judges, I've changed the thread title. My other purpose is to hasten the onset of discussion.
Before that though, I want to acknowledge a couple of things. I realize that the multiple threads with a great many pictures on them may be a bit confusing to folks not in the contest. I think Garland's precedent of separate threads is a good one because it will keep this thread as uncluttered as possible. I think that the contestants deserved some bragging rights and the spotlight for their projects, as they put in a boatload of work on this thing. (I’ve still got one more to put up as well; and NOTE that there are links to each individual course thread on the previous page right above each course's aerial)
Also, I’ve gotten the feeling (and I agree with it), that some feel that the discussion portion of the contest is not living up to its potential. In order to remedy that fact, we need to bring as much of the discussion back to this thread (from the satellite threads) as possible. And we should try to examine the various problems, limitations, assets etc. associated with the site and how the contestants (and the actual architects) dealt with/used them in creating their designs.
Lastly given that the contestants are no longer anonymous, there may be questions as to the veracity of the judges’ findings since not all are in. I’ve gotten 5 of seven without any knowledge of the contestants’ identity, but I’m not sure of the last two. (If you guys are reading this, I’m not calling you guys out. Life happens, and it definitely comes first.) I gambled on how long it would take for A. the contestants to put up their tours and B. the judges to complete the rankings. Anyhow, I’m playing it by ear, and I’ll get it all figured out, but I wanted the contestants to be aware.
So, let the discussion begin. To that end, I’ll be putting up some examples of my favorite holes from each of the contestants, but everyone should feel free to further the discussion in any way they’d like.
Best Wishes,
Charlie
-
Jim,
I have never considered the issue before. After all I am an amateur, but considering my home course I found there is only 2 more up than down, which seemed more balanced. I am wondering if I placed too many greens too high (or you visa versa) or if this type of thing comes out all over the map. Do architects even consider balancing it?
-
One of the features of the site that I'm having a hard time picturing is the esker (is that what it's called?). I placed my 11th green down in it in a desperate attempt at quirk, while the 005 design turned it into a pond. Viewing that landform in 360* on Sketchup was really weird.
Are there any pictures of this feature at Erin Hills?
The thing that I learned from this exercise was how hard it is to fit 18 holes onto a property with any kind of coherence, and how easy it is to paint yourself into a corner. And, on paper, Erin Hills is by all accounts great land for golf. Hurdzan/Fry can see a championship course--until my last night of working on this, my routing was probably going to be about 6,000 yards from the tips! I found a couple of solutions (including a par-five that somehow didn't make it to Charlie when I sent it along--#16) that got it to 6,700 from the tips. I think I was paranoid about trying to provide ample width to the playing corridors.
Architects: How much lateral yardage do you generally budget for a hole to be considered safe in your eyes?
-
In the attempt to parse the use of the land by the contestants I’m going to examine each entry in light of how it uses an individual landform. Since no major landform was used by all of the entries, this first one will obviously exclude at least one entry. But the landform is so interesting to me that I can’t pass it up. I’m speaking of the “Esker” circled in white on each of the aerials below. Everyone handled the Esker slightly differently as you will see in a little segment I like to call, “The Many Uses of the Esker”.
(Note that this is to get the discussion started, my commentary is by no means exhaustive.)
Erin Hills
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/armchairarchitecturecontestorigi-1.jpg)
The drive depicted is about 290 yards and each of the second shots is about 215 yards
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/1.jpg)
This is the view from the left side of the fairway. The Esker obscures the view of the green, though this appears to be the shortest route from tee to green.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/2.jpg)
Here the view opens up considerably.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/3.jpg)
001 Jim Colton
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/001-1.jpg)
This view shows a drivable or nearly drivable par 4. The esker in this case is more of an ornamentation to the hole (short of the central bunker complex), but it fits in quite well with the hole design. (Jim can weigh in on the strategic choices present on this hole.)
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/4.jpg)
002 Steve Lang. This one doesn’t have a sketchup file, so perhaps Steve can weigh in on the use of the esker. It does appear more ornamental like the previous and next entries.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/002-1.jpg)
003 Tom Doak/Charlie Goerges
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/003-1.jpg)
This hole was one that I and not Tom designed. The esker is on the right and the hole doglegs around it. Again the use is somewhat limited, but playing left will leave a better view but much longer shot. Additionally, blasting it really long will get the player past the corner. (like all of the drives depicted, this one is about 290)
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/5.jpg)
004 Garland Bayley
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/004-1.jpg)
Here the esker is used to full effect. To maximize the effect the green was placed in a punchbowl with means that to have a good view of the green one must hit a very precise and long tee shot right over the most distant part of the esker (depicted by the tee shot.).
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/6.jpg)
The least risky shot seems to be the bite of as much as you can chew right side option. The longer the shot you are able to get over the esker, the better your view will be (though none of them is particularly good on this side). Notice the flight path on the left side of the image, that’s the location of the “bombed” drive. It is significantly above the right side of the fairway.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/7.jpg)
Here is the view from the right. The risk here seems to be if you don’t hit it far enough, the esker itself will block your view. This is the next best view to the “bombed” option. Even so, you can really only see the top of the flagstick.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/8.jpg)
005 Dave Stringer
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/005-1.jpg)
The next two images depict the same thing from slightly different angles. The esker lies just beyond the two far fairway bunkers. What’s interesting is the options aren’t just left to avoid the esker and right to have the easier tee shot, you can also play short of the downslope and have not only an unobstructed view, but an aerial view as well.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/9a.jpg)
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/9b.jpg)
This angle leaves you with a great view, but about 220 in.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/10.jpg)
Here the view is obstructed, but you’ve only got about 150 in.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/11.jpg)
007 Ian Linford
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/007-1.jpg)
This aerial view shows a par 5 that places the green in about the same location as the Erin Hills routing. EH however has the tee somewhere on the extreme lower-right of this image. This hole is reachable, but what is interesting is how tough the layup shot is.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/12.jpg)
This image depicts the 2-shot route, but you can also tell where you can lay up because the hill to the right and beyond the layup area seems to guide your eye to the right location.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/13.jpg)
The next two images show how important it is to get the layup in the right location.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/14.jpg)
You can see the player in the lower right and the flight path of the 2-shot option up near the green. Looking back at the previous image shows you that you need to get at least to where the player is shown in order to see even a smidgen of green. Every couple of feet to the left of the player’s location (as shown below) means you’re a few inches lower, with that much worse a view.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/15.jpg)
008 Andy Gray
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/008-1.jpg)
Here the esker seems to be the main obstacle on the tee shot of a short par 5. Miss a little right, left, or even too long and the esker will route your ball into oblivion.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/16.jpg)
Below you can see the extreme difference between the safer play (left), and the risker one (upper right).
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/17.jpg)
And the view from behind the green.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/18.jpg)
Okay, that’s meant to get you started. Feel free to comment, start a new tangent, or whatever you wish. I must say that I found this small, abrupt, but natural feature to be an interesting tool in our designers’ “kits”.
-
I think the real thing uses the esker very well. Ian's is my favorite of all the entries.
I like my 13th hole but obviously didn't use the esker as well as I could have. I wonder what it would've looked like if I had flipped my fairway and the safe play was over the esker off the tee.
-
Perhaps you could have used it better or differently, but you would have had to encroach on your 14th quite a bit. I think 14 is good hole, good enough not to mess with just to give the esker a more "active" role. And the bunkers fullfill the role that the esker would play anyway.
I agree that EHills', Ian's are both very good uses of the esker (Ian's is the more interesting/crazy/fun of those two in my mind). But Garland's is just crazy strategic. There's almost perfect linear improvement in visibility proportionate to the quality of the shot hit. AND there are 3 separate ways to play it! I don't know if the green location would work drainage-wise, but the shot-values (if that is the right term) are great.
I also find it interesting that all but one of the contestants used that esker in some form or fashion. And in NO case was it a bad or ill-advised way. None of the holes were total clunkers.
And bear in mind Jim, that this post was in regard to the esker and it's usage. Your hole stands on its own regardless of the esker. Maybe that kind of hole is common, but I've never played one (to my knowledge anyway) so I classify it as clever.
-
Here are two shots of the 17th at Erin Holes. The Esker Hole. This is one of the holes undergoing some changes to make the landing zone more receptive. Esker on the left in the second photo blocks the view of the green from the middle to left side of the fairway.
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/troonster/Erin%20Hills/ErinHills11200717eh.jpg)
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/troonster/Erin%20Hills/ErinHills11200717beh.jpg)
-
Thanks for those images Dan! There are a lot more rolls and bumps on the ground than were picked up by my topo.
Plus, I can get a decent read on a couple of the other holes and how they might look.
-
Perhaps you could have used it better or differently, but you would have had to encroach on your 14th quite a bit. I think 14 is good hole, good enough not to mess with just to give the esker a more "active" role. And the bunkers fullfill the role that the esker would play anyway.
I agree that EHills', Ian's are both very good uses of the esker (Ian's is the more interesting/crazy/fun of those two in my mind). But Garland's is just crazy strategic. There's almost perfect linear improvement in visibility proportionate to the quality of the shot hit. AND there are 3 separate ways to play it! I don't know if the green location would work drainage-wise, but the shot-values (if that is the right term) are great.
I also find it interesting that all but one of the contestants used that esker in some form or fashion. And in NO case was it a bad or ill-advised way. None of the holes were total clunkers.
And bear in mind Jim, that this post was in regard to the esker and it's usage. Your hole stands on its own regardless of the esker. Maybe that kind of hole is common, but I've never played one (to my knowledge anyway) so I classify it as clever.
Charlie,
Maybe you can show that tee shot of mine from more of a ground level...I think the esker does play a role in masking the front of the left finger of fairway. One of the things I really had no feel about as a newbie was exactly how close to make the start of that left side. I probably could've put fairway directly on the other side of the esker...maybe you wouldn't see it the first time you played and decided to hit it right, but you'd hit it left everytime after that. I envisioned a private course that would get a lot of replays, therefore I wanted that tee shot to continue to provide a challenge every time you played it. Plus I really like the elevated tee shot over that valley.
Seeing a lot of these entries has brought a lot of 'why didn't I think of that?' moments. Like on my 12th, Tom had that big bunker in basically the same spot I have the indent in my fairway short of the green. It seems like a no brainer now. Part of the learning process. The biggest benefit of this process for me was forcing me to think about decisions I had previously just taken for granted, like 'is this a natural place for a bunker?' and 'what's the typical distance from green to next tee?', and even basic things like size of greens and width of fairways.
-
Here is the image:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/00113tee.jpg)
-
Hmmm... I love the concept of my hole, but I think the results don't live up to my expectations of it. I think the biggest problem is that the hole is too long. At about 520 yards, only the longest hitters will be going for this green in two, especially considering the difficulty of the second shot. Also, many players won't be able to hit it far enough to get themselves a view of the green for their third shots, leaving them few choices (to get a good view of the green, you have to be able to hit it pretty much pin-high).
I think I would like the hole more if it were a very short par-5, maybe 480 yards or so. That still leaves a difficult second shot for longer hitters over the esker, while giving medium-length hitters the chance to play out to the right. One thing I do like about the hole is that a good "lay-up" is actually past the green, and interesting feature IMO.
I'd be interested to hear what you all think about improving the hole, or if you prefer it how it is.
-
8) Charlie,
using the topo almost exclusively i noted your esker feature, it was ~100 yards long and while i considered it a topo-feature (i.e., anything sticking out above 975') it was only ~10' tall with steep sides..
reminded me of the borrow channel walls at the Pit, growing over with pricker bushes!
I gave it some thought, (though didn't call it an esker) and I used its end as an aiming feature for the tee shot on my #16.
I was really more interested in using it to divide and protect folks from bad slices from my 16th and 17th hole tees . On my #16 its flat and open fairway is a late round green light.. on my #17 i was more interested in using the sloping land for the right side and open flat land on left side of #17 fairway
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/eskershot.jpg)
-
Steve, thanks for that explanation. And sorry I couldn't figure it out better on my own, that was a failure of imagination on my part.
Sometimes a feature can be used for visual effect rather than physical effect. I guess Jim did much the same thing.
-
Thanks for the nice words about my use of the ridge left by a stream running under the glacier. Those people that have read my thread perhaps realized that I was trying to do gravity golf, which is a term I learned from TEP on the bunkerless thread. I only learned the term after doing the design. I attribute the motivation for doing gravity golf to Bill Diddel after reading that he had tried to do interesting, difficult bunkerless golf courses at one point in his career. The first course I spent any significant amount of time on was a Diddel course.
The esker provided a perfect hazard for gravity golf. Pick an aggressive line, try to drive over it, and fail leaves you with a terrible stance and a terrible view of the green.
-
8) Charlie, no failures anywhere on this whole thing man.. its all good in contestants' approaches, there was some serious thought no matter what reviewers may think or dismiss..
Garland I dd everything without bunkers first..
-
Hmmm... I love the concept of my hole, but I think the results don't live up to my expectations of it. I think the biggest problem is that the hole is too long. At about 520 yards, only the longest hitters will be going for this green in two, especially considering the difficulty of the second shot. Also, many players won't be able to hit it far enough to get themselves a view of the green for their third shots, leaving them few choices (to get a good view of the green, you have to be able to hit it pretty much pin-high).
I think I would like the hole more if it were a very short par-5, maybe 480 yards or so. That still leaves a difficult second shot for longer hitters over the esker, while giving medium-length hitters the chance to play out to the right. One thing I do like about the hole is that a good "lay-up" is actually past the green, and interesting feature IMO.
I'd be interested to hear what you all think about improving the hole, or if you prefer it how it is.
Ian, you saw the other thread, just do more tees! ;)
-
Hmmm... I love the concept of my hole, but I think the results don't live up to my expectations of it. I think the biggest problem is that the hole is too long. At about 520 yards, only the longest hitters will be going for this green in two, especially considering the difficulty of the second shot. Also, many players won't be able to hit it far enough to get themselves a view of the green for their third shots, leaving them few choices (to get a good view of the green, you have to be able to hit it pretty much pin-high).
I think I would like the hole more if it were a very short par-5, maybe 480 yards or so. That still leaves a difficult second shot for longer hitters over the esker, while giving medium-length hitters the chance to play out to the right. One thing I do like about the hole is that a good "lay-up" is actually past the green, and interesting feature IMO.
I'd be interested to hear what you all think about improving the hole, or if you prefer it how it is.
I like the concept that the layup is challenging. But it's not as challenging as going for it in two. Also, most anything that I can think of to change the hole (aside from re-routing it) seems to reduce the difficulty of the layup (and hence the 3rd shot). You could incrementally move the green back (displacing the back bunker) and that would lengthen the hole, but make the "on in 2" option a bit easier (because the esker would be less of a wild card) and would make layups and third shots easier because you wouldn't need to get so far down, and you'd have more margin for error side to side. At least that's how it looks to me.
I like it, and every course needs some quirk or individuality, and that hole seems to embody the feeling of cross-country golf (if you know what I'm getting at).
-
I see the Doak/Goerges Design did not use the far NW corner where H/F/W placed the 15th and 16th holes. I had heard this area was aquired late in the process and wasn't part of the property when Tom did his original routing. I'd love to know how close the D/G design is to Tom's original routing plan. Better yet if Tom would sometime share his original routing.
Having walked the property and played there a few times I have been in awe of its raw character and the endless possibilities of what could have been fashioned from what was there. It seems like you can stand anywhere and say well we could have gone that way and what a great hole that would be. Interesting to see the extent to which many of the existing hole corridors were used but I guess that is largely a product of the topography.
Kudos to those of you who participated in theis process; I'm glad I didn't see it until this week. Amazing what you did working off the topo map. However, there is so much subtlety in addition to the larger undulations, the real test would have been in the field.
-
Dan, go to this link to the individual course thread. It has a rundown of what Tom's original routing was:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39001.0.html
-
Thanks Charlie. Look forward to comparing when I have some time tonight. Let me know if you need any other photos posted, I have a fair amount of the course covered but not everything yet. Thanks for doing this, very entertaining.
-
Just a quick note, I'll be posting the results this afternoon with a (very) brief write-up. Additionally the contestants will be getting a packet with all of their comments from the judges (This won't be right away though).
-
Charlie:
You are hereby authorized to post the entire "packet of comments" about our design if you so desire.
-
I really like 4, 5 and 7 of the Esker holes.
Number 4 reminds me a bit of the hole early in the round at Bandon Trails that goes over a ridge
Number 5 reminds me of the 8th (or 17th) at Dornoch
Number 7 is a bit like 12 at Pacific Dunes
-
Number 7 is a bit like 12 at Pacific Dunes
Jason, I thought about #12 at Pacific a lot when I drew up the hole. It's similar in that the approach from the left is much more difficult, but the scale of the esker makes it play very differently (you can't even see the pin from the fairway).
-
Okay, the moment of truth is here. And the winner is……
Andrew Gray!!!!
Congratulations!!!
Here is what you’ve won:
Scorecard front (folds in half):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/results%20post/AndrewGrayScorecardfront.jpg)
Scorecard back (it will be smoothed out etc):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/results%20post/AndrewGrayScorecardback.jpg)
You’ll just have to imagine it with the autographs of our illustrius panel of judges.
In the interest of transparency, here are a couple of screenshots from my excel file for the judges and contestants to see.
First the competitors’ rank (in order):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/results%20post/Competitorresultsinorder.jpg)
Here, the judges’ rankings for each competitor (judges names removed)
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/results%20post/Judgesrankings.jpg)
I’m going to do addional posts including a Judges’ Favorite Holes post and some “random” comments posts.
Also, I think that each of the competitors deserves a scorecard, and so I’ll design one for each of you (they’ll all look similar) and get them printed.
I’ll also duplicate the competitor’s routing post below this one so you don’t have to go back and forth so much.
-
001 Jim Colton:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38988.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/001.jpg)
002 Steve Lang:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38996.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/002.jpg)
003 Tom D/Charlie G:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39001.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/003.jpg)
004 Garland Bayley:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38984.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/004.jpg)
005 Dave Stringer:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38987.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/005.jpg)
006 Greg Davis:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39036.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/006.jpg)
007 Ian Linford:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/007.jpg)
008 Andrew Gray:
Hole by Hole Tour Part 1: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39023.0.html
Hole by Hole Tour Part 2: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39024.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/008.jpg)
-
8)
Congrats Andrew! You won going away, well done!
Couldn't help but see what would happen if low and high scores were removed
Avg Wt.
AG 1.8
DS 3.3
JC 3.5
GD 4.3
TD/CG 4.5
SL 4.7
IL 6.3
GB 6.8
Throw Out Lo & Hi
AG 1.8
JC 3.0
DS 3.5
GD 4.3
TD/CG 4.8
SL 5.0
GB 6.8
IL 6.8
Given spread in some of the judges rankings, its clear why we have some heated discussions here on gca.com.. THANKS TO ALL..
-
First my Illini lose to Western Kentucky and now this...I don't know if I can take any more disappointments!
Seriously, congrats to Andrew on a great design. You incorporated the humps and hills in an interesting way, where I chose to work around them to my downfall. Can we fast track Andrew's application for a GCA user id and password?
Thanks again to Charlie for all your hard work. Looking bad, would you do it all over again if you had the choice? I was mildly disappointed that the entries didn't generate much discussion other than from those whom entered. I figured each would get ripped to shreds. Will there be another armchair contest in the future? What can we do so the contest generates more entries/lively discussion?
Jim
-
Congratulations Andrew,
My time has been constrained lately, but when I get a chance I'll take a look and let you know all the things you did wrong. ;D
-
Jim,
As one looking on the outside in, it looked like you guys had a blast. But as I believe it was Tom D said on another thread its tough to get a full feel for how things look as a finished product, even for folks who do this everyday.
Garland,
Tough break on the placing....there is always next time. And when I do my submittal next time, you'll be pretty much guranteed to finish above me. ;)
Overall thought it'd be interesting to see any specific feedbak on the winning course and what the judges liked in more detail.
-
...
Garland,
Tough break on the placing....there is always next time. And when I do my submittal next time, you'll be pretty much guranteed to finish above me. ;)
Overall thought it'd be interesting to see any specific feedbak on the winning course and what the judges liked in more detail.
I'll be interested in seeing what they said in detail, and if it comes to me in email I will share it.
I figured one of the biggest problems I might have is that I used the severest terrain not having had any experience. When I saw Tom's comment about how he adjusted for the severity of the terrain, I figured I was pretty much toast.
I want to thank the judges for taking the time to evaluate my design. I just hope they liked my use of the esker, because if they didn't it would show I'm really out to lunch as it was my favorite hole.
-
The detail will be out to you all soon (probably a couple of hours at least). I want you to be able to decide what to post.
Tom has already said he wants me to post our feedback. I'll be setting it up so the judges are anonymous, but I'll have track of them if they'd like make their identities known.
-
No rush on the email to me Charlie. This is a camellia flower show weekend. It may be Tuesday before I have time to process and post.
-
Charlie:
I will amend my earlier direction -- since I agreed to participate in the open, instead of anonymously, you should only post the comments of judges who are publicly identified.
Really, why would any of the judges want to make their comments anonymous?
-
Congrats, Andrew! The judges' comments have been really interesting so far. What a great project.
-
I put together some overlays showing the routings over the topo map.
Course Map
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/troonster/Erin%20Hills/0coursemap.gif)
Hurdzan/Fry/Whitten
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/troonster/GCA%20posts/erinhillslayeredtopomapcopy.jpg)
Anthony Gray
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/troonster/GCA%20posts/IanGreywtopocopy.jpg)
Doak/Goerges (Red #s indicate Doak holes from original routing)
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/troonster/GCA%20posts/erinhillsDoakGeorgestopomapcopy.jpg)
-
8) Charlie,
Looking at 10 threads spawned from your efforts i counted 368 replies and 8287 views, that puts this in the top 75 threads on gca.com and right up there in the recent tophandful of on topic discussions.. to keep focus on gca is good.
perhaps things should have been kept on one thread with links to photo servers.. ?
-
Nice Job, Thanks Dan!
-
Well Steve, I guess we could be considered guilty of electronic noise pollution!
All: I'm sorry I've not gotten to everyone's questions, I'll try to ASAP.
-
Tom,
I felt that the contestant were entitled to a good analysis of their routings since they obviously spent a lot of time on their design. So I have spent a lot of time writing down my comments, and it came up to over twenty pages in all....
I was hesitant at first to have Charlie publish all of my comments. I certainly don't want to look like a little "know it all', and drown this board with my comments. God knows I still have a lot to learn in this business, but if Charlie beleives that he should post all of them, then so be it!
However, it should be known that I might not be around too much to defend my opinions in the next few days.... I'm going on a month long trip, with limited access to computers and I need to pack the family! ;D
Cheers!
YP
-
YP, I'll let each of the competitors post the comments I sent them if they wish. I sent everyone the comments anonymously because it's easier to let the cat out of the bag than get him back in! None of the judges wanted to be anonymous to avoid being criticized. I am keeping their numeric rankings anonymous unless they wish to release them.
-
Dan - thanks very much for posting the routings over the topo map. That's helpful. (I mean, really helpful!)
Andrew - congratulations
And Charlie - goes without saying, terrific work seeing this through to the end
Peter
-
Thanks Peter,
It was definitely a marathon. No scratch that, it was more like a siege; though I couldn't tell you which side of the wall I was on!
I'm a bit scatterbrained right now, but someone asked whether I'd do it again or something to that effect. My answer is yes. It's been a long, difficult process but I think it has been worthwhile. And as far as I'm concerned there will be another contest in the future, but it will be quite a while (unless someone else decides to take over). We'll work all of that out in a debriefing once this thing fully winds down.
I think Rich Goodale noted in an email to me the sheer amount of data generated by the contest. Rich, you are correct about that (and you don't know the half of it)! When you consider backup copies of everything on both my hard drive and the contestant's and all of the preliminary stuff, it stretches far into the Gigabytes.
I'm obviously proud of the work the judges, contestants, (and I) have done. You guys have been good sports all along the way.
Some housekeeping items:
I still plan to try and get a "favorite holes" string of posts together. Anyone (and I mean anyone) should feel free to do so. If you can post the images yourself along with a few words, that would be great. If you're not able figure out the picture posting thing, you can let me know and I'll try to do so. Contestants, you can feel free to play around to get the perfect angle/look or just post images you've already got (which may already be perfect).
It was mentioned a couple of times to me to do a rundown of sketchup and my process in order to explore its use in contests as well as for pure discussion purposes. I plan on doing a major write-up on this subject in the medium-term future. I've come to think of it as a Core Information Brain Dump.
Okay, enough of my stream of consciousness writings, Merry Christmas to ALL and to ALL a Good NIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGHHTTTTT!
-
Jim,
I have never considered the issue before. After all I am an amateur, but considering my home course I found there is only 2 more up than down, which seemed more balanced. I am wondering if I placed too many greens too high (or you visa versa) or if this type of thing comes out all over the map. Do architects even consider balancing it?
I didn't get an answer to this on this thread, but I was able to steal a quick look at the comments sent, and the answer is yes I did place too many greens too high.
-
More importantly Garland, what did they think of the esker hole?
-
Hey all,
This week I’m going to be slammed (and not in the good way) so I’ll mostly be available later in the evenings. So I’ve not abandoned the thread, I am still working on a post of favorite holes for this thread and I’m trying to get it down to 1 hole per contestant with a couple of angles per hole. So feel free to post your own favorites or whatever you’re moved to post. I’ll be checking in during the day, but won’t likely have much time to post.
All the best,
Charlie
-
More importantly Garland, what did they think of the esker hole?
The esker hole was liked by the judge that wrote about it.
Hole no. 7 is unique and very interesting. The extremely wide fairway gives an incredible amount of options to golfers. The left side of the fairway is the most obvious way to go off the tee, but the bunker in front of the green will make the second shot tougher. I would prefer to try to carry the linear mound on the left side of the fairway to set myself up for an easier approach. Hopefully, it will be possible to drain the low area in which the green is located; otherwise, this might be a nightmare for any superintendant.
-
Here is my esker hole as posted on my course thread http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38984.0.html
7th 392 354 296
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j282/bokuhan_hagaromo/BighornCliffs/07Top.png)
...
Once I determined that I could use it as a diagonal hazard, I laid out one of my favorite holes on the course, the 7th. Having succeeding in finding decent holes 5 and 6 first, followed by this hole, I began to think I might find an interesting course on this landscape.
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j282/bokuhan_hagaromo/BighornCliffs/07FromTee.png)
...
If the golfer chooses not to cross the central ridge, then he is faced with a approach over the first green side bunker on the course.
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j282/bokuhan_hagaromo/BighornCliffs/07ApproachFromLeft.png)
However, if the golfer crosses the ridge, he finds an open green front to play down into. The problem is that the golfer has to correctly choose what portion of the ridge he can cross. Taking the safest crossing to the right opens up the possibility of the ball bounding down to a much lower elevation that is found on the right side of the hole back there.
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j282/bokuhan_hagaromo/BighornCliffs/07ApproachFromRight.png)
The view from behind the green below and the view from the tee probably best show how short right off the tee can lead into a depression that will add distance and give a poor view of the target.
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j282/bokuhan_hagaromo/BighornCliffs/07FromGreenBack.png)
-
I thought the hole was pretty innovative. An example of freedom like what one of the old guys who wrote about golf architecture might have said (I have no idea which one or if I'm accurately characterizing th idea).
At any rate, you set it up so the player could blaze his own path to the green. Kind of like cross-country golf, which I also mentioned in relation to Ian Linford's esker hole. Though your focus is more on the freedom and Ian's (as I saw it) was on the shots required.
Also, I am working on a "favorites" post made up of holes that were among my favorites for each entrant. I am purposely excluding the esker holes in this post because they've already been shown. Noone who would like to post some favorites or other discussions need wait for me as I will be pretty busy this week.
-
For anyone interested, my course thread has been updated with the judges' comments.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38984.0.html
If those comments on each hole are from Yannick, then he should know I greatly appreciate them. Also, everyone here owes him a great big thank you for the time and thought he put into his judging role.
-
I wish to discuss one of the comments from a judge concerning my design. I will point out that I realized that my design may have placed the greens in too severe locations, but my interest in learning the software over revising my design caused me to leave them as is. One comment I got was the following, and it is not from the only judge that thought too many of my greens were located on high points.
I am not sure that the green of hole no. 5 is in the perfect location. High points appear to be good spots to locate greens until you realize how tough it makes them.
I wonder who thinks they are tough. I drew my greens at high points with short grass surrounding them. Are they too tough because if you miss them it is hard to get close and save par? The average golfer misses almost all greens. Once missed, the average golfer is satisfied with a chip to a safe spot and a two putt. So are they too tough, because the best golfers end up too often with the same bogey the average golfer got?
Look at the video from Gil Hanse & Co. that are building Castle Stuart. They make exactly the same point. Many of their green surrounds will be difficult for the pro, but will not hinder the average golfer from playing his game.
Were the judges for this contest too indoctrinated in some of the standard ways of doing things to fully appreciate a design using gravity golf? ;)
If I had put more bunkers around my greens, the average golfer would have left a few in the bunkers in getting around the course. That would be too tough. It would discourage the average player. However, of what value is it to have the expert golfer saying something is too tough, when the average golfer doesn't find it too tough?
-
Garland:
If you can design little short-grass features that really don't make it harder for the average golfer, that's genius at work. It's also pretty hard to do.
If your greens are elevated 4-5 feet and surrounded by short-grass chipping areas, those types of recovery shots can be VERY hard for the average golfer, if the greens aren't relatively large. Think of Pinehurst #2, which walks the tightrope between "cool" and "so severe you can't even get a chip to stay on the green."
-
Tom,
I suspect the "domed" nature of Pinehurst #2 greens contribute to the difficulty. As an average golfer I don't chip within 10 feet all that often. Therefore, getting it on the green within 20 feet is very acceptable to me. I know I don't have the experience building greens like you do, but it is hard for me to imagine my requirement to chip within 20 feet is as hard as the pros requirement to chip within 5 feet.
-
Garland:
You are right about that. But it all depends on your greens ... if they're so severe that the average golfer will sometimes fail to get the ball up the slope, and other times skull his chip over the green and down a bank on the other side, that might be tougher than a bunker shot. (It will CERTAINLY be tougher for the pros than a bunker shot.)
-
Garland:
You are right about that. But it all depends on your greens ... if they're so severe that the average golfer will sometimes fail to get the ball up the slope, and other times skull his chip over the green and down a bank on the other side, that might be tougher than a bunker shot. (It will CERTAINLY be tougher for the pros than a bunker shot.)
I can chilidip any chip and fail to get it on the green, and I can skull any chip over the green, but I usually don't do it multiple times in a row like I sometimes fail to escape a bunker. EDIT: I blame such chipping failures on me, not on the course. I blame the course for having too many bunkers.
-
Garland:
You are right about that. But it all depends on your greens ... if they're so severe that the average golfer will sometimes fail to get the ball up the slope, and other times skull his chip over the green and down a bank on the other side, that might be tougher than a bunker shot. (It will CERTAINLY be tougher for the pros than a bunker shot.)
Note that Tom seems to agree that the type of green locations and surrounds that I created is tougher for the expert. And he seems to be shading to agreeing that it is not necessarily a burden on the average golfer.
So are there others that would agree with the contest judge that the green locations made TEP National too tough? ;)
-
Garland,
I can't say whether they are too tough or not; perhaps it's not just a matter of toughness, but also "too much of a good thing" so to speak. In other words, by having a preponderance of elevated crowned greens, do you think it's possible you missed some better greensites?
Charlie
P.S. Tell Tom to hit the short-game practice area if he thinks the shots are too tough ;).
-
Charlie,
Quantify preponderance.
-
In checking, it seems that a minimum of 10 would qualify as both crowned and elevated and 2-3 more are either slightly crowned or elevated. Now that is just a quick check, I could be off. Bear in mind that I like the crowned/elevated green and I'm speculating why some may have thought that you used too many of them.
Sorry I have to cut myself off mid-post here, but I've got to catch my ride. I'll be back later.
-
By quantify preponderance I meant, what percent reaches the threshold of preponderance? 10/18*100 doesn't reach that percent IMHO.
Also, I am curious about the mention of crowned by both you and Tom. We did not design greens, just specified their location approximately. Perhaps I should have mentioned it, but much of the time my intention was to have the green have a back to front slope from the hill on which it was located. I had no intention of having all those greens have a finished crowned form.
-
By preponderance I meant the largest number of greens fit into that category. But the crowned thing is interesting. For the sake of this discussion I assumed that if the green was at the highest point on a slope then it would need to be crowned to look right.
For example, a green can be elevated but if it's in a saddle between two higher hills, it wouldn't need to be crowned to look right. But if a green is at the top of even a small slope, it would look terribly unnatural to make it's surface concave. In your example of having a back to front slope, that makes sense, but the green complex would still on balance be crowned even if the surface sloped predominantly in one direction.
With all of that said, I didn't mind having a number of elevated/(instead of crowned, I'll say 'at the top of the slope') greens. I did think you might have gone 2-3 greens too many that were of that configuration. I think a few more side-slope greens might have been good, and would have fit with your "gravity golf" concept. None of that is to say that I didn't like the preponderance ;) of your holes. In fact the hole of yours that I chose for my "favorites" post is exactly the concept we've just been debating. (I hope to start posting my favorites tonight BTW)
-
Garland, I noticed that two or three of your par-3's were uphill to an elevated green. Out of curiosity, why did you choose to do this?
-
Garland, I noticed that two or three of your par-3's were uphill to an elevated green. Out of curiosity, why did you choose to do this?
I suppose familiarity. Two of the par 3s on my home course are configured thus. Also, I suppose some on here would recognize me as a complainer about modern design where there is a significant preponderance (my off the top of my head quantification >75%) of holes playing downhill. As a walker, I maintain this diminishes my enjoyment of the course. My home course is on a very small piece of land, so there was no choice. The tees had to be near the greens and as many holes had to play uphill as downhill. Finally, since I was eschewing bunkers at TEP National, I guess I could see the hazard of greens at a high point, and not feel compelled to surrond them by bunkers.
EDIT: My 4th green is where it is, because of the boundary line on the property. I wanted to take the 5th hole from there around the pond to the left, but the property boundary prevented it. The 4th would have played down to where the 5th tee is now, and the pond would have been a hazard behind it.
-
Added Ian's tour thread.
001 Jim Colton:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38988.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/001.jpg)
002 Steve Lang:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38996.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/002.jpg)
003 Tom D/Charlie G:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39001.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/003.jpg)
004 Garland Bayley:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38984.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/004.jpg)
005 Dave Stringer:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38987.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/005.jpg)
006 Greg Davis:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39036.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/006.jpg)
007 Ian Linford:
Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39140.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/007.jpg)
008 Andrew Gray:
Hole by Hole Tour Part 1: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39023.0.html
Hole by Hole Tour Part 2: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39024.0.html
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/008.jpg)
-
I was planning on doing a big, long post with everyone’s holes in it, but I decided that individual posts would be more conducive to discussion. I’ll try not to do more than a couple per night. And I’ll post the reduced size aerials at the bottom. Ignore the white circles, those were from the esker discussion.
Okay to kick things off, on the heels of our ponderous preponderance discussion, it’s GBay’s 3rd hole. This is a shortish par 5 with no bunkers, lakes, or other artificial hazards. I felt like this hole contains the best of what “gravity golf” has to offer. Here is a look from behind the tee with Paddy Harrington showing us how to play it.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/GarlandBayley3a.jpg)
I won’t try to describe the method of play (Garland can do that) but the use of the contour is quite good in my opinion. The way the ridge in the landing area runs diagonally added with the diagonal direction of each of the forward teeing areas (technically they are ribbon-style tees) makes the tee shot seem very strategic, and roughly proportional in its difficulty with regard to where one tees off.
Below we have the view from behind the green looking back. This is a perfect example of a crowned/elevated green. What’s more, I think it is the ideal green for this hole. Without artificial hazards, and since the green is probably easily reachable for the better player, the green-site needs to be somewhat severe to challenge the better player.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/GarlandBayley3b.jpg)
Since most higher handicap players will com up short in 2 or even 3 shots, they’ll have a suitably challenging chip or pitch shot. For the low-handicap player, being even a little off in any direction could mean a very tough par since the long-iron approach will be coming in with some velocity. That velocity combined with gravity could feed the ball well away from the green.
Well, here I’ve gone on longer than I planned, and talked a little strategy as well (sorry Garland). Let’s see what you guys think.
Aerial (Hole 3 is lower-middle):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/004-1.jpg)
-
I’m not bumping Garland, but in an effort to keep moving, up next is Jim Colton’s Par 3 17th.
One of the judges made the criticism that Jim had too many redan-esque greens that angled away at 45 degrees. Whether that criticism is valid or not overall I don’t know, but it certainly isn’t true of this green. I believe that this was the only par 3 I chose as a “favorite”. I like it because from the tee it is something of a skyline green and the view behind, over the wide-open wetland area and the surrounding environs looks inspiring.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/JimColton17a.jpg)
Again, I don’t want to overstep my bounds on strategy, but on this one you can really play the ball short and let that thing run onto the green, especially for a back hole location. The fronting bunkers as seen below serve to capture anyone who gets too greedy with an aerial approach to a back pin.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/JimColton17b.jpg)
Jim, can you take us through your thought process on this hole? How did it come together, was it an early addition to your routing, or later? Did you contemplate the view at all?
Aerial (hole 17 is lower right):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/001-1.jpg)
Again, I’m not pre-empting Garland, no more new holes from me until tomorrow night at the earliest. Let the boys know what you think of 'em! ;)
-
I love both these holes. As Charlie mentioned, that ridge on Garland's par-5 does a great job of dividing well-placed tee shots from the average shot. I also imagine the green is blind from the left side of the fairway?
Jim's hole reminds me a bit of Pacific Dunes' 5th hole (although the details on PD's hole make it spectacular IMO). One question for Jim: did you think about leaving the left side bunkerless?
-
Thanks Charlie. The 17th is named after the Snoop song 'Beautiful' which I think fits well. As I mentioned in the hole by holes, this was actually the last hole that I built. I had a similar par 3 that finished off to the right and tee off to the right of my 16th green, but it was completely blind when I actually looked at it in sketchup. So I moved the green to the side of the hill, drew it up and was pleasantly surprised when I looked at it from ground level. If nothing else, it's a good looking hole.
As far as the bunkers go, I really had no idea where/when/how many when it came to bunker placement, so I just drew em in and hoped for the best. That back left bunker could be removed. I guess I wanted the golfer to be able to use the slope to feed into the green, but not just any ol' shot that starts left to make it on the putting surface.
Again, because I really had no idea what I was doing, I ended up choosing green sites that were largely in flat spots on the topo, assuming that some shaping of the greens would occur. I didn't have any idea how to stick a green on a slope, for example, and make it work. This one seemed to work, but it was the last hole that I worked on. I am currently going back and re-working my routing to try to improve upon it, just for personal edification. I hope to do a better job in utilizing the contours in both the fairways and the green sites. If anybody has any recommendations or comments on the rest of my routing, I'd gladly appreciate the honest feedback.
Personally, I like my 15th hole for similar reasons, mostly because it looks good. I will probably rework the fairway and the bunkering to make it better strategically, but I just love the green location and how it looks from the tee. I think Yannick commented to put the green up and to the left but I wouldn't change it. I think my 13th-17th stretch is pretty strong. They look like they could be real golf holes, which is pretty good for a hack like me. 18 is probably cliche Petey Dye but it is what it is.
(http://www.wegobomber.com/colton15_02.jpg)
-
I measure the carry shown in Charlie's depiction of Padraig's drive to be approximately 330 yards. Unfortunately, Sketchup is not good a measuring. I rotated the view to be a more horizontal one so that I could pick the contour exactly for measuring the drive, and Sketchup measured from back tee to green to be 316 yards. I planned most of my routing for drives of 280 for the back tees, 230 from the middle tees, and 180 from the front tees. A drive of 280 from the back tees on this hole would leave you in the rough on the face of the ridge. 300 should get you to the top of the ridge in the rough. Rotate that drive a little left into the fairway, and to my estimation the green is blind from there. Even though the green is reachable in two, I wanted it to be a difficult second shot.
I did not design any of my holes for the tour pros. So Padraig and friends can eat the hole up with their big bombs and short iron seconds.
This was my favorite par 5 as it used gravity golf hazards to challenge the second shot for those trying to reach in two, and some blindness for the second for those playing it as a three shotter. Even for playing as a three shotter, the green is on a raised location to add some gravity golf difficulty.
-
I think you're measuring one ridge too far Garland. I have paddy at 250 yards and he's not all the way back. So I agree with you that it's not the tour-length player you should design for.
That said, this was one of my favorite, if not my absolute favorite, par 5s in the competition. As you said, a decent drive will likely run down to the left and the view for the second (if going for it in two) would be blocked by that ridge that's up there about 330. A good trade-off for having a chance to go for it in two, if you ask me. It also appears that the view to the landing area if playing it as a 3-shotter is not obscured so much.
As for the green, it has nice roll-offs in pretty much all directions, though the putting surface is predominantly back to front (or so it looks).
Does anyone find that this hole is similar to the 8th at Crystal Downs? I've only seen the hole in photos.
-
I see if I look at your golfer that you clearly are not measuring from the tips. So I think I measured to the same ridge, just from a different starting point.
-
RE: JC's 17th
Charlie,
You realize that if it is a skyline green, you won't be seeing the water behind it, don't you? Also, it looks pretty much like an inverse Redan to me.
-
Charlie,
Can you let us download the other sketchup files so we can fly around the other design?
-
Sure, why not. I'll try to get to that tonight.
RE the skyline/view thing: Why you hasslin' me! Actually I'd say the green is skyline, but you can see the view to right and beyond.
-
Sorry Charlie,
Ummm ... something about tuna goes here. E.g., I'm gon tuna try to be better in the future.
-
"You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish." Unk
-
I'm just joshin' you Garland. But I will take a tuna sandwich.
-
Here is a link for the contestants files if you wish to download them.
http://cid-f73fd6728c175582.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Entries
Charlie
-
My next favorite is Dave Stringer’s 7th hole. It is a nice par 4 that doglegs to the right and down the hill. It’s 260 to the inside corner of the dogleg, so if you can hit it there with a fade, you’ll run down the hill. I have to say that without the trees, there is not much to prevent you from bombing it straight toward the green.
Behind the Tee:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/DaveStringer7a.jpg)
I wish I could say that I had a lot of strategery in mind when choosing this hole, but I chose it first on how nicely it fit the lay of the land. That said, I think the bunkering could be a bit more natural looking. But that may just be a function of the sketchup tools.
Behind the Green:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/DaveStringer7b.jpg)
One thing you’ll find is that the majority (or preponderance if you will) of my favorites occupy the same, or similar areas on the map. I didn’t plan it that way, but I’ve noticed it. Is that because that area is the best part of the property, or because I lack imagination?
Aerial (the hole is lower middle):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/005-1.jpg)
-
Charlie,
Are you into quirk? How did you like Jim's 2/3 Dell Hole? When I get a chance, I want to download his sketchup file and do some flying around that one.
-
Charlie,
I agree. The density of possible great holes was higher in that part of the property.
The esker area was the next best area.
-
I think it is useful to see what one judge had to say about Jim's 17th.
Hole no. 17 is a great looking par 3 with what should be a nice backdrop and interesting ground features. Looks like balls could be played on the ground on the left side of the green and feed down to the putting surface.
...
Best Holes: Hole no. 7 - Par 4
Hole no. 13 - Par 4
Hole no. 17 - Par 3
-
I liked Jim's dell hole. I thought the angle he used gave some latitude for making it a blind shot or one with good visibility depending on the hole location and the tee used.
I'm glad to see I'm not just weird for choosing too many holes in one area. I do like quirk, and I appreciate it much more since discovering GCA than I ever did before. Since quirk is not always very strategic, it fits in nicely with my general lack of strategic thinking.
-
lack of strategic thinking.
Charlie, looking at the holes you've chosen and other comments on our courses, I don't believe you. ;)
I love this latest hole, by the way. A fade is strongly favored, but others can still get around the hole without too much trouble. If it were me, I would do away with the left fairway bunkers and keep that all as fairway to let the golfers themselves decide the best route to the hole. Might not be as artistic, though...
-
lack of strategic thinking.
Charlie, looking at the holes you've chosen and other comments on our courses, I don't believe you. ;)
I love this latest hole, by the way. A fade is strongly favored, but others can still get around the hole without too much trouble. If it were me, I would do away with the left fairway bunkers and keep that all as fairway to let the golfers themselves decide the best route to the hole. Might not be as artistic, though...
Alright, you got me. ;D I do try to bring some strategic thought into my choices and comments. I do have to work at it though as my initial thought is usually to the pretty-ness of the hole. I tend toward the artistic in how I look at things that can be as pretty as some holes are. But as I have learned, the prettiest are not always the most fun (wait, am I still talking about golf holes ;))
-
In all fairness, I think it's a 1/3 dell hole. I like it a lot better than the real thing, in that you can see most of the green. Even if the pin was partially blind, you'd have some sense of distance. The EH dell has no real depth to it. Just hit over a white rock and hope for the best.
-
...I do have to work at it though as my initial though is usually to the pretty-ness of the hole. I tend toward the artistic in how I look at things that can be as pretty as some holes are. But as I have learned, the prettiest are not always the most fun (wait, am I still talking about golf holes ;))
Ha! A recoverging Fazio/Nicklaus-aholic.
-
Next on the “docket” is Steve Lang’s Par 5 13th. I like this one because it tumbles both downhill and across the fall-line across some of the best topography on the site. The tee shot sets up a bit blind, but raising the tee or moving it a bit might help, but honestly I don’t think it’s a real big deal to just leave it a little blind.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/SteveLang13a.jpg)
The strategy involves trade-offs depending on what you preferred poison might be. Keep the tee shot to the right to offer the shortest distance to the green and take the greenside bunker and wetland out of play, but the second is then blind(er) and off a more severe side-hill lie. Play the tee shot out to the left and bring the bunkers and wetland into play but you’ll have a flatter lie with better visibility.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/SteveLang13b.jpg)
Aerial (The 13th is lower center to middle left with the green near the red spot depicting the wetland):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/002-1.jpg)
P.S. Ian! we need to see your hole by hole brother.
P.P.S. Jim, still looking forward to seeing your renovations.
P.P.P.S. I'm working on my own routing that I'll post for derision and mockery once I've gotten my favs done. It might just be an aerial with a couple of 3D images.
-
You know Jim, I just noticed that Ballysnoop didn't even last as long as Erin Hills before needing a remodel. ;)
-
You know Jim, I just noticed that Ballysnoop didn't even last as long as Erin Hills before needing a remodel. ;)
I caved to the whims of the USGA. Keeping my fingers crossed that Ballysnoop will land a US Open.
(http://www.coltonindex.com/colton_map.jpg)
-
Nice use of terrain to suggest the player go up the left side of the hole bringing the bunker into play. However, it is unfortunate that the pond is a hazard by the green. Both ponds were used this way by Mr. Lang. As you know, I am not a fan of this, but I much prefer this usage than his other usage.
Charlie,
Did the judges pick best par 3, par 4, and par 5?
Had to edit this. Looking a the hole from behind the green made me mislabel the fairway side.
-
Some of them did Garland, but it was a bit haphazard and so I just kind of filed it away in the back of my mind. I'll probably drag some of that information out just before the end.
-
Up next is Greg Davis’ 11th hole, a short par 4. I liked it because the “Line of Instinct” (Edit: I originally said: "Line of Charm". Thanks to GBay for educating me!) draws you to play toward the green while the best option appears to be out to the right, which is a blind shot.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/GregDavis11a.jpg)
I also like the fact that there is a lot of width with nice rolling contours throughout the fairway. The view from behind the green below shows how much to the right you need to play to have the easiest angle into the green. It also shows how those who can brave the blindness and trust their swings will be rewarded. One possible problem is the completely blind bunker. What do folks think of that?
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/GregDavis11b.jpg)
Aerial (the hole is in the middle of the image below):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/006-1.jpg)
-
The next hole is Andy Gray’s par 5 17th. Several of the contestants ran a par 5 hole over this section of the property. The image below shows just how much strategy must be thought out before playing the hole. Try to hit the smaller section of fairway to the right in order to have a decent view of the green for going at it in 2 as well as having the mound play less havoc with the shot.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/AndyGray17a.jpg)
The view from behind reveals the strategic options near the green. There is a large area of flattish fairway short and right of the green (from the player’s perspective) for the 3rd-shot approach. This area gives the best angle for holding the ball on the green because of the severe left to right slope of the green. It also appears that this area would probably be easier to access from the safer left part of the fairway off the tee.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/AndyGray17b.jpg)
Aerial (Hole is top right):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/008-1.jpg)
-
P.S. Ian! we need to see your hole by hole brother.
Sorry, I'll get another batch of holes done by tonight.
-
No pressure Ian, I just want everyone to get their day in the sun.
-
How did those fairway bunkers get in Greg's hole?
-
How did those fairway bunkers get in Greg's hole?
I'm not quite sure I follow.
-
Charlie,
Do you have a fetish for par 5s? You drew the tee shot on Anthony's hole to challenge the fairway bunker. Wouldn't a better angle be obtained by taking it over near the right rough? Sometimes the line of charm is not obvious and one has to overcome instinct to find it. Great hole for the high handicapper who will find zigging left followed by zagging right an interesting challenge.
-
How did those fairway bunkers get in Greg's hole?
I'm not quite sure I follow.
When I look at the aerial of Greg's 11th, I only see a group of bunkers surrounding the green.
-
Ah, Greg's aerial was drawn by hand and then scanned. He wasn't able to get sketchup to cooporate enough to get his front nine done with it. So in sketchup he had actually drawn those other bunkers and stamped them. Basically his hand drawing was a bit off from what he had done in sketchup.
-
Next on the “docket” is Steve Lang’s Par 5 13th. I like this one because it tumbles both downhill and across the fall-line across some of the best topography on the site. The tee shot sets up a bit blind, but raising the tee or moving it a bit might help, but honestly I don’t think it’s a real big deal to just leave it a little blind.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/SteveLang13a.jpg)
The strategy involves trade-offs depending on what you preferred poison might be. Keep the tee shot to the right to offer the shortest distance to the green and take the greenside bunker and wetland out of play, but the second is then blind(er) and off a more severe side-hill lie. Play the tee shot out to the left and bring the bunkers and wetland into play but you’ll have a flatter lie with better visibility.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/SteveLang13b.jpg)
Aerial (The 13th is lower center to middle left with the green near the red spot depicting the wetland):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/002-1.jpg)
Hey guys, please call me steve.. been out of pocket for a while.. sorry not to answer sooner..
Charlie, you captured the strategy elements perfectly.. i should have had you or a thrid party ghost write - edit - challenge my hole narratives!
While I was faulted for too many blind shots across my Foothills Trail layout, I couldn't resist using the topography for such on the 13th, and to use subtle aiming points that one may see on different shots.. i also thought the left side play introduced a simple final challenge with the pond left.. i guess I see too many people pull the ball left into hazards that are trying to over-swing for long shots..
also, don't forget the forward tee player's potential adventures.. where looks can have much more impact than reality..
-
Nice use of terrain to suggest the player go up the left side of the hole bringing the bunker into play. However, it is unfortunate that the pond is a hazard by the green. Both ponds were used this way by Mr. Lang. As you know, I am not a fan of this, but I much prefer this usage than his other usage.
Had to edit this. Looking a the hole from behind the green made me mislabel the fairway side.
Garland, down here in SE TX we have to play over and along water and drainage featuers quite a bit.. so I didnt think more than a millisecond or so to use the limited water hazards available.. as a carry on #4 and as a flanking hazard on #13..
-
And in reality that pond is more of a marsh or wetland. If a ball just trickles in, you'll probably be able to get down in there and play it.
By the way Steve, I'm glad my description did it justice. I didn't consult with any of the contestants as to their thoughts on the holes that I chose, because I wanted to really give my opinion/impression without a lot of influence. Plus, I chose my favorites, of course they're good ;) :D.
-
Moving along… Up next is Ian Linford’s drivable par 4 second hole. I know that Ian wasn’t totally happy with this hole, but I thought it was a good example of a drivable par 4. The risk is high for going for the green and the penalty for a poorly thought-out layup is also quite high. You can’t see the lion’s share of fairway contour from the tee as you can see below, but the green is basically in view.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/IanLinford2a.jpg)
This view from behind the green gives a much better view of the fairway contours and the choices available to the player who elects to lay-up. It appears to be better to lay-up to the right side of the fairway to take the bunkers out of play as much as possible. However, it looks like someone in the middle or left could use the large mound to the right to work the ball down onto the green if they don’t want to confront the bunkers.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/IanLinford2b.jpg)
Aerial (Hole is at lower right):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/007-1.jpg)
-
Last, but certainly not least is my design associate Tom Doak ;). I chose the 8th hole, a medium to long par 4. I liked this one because it was a good example of a hole which gives strategic options based on the distance one hits the tee shot and not just the direction. (Tom can chime in with more detailed info if he wishes, but here is my take) Often we talk about needing width to add strategy, but in this case width matters less to the strategy than distance. (there is strategy side-to-side as well given the bunkers) So the strategy is one can lay back short of the drop in the fairway (about 260 yards from the back tee) in order to have a better view of the green.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/TomDoak8a.jpg)
Looking back, you can see how the fairway drops severely, so much in fact that the surface of the green is entirely blind, and how far the green is set back from the edge of the slope is not easy to discern. However, you can gain a serious boost if you catch the slope and run out as far as possible into the lower section of fairway. It could be a 3-4 club difference.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/TomDoak8b.jpg)
I also like the look of the front bunkers cut into the slope fronting the green. I’ll throw in one extra shot in which I tried to give some idea of the steepness of the slopes.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/favs/TomDoak8c.jpg)
Aerial (Hole is at upper right and runs down to the left):
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/Esker/003-1.jpg)
-
Isn't Ian's second missing the penalty for the risk? To me, it looks like a less than adequate short par 4.
-
Isn't Ian's second missing the penalty for the risk? To me, it looks like a less than adequate short par 4.
Thanks for the comment Garland. I still have mixed feelings about this hole, but not for same reasons as yours. I think Charlie's image may be flattened a bit too much to show the severity of this green (which would actually need to be leveled a fair amount). Here's a picture from the fairway that shows the slopes a bit better:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v603/ian8389/armchair/2b.png)
While the green is open to a running approach off the hill on the right, one must realize that it's 300 yards to reach the front of the green from the back tees, so room needs to be given to tempt better players at all. A miss slightly left will leave a very awkward bunker shot, while long will fall down the slope. Right leaves an awkward pitch over the large mound. I think even professionals would have a very difficult time hitting this green.
If anything, the green site may actually be too difficult to hit, even after a successful layup. This was the primary reason why the judge did not like this hole.
I would be interested to see if your opinion changes after seeing this second image.
-
Hi Ian,
The bunkers to the low side gave me the impression that they would provide an easy up and down since the slope of the green will be there to help stop the ball even when short sided.
I always assumed that the greens would be shaped to work better than the land on which they were draped. We were not instructed to detail our greens in this contest. Unfortunately, some of the judges and readers did not make the same assumption, as mine were criticized for being too often too difficult, and too domed. What I am trying to say here is that I judged more by the lay of the surrounding land, which led me to the above conclusion about the ease of escaping the bunkers.
-
I always assumed that the greens would be shaped to work better than the land on which they were draped. We were not instructed to detail our greens in this contest. Unfortunately, some of the judges and readers did not make the same assumption, as mine were criticized for being too often too difficult, and too domed.
You assumed right as far as the contest was concerned Garland. It would have been prohibitively difficult to get into greens shaping. The judges were told the same thing, but they were obviously free to make their own rankings based on their own reasoning.
RE Ian's bunkers, his bunkers are at least as stiff a penalty as those surrounding Riviera's 10th. But with Ian's, if they don't get in the bunkers (a distinct possibility), they will run a long way from the green because of the short grass. That would leave a difficult up and down in my opinion.
-
Just for giggles I thought I’d post my routing for the property. I began this long after the contestants had submitted their entries so any resemblance to said entries or wholesale theft of ideas is purely intentional!
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/CharlieRouting.jpg)
I found it difficult to force myself to commit to placing bunkers, on most holes I did place some, some holes didn’t seem to need any, and on others I just couldn’t do it, even though I know a couple might be necessary for interest. Did anyone else experience this phenomenon?
I’d love to get some feedback, so please feel free to let me know what you think but feel free to ignore it. The holes are numbered and the yardages in the scorecard are from the back tees.
-
Do we have to rope up and put on crampons to climb up to your tees? ;D
-
Cool course, Charlie. Since you didn't get any feedback I'll give you my amateur thoughts on your holes...
#1: I would have put the bunker on the inside of the dogleg rather than the outside, since that would seem to be the preferred line.
#2: I really like this hole. It looks like the only hole that could be drivable for the longest hitters. The lone bunker looks like it would make a challenging pitch from the wrong side of the fairway to a green that slopes away at the front.
#3: I had a par 5 that was very similar to your hole. The green was the same, but the tee was moved back and left. I like the sidehill slope of the fairway, but I'm not sure about the bunker. It would seem most players would want to avoid the left side anyway, so the bunker wouldn't be a desired spot. You might consider lengthening this to a par 5 to avoid five two-shotters to start the round?
#4: I think this hole could use some bunkering. It looks flat and straight to me, but maybe I'm missing something?
#5: I like how you used the ridge on this hole. I think the second shot would be at least semi-blind, but you didn't put any trouble around the green so I think it works well. You might have considered adding fairway to the right of the green to allow shots to be banked onto the putting surface (that's one thing I love on a course).
#6: Fun downhill par 3 with a scenic background. What would you say to moving the green into the little hollow back and to the right?
#7: I like the green site and the diagonal carry on this hole. Would it have been feasible to move your fairway more to the right to bring the steep drop-off into play? That would provide for some interesting recovery shots over the hill.
#8: I like how the slope on the right can be used to kick a running shot onto the green. I might cut down on the bunker size to make this shot more doable for shorter hitters.
#9: Cool par 5 here. I like how you add interest to the second shot with your greenside bunker, asking players to lay up to the right.
#10: I like how this hole plays up the valley, and doesn't really require any bunkers. Again, I might cut the fairway higher on the hill on the left to allow for shots to bounce down onto the green.
#11: Ah, the esker hole. It looks like the left side is preferred off the tee if you want to reach the green in two. My problem with the hole is that there's no danger around the green to make longer players think, and the esker doesn't seem to come into play for those of us who can't reach this green. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this hole especially.
#12: I like this hole a lot. It looks pretty difficult to hit over the first bunker but avoid the second (blind) one. I might add a bit of fairway to the left for shorter hitters, since it slopes away and left.
#13: Probably my least favorite hole. It looks to me like a long, blind tee shot with bunkers on either side of the green you can't see.
#14: Nice strategy here. Keeping the ball down the left avoids an long shot over a greenside bunker. I like how you moved the middle tees to the right to give players a shot at threading the needle between the bunkers. Looks like a challenging but fair hole.
#15: The bunkers don't seem to be in play for most golfers, but I to like the diagonal ridge on the fairway. How long is that carry over the water?
#16: Nice use of the land here, asking players to bounce the ball onto the green from the left. You might think about adding a bunker short and right to encourage players even more.
#17: I had a hole very similar to this on a previous drawing. I really like your use of bunkering here to make every type of player think. Definitely better than my version, and one of my favorites on the course.
#18: Very close to my 18th hole, although you've moved the tee back a ways. I like your use of a large bunker here to grab the player's attention off the tee. You might consider widening the fairway and placing a bunker down the right side to add to the strategy of the hole.
Let me know what you think!
-
Charlie,
From a brief look, it appears #11 is one of the better holes cornering around the esker and ending in a saddle. Unfortunately, I might be out of breath climbing to the tee, thereby preventing it from taking my breathe away. ;D
-
Do we have to rope up and put on crampons to climb up to your tees? ;D
Only if you're a girly-man! ;)
-
Without laying back 230 from the green, how would anyone keep their tee shot on the 18th fairway?
-
Charlie,
Nice work. Your 11th looks like the best hole, and I like you managed the crossover with 3&4 and 7&8 successfully to get back to the clubhouse (I found this hard to do). Like Garland, I'm not sure how the 18th works. Come short of the hill and your approach is not going to be much fun...not the way I'd want to finish a round. Also, your short par 4's don't really do anything for me...especially the 2nd hole.
Jim
-
I thought I had done a quick reply earlier, must have forgotten to click post...
Anyhow, thanks for the comments guys, I'll post something a bit later once the girls are asleep.
-
Thanks again guys. I’m running a bit short on time, so I’ll have to hit the high points with you.
#2 Ian liked, Jim didn’t. I’d have to side more with Jim, as that bunker is pretty much blind from the tee. I wanted a short par 4 though, and I wanted number 3 where it is, so #2 was the result.
I liked number 3, here’s a shot from the tee. Yes the fairway bunker is a bit stupid, but I’m using the fact that I suck as an excuse.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/3a.jpg)
Here is a shot of the green complex, I’m pretty happy with this one as the bunker fit in between some contour lines and became a bit of a gathering bunker.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/3b.jpg)
Here’s #7, I think it has nice contour, but you’re right, Ian, it could use a bunker or two. I had to put the green where it is to keep the walks in this part of the course to a minimum.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/7a.jpg)
Here’s 8, I’m glad you noticed my strategy with this one Ian, that’s what I was going for.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/8a.jpg)
I thought the 11th was the best natural hole on my routing. Unfortunately putting a long hole in the middle of a piece of property can cut off a lot of other routes. Nevertheless I went with it. Garland, here’s a shot from the middle 11th tee toward 10 green (the flag is just sticking up above the back tee for 11). It’s not that far up. One thing that I did try to do was get greens half to three-quarters of the way up the slope if I was going to put a tee on the top. I didn’t always accomplish that, but you’ll see very few of my greens are at the absolute bottoms of slopes.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/10b.jpg)
Here is the tee on 11 (that's the green over to the right over the esker).
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/11a.jpg)
Here’s a shot from the fairway toward the green, the huge undulations seem to make a good hazard.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/11b.jpg)
Here’s a view from the 14th tee back over 11. (I agree Ian that more bunkers could have been used, but I just couldn’t decide where, so I didn’t put any). Oh and I do think the esker forms a bit of a hazard because to go at the green in 2 you should really get to the right side of the fairway which is the most direct route which puts the esker directly in front of you.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/11c.jpg)
Ian, you mentioned that 13 was your least favorite. I thought it would be too, but when I draped it, the slope was much more gradual than I’d thought:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/13a.jpg)
I’m pretty happy with 16:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/16a.jpg)
Okay, everyone had something to say about 18. I agree it’s not ideal, but once I’d decided on number 11, it was almost a foregone conclusion that the 18th (or 9th if the nines were reversed) would be awkward. Basically because 11 pinches everything down where only one hole could run north of it, and one south of it, plus the pond only adds to the routing difficulty. But here is the view from the tee.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/18a.jpg)
The view from the women’s tee:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/18b.jpg)
This view from the crest of the hill shows that if you get to the crest or past, it’s not as difficult as Garland speculated to keep it on the fairway.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/18c.jpg)
One last view looking back:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/18d.jpg)
Thanks again for the feedback gents, I appreciate it. It is exceedingly hard to get a good coherent routing figured out for someone with no experience. And to think that the property lines that I drew on here gave us about 360 acres to work with. The old course is on 90, Merion East is on about 125. How did they do it!
-
Nice pictures Charlie, I think your course may be the most artistic of all.
Great green site on #3. I like the effect of the bunker as you described.
#7 looks better in "real life" than I'd imagined.
#11 is WAY better than I'd envisioned. I hadn't realized the massive scale of the undulations. I like the collecting effect on the tee shot.
#13 isn't as bad as I thought, since it's not blind. Still not a huge fan, though.
#18 still looks good to me. I don't think the fairway would be that hard to hit at all.
-
One last view looking back:
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/my%20design/18d.jpg)
Counting contour lines, that fairway drops 20 feet in this view. The view doesn't seem to show it. If you look at the left edge of what we see above, there is supposed to be a rather sharp 6 foot drop just off the fairway. The contours would seem to feed all short hitters balls into the bunker seen on the right. I think it would be a great par 5 if the tees were taken back to the edge of the property and you could stand on the top of the hill seen here for your second.
EDIT: It actually looks to me that the hole is draped off to the side of where it was drawn on the contour map.
-
That 6 foot drop is still there, it just isn't visible from this view. And sketchup does often seem to "flatten out" hills visually, but they're still there and when measured they are correct, it's just a limitation of trying to display a 3D environment.
Overall, I agree it is an awkward hole though Garland. My only point was it wasn't so bad as to be unplayable. I did make some trade-offs in the routing because I had some favorite holes, and then I built everything else around those. The 3rd and 11th were my favorites and I just tried to make pretty much everything else fit.
I'm curious if you, Garland, or anyone else in the contest experienced the process like I just described or if it went another way. I know you said you took the first working routing, but even within that, was there a hole that just HAD to be in there?
-
Charlie,
You may remember from my thread that I sacrificed the 18th also. I routed 5 to 17; expected them to be 6 to 18; tried to route 1 to 5, but only came up with 4, because I liked 2 and 3 and didn't want to change them; and then tacked on 18.
Also, there was no way I was going to sacrifice #7,
-
I'm curious if you, Garland, or anyone else in the contest experienced the process like I just described or if it went another way. I know you said you took the first working routing, but even within that, was there a hole that just HAD to be in there?
Charlie,
I built around the first hole that I 'found', that risk-reward 4th hole around the pond. The same one that I ended up scrapping when I caved to the USGA. I like my new 3rd-4th hole combo a lot better than my old one.
Re: your 2nd hole, I don't see any reason why any golfer wouldn't just swing for the fences and try to get as close to your green as possible. Even if you were 30 yards wide left or right of the green, you'd still have a very good chance at getting up and down for birdie. There's no advantage to hanging back and playing safe and little incremental risk for trying to drive the green.
I like your 3rd hole. The real 3rd hole is one of my favorites at EH and I think it's very similar to yours.
Jim
-
Garland,
3 and 7 were probably my two favorite holes in your routing as well and that's why I profiled them. I think everyone had at least 1-2 good to great holes and everyone had 1-2 downright bad holes, and I think the contest was decided on whether the remaining ones were terribly indifferent, serviceable, decent etc (in the judges' estimation).
But it's interesting that this site has been roundly praised as a great site for a course, but all the amateurs produced at least some pretty bad holes. Leaving the varied opinions of Erin Hills aside for a moment, at least there weren't any "pretty bad" holes there, and I'd wager that most of would think that a good professional architect wouldn't produce any bad holes and a significantly higher number of good to great holes than the amateurs did. I wonder where the difference comes about? I wouldn't think it's just experience with designing courses, or all courses that were the first effort of a designer would be worse than subsequent efforts (obviously that would be somewhat site-dependent) and I don't think that's the case.
I'm curious as to what it could be.
-
Charlie,
All the amateurs have day jobs! ;) Many of the amateurs have no experience with such software! I am sure I could do much better with more time and more software experience. I might even be able to get to next to last place.
-
Good observation G-man. Time. Definitely one of the things of which I have too little.
Jim, for some reason I find it a little funny that the hole you decided on earliest is one of those you changed. But at least you were willing to let go of something in the name of improving the whole (plus we all know how much Garland hates water holes).
-
Nice pictures Charlie, I think your course may be the most artistic of all.
Great green site on #3. I like the effect of the bunker as you described.
#7 looks better in "real life" than I'd imagined.
#11 is WAY better than I'd envisioned. I hadn't realized the massive scale of the undulations. I like the collecting effect on the tee shot.
#13 isn't as bad as I thought, since it's not blind. Still not a huge fan, though.
#18 still looks good to me. I don't think the fairway would be that hard to hit at all.
I don't have any specific comments Ian, but what you said about numbers 7 and 13 underscore why I dragged sketchup into the equation. If we were all architects and could easily visualize what a topo map would look like in 3D we needn't have bothered with sketchup at all. But even after all the time I've spent looking at this particular map in both topographic and 3D views, I still get confused about how something would actually look just from seeing it on the topo map alone.
Well, I suppose it's about time to think about wrapping this thing up. It sort of feels like the end of a 3-day kegger (not that I know what that would be like) too much clean up and not enough forward momentum left. But fear not! A proper wrap-up will be had, and hopefully by the end of next week. The next order of business however will be our contest-improvement survey/questionnaire. Let me know how you'd like to do this. All ideas appreciated.
-
Good observation G-man. Time. Definitely one of the things of which I have too little.
Jim, for some reason I find it a little funny that the hole you decided on earliest is one of those you changed. But at least you were willing to let go of something in the name of improving the whole (plus we all know how much Garland hates water holes).
For more on water holes, see the Tommy Naccarato room to manuever around criteria on the design criteria thread. ;)
-
Okay, now is the time to wrap this thing up. Rather than drag it out, we’ll make it short and sweet. First, I want to thank the judges one final time.
Yannick Pilon “The Rebel”
“Papa” Paul Cowley
The Emperor Thomas Naccarato
“Agent” Jeff Brauer
Mike “it’s not Rocket Science” Nuzzo
Rich Goodale “The King”
And our Competitors in order of final ranking by the judges:
Andrew Gray
Dave Stringer
Jim Colton
Greg Davis
Tom Doak/Me Let it be known that I seriously dragged him down
Steve Lang
Ian Linford
Garland Bayley
I’m going to do a card of Andrew’s course (in process) and forward it to the judges for an autograph and a few words of encouragement. Once the judges have all signed it, I’ll forward it to Andrew for his archives. All of the competitors will be getting a card for their course once I get them all designed and printed.
I can’t tell everyone how proud I am of the competitors for the work they poured into this contest and of the judges for their scrutiny, effort (and let’s face it, any and all legitimacy that this contest had). For all of that I thank everyone involved.
Now, moving along, I think rather than try to come up with a fancy survey, I would ask everyone who feels so moved, to give their feedback on the contest; how it was run, the media through which it was conducted, and ideas on how it should be done next time. Everything will be collected and before another contest occurs, the best ideas will be taken and applied.
A couple of notes, once this thread has fully wound down, I’ll do an abridged post with links to all of the pertinent materials/downloads so that there will be a quick reference to use for the next contest. Also, I’ll be doing a full write-up on Sketchup for GCA purposes that will be divorced from the contest because it’s been mentioned that it would be useful outside the confines of the contest.
Thanks to all, and best wishes.
Charlie
-
Thanks yet again Charlie for all your effort on this project. It really was a fun exercise and one I would definitely participate in again (of course, you already know that).
One suggestion I would make would be to have a PDF manual similar to the one you made in the original Armchair thread, since the video tutorials are a bit long.
Also, I think a more uniform way of labeling holes and tees might be helpful. I noticed there was some confusion on one of my holes because the judge was confused about which tee corresponded to which hole (he thought a par 3 was a par 4). Maybe each participant could send in an Excel scorecard for the judge to use as reference, maybe with a few comments about plans for earthmoving.
Since I'm sure you need a breather from this mania for a while, you might consider just creating a new property in Sketchup for people to fool around on, without the hassle of managing the contest. Of course, I have no idea how time consuming creating a site is, so maybe this isn't feasible. I know I can still have plenty of fun coming up with a new routing at Erin Hills.
Thanks again, Charlie. :)
-
I would appreciate if some of those that drew artful holes could give a few pointers to Ian and I on how to do so. Unless of course Ian was channeling Kelly Blake and was drawing in his style, which he was somewhat successful at.
-
I'm wondering if a contestant qualification process would have helped. I.e., put out a small piece of land, do the tutorials and require a completed hole with the software, before starting the contest. It would have been helpful to be adequately competent with the software before the contest began.
-
Garland, Ian,
Per your suggestions, I think I'll add a practice piece of land to my write-up on sketchup. I may stick with the one I had created earlier for the the time being (Sorry Ian, I know you've already worked that one over). I'll also try to have a better PDF tutorial that also covers some of the more artistic side of the equation.
Does anyone else want to have some input on what would make for a better contest next time? Any suggestion is fine, we're not guaranteed to use it, but let me know what you think. Especially if there is any aspect of the contest that kept you out of it when you would have preferred to be in.
-
Charlie,
How about an 'Old Mac' approach where each contestant (or team) comes up with a design in the spirit of another architect, dead or alive? Just a thought. It would at least create some interest.
Other than that, I think you should keep churning it out as is and hope it picks up more steam next time. It was pretty clear that most, if not all, contestants enjoyed partaking, learned from the process and would likely do it again. Fo Shizzle.
-
Thanks Jim,
That's a good idea. I'd been struggling to even come up with examples of ways to make the contest more interesting, and that is one way. I know I don't want to just put a topo out there and say 'have at it' again, so your suggestion is a good start. At the very least, putting teams together would help make sure no one is in over their head on sketchup (which I'm assuming we'll use again unless a major uproar occurs in the meantime).
I'm also looking for the hook or gimmick and the architectural style is a contender. Or maybe we should try to produce an alternative routing for Cypress Point ;). I'd love to hear more from anyone interested.
-
Sadly, our much ballyhooed esker has been pared down in real life.
"Hole #17…CATHEDRAL…All of the enhancements took place just beyond the landing area and the signature oak tree to the right side of the fairway.
The large esker, that big mound which comes from the left side front of the green to the middle of the fairway is still there in the same natural shape. It has been shortened naturally. Hit a drive to the center of the fairway, and you will now have a full view of the green. "
-
Son of a B*tch! That's like wiping that smirk off the Mona Lisa!
-
I see that the Dell hole has bitten the dust too. That I'm not outraged about. Does the par 5 use the tees from the Dell?
-
Computer simulation of before and after of the 17th at EH (just for fun).
Before:
(http://www.coltonindex.com/eh_before.jpg)
After:
(http://www.coltonindex.com/eh_after.jpg)
-
Man, if they're flattening it that much that's too bad.
I was hoping for "Esker Lite" or at worst "Diet Esker", that looks more like "speed bump".
-
Charlie,
Obviously my sarcasm was lost on you. I think they are just shaving it down a little bit.
-
Hey, it's early. I can barely function before 9.
-
Sadly, our much ballyhooed esker has been pared down in real life.
"Hole #17…CATHEDRAL…All of the enhancements took place just beyond the landing area and the signature oak tree to the right side of the fairway.
The large esker, that big mound which comes from the left side front of the green to the middle of the fairway is still there in the same natural shape. It has been shortened naturally. Hit a drive to the center of the fairway, and you will now have a full view of the green. "
What does "shortened naturally" mean. The seeded the clouds so they could have torrents of rain eat away at it? Or, did they turn a bunch of caterpillars loose on it?
-
I am new what is this contest?
How does it work?
-
Welcome aboard Ross.
A quick synopsis of the contest:
I distributed a topo map and 3D Google Sketchup file for the contestants to use to design a course. The area that the topo map comprised was used to for the real Erin Hills golf course. Competitors used the free program Google Sketchup to draw and create their designs which were then submitted to our panel of judges for rating. When the results were posted, the discussions began and now we are winding this thing up.
I'm planning on doing it again in the future, and right now I'm trying to gather some feedback/suggestions/criticisms to help improve it for next time. Please feel free to post any ideas you have about how an "armchair architecture contest" should be run. To broaden the appeal, while keeping it rewarding and informational for the contestants, is my goal.
-
that sounds like a very interesting project, is the software difficult to use?
-
Ohhhh, I think Garland and the others should answer that question. ;)
There is a learning curve, but it's doable. There will be more practice before the next contest though, so I hope it isn't too much of an issue.
-
I do want to get more input on what the contest should become and if we should try to get it a bit more 'established' (whatever that may mean to you).
Also, should it be (as the present one was):
18 holes
large tract of land
focused on the art of routing
conducted via sketchup
Or should those things change? Some possibilities are (this list is certainly not exhaustive, this is where I want as much input as possible):
Fewer holes
design in the style of an architect
"problem" solving (e.g. a difficult stretch of land which must contain 2 or 3 holes to connect different parts of the course)
take on a classic (with or without knowing its identity?)
Design teams (to take the pressure of everyone needing to learn the software)
Conducted using only topographic contour maps (no sketchup)
The list could go on, but I'd like the input of anyone and everyone willing to give it.
-
Would there be any chance I could have the file just to mess around on?
-
Sure, Ross, go to this link and the first couple of posts (and many subsequent posts as well) should both explain how the contest was to work and contain links to all of the files you'll need.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38102.0.html
-
Thanks I will take a look.
Ross
-
Hey Charlie & Intersted folks. some comments below for your consideration..
I do want to get more input on what the contest should become and if we should try to get it a bit more 'established' (whatever that may mean to you).
Also, should it be (as the present one was):
18 holes .. DEFINITELY continue the 18 hole scope, biggest challenge I saw was making those "choices" when you've got more than 18 holes identified and must make the routing work and get back to the starting point one way or the other..
large tract of land .. THE EH acreage you had was just about right.. I almost sent in a 27 hole layout..
focused on the art of routing.. THIS was the most fun.. doing layouts over the topo..
conducted via sketchup.. SKETCHUP looks good on some views, but doesn't seem to show enough contours on many perspective views.. you've mastered itm, but i think its more of a "concept proving" tool like you used it on several of my favorites, #2 & 13 at Foothills Trail, thanks again!
Or should those things change? Some possibilities are (this list is certainly not exhaustive, this is where I want as much input as possible):
Fewer holes .. NO
design in the style of an architect.. NO who's really to judge??
"problem" solving (e.g. a difficult stretch of land which must contain 2 or 3 holes to connect different parts of the course)
take on a classic (with or without knowing its identity?) ..maybe for some, but not me, give me 18, 27, or 36!!
Design teams (to take the pressure of everyone needing to learn the software) DEFINITELY YES.. THIS WOULD MIMIC REAL LIFE ..EVEN ROCKETEERS GET FIELD INPUT FROM THEIR FUTURE SUPERS!! ONE CAN RUN OUT OF GAS TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING
Conducted using only topographic contour maps (no sketchup) ..YES I WOULD LIKE THE MOST.. ONE CAN THEN USE PENCIL OR POWER POINT OR ACROBAT TO MAKE WORKUPS.. USING THE MIND'S EYE OVER LAND DEFINTION IN THE ROUTING PROCESS I THINK IS THE REAL ART OF GCA.. GETTING SOME TOPO MAPS OR DEM DATA ISN'T THAT HARD.. WOULD BE BEST IF IT WASN'T AN EXISTING SITE EITHER
The list could go on, but I'd like the input of anyone and everyone willing to give it.
CHEERS AND GOOD GOLFING TO ALL.. GOTTA GET IN 9 before dark
-
Thanks for the input Steve! I hear you loud and clear.
Please, others feel free to chime in, even if you definitely will never participate. If you have a good idea we'll still use it.
-
Ross,
Here is a link to my earlier non-contest exercise. It is a smaller and more manageable file.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36362.0.html
-
I do want to get more input on what the contest should become and if we should try to get it a bit more 'established' (whatever that may mean to you).
??
Also, should it be (as the present one was):
18 holes
Yes, for the same reasons as Steve.
large tract of land
I think this works best for us amateurs, so we don't get too many dangerous situations and have more options to use the "natural holes" we find. Maybe a smaller site in the future?
conducted via sketchup
I still sketchup the best. Maybe a short tutorial showing how you could draw holes on paper and scan them into sketchup for those who prefer that method? (is that feasible?)
Or should those things change? Some possibilities are (this list is certainly not exhaustive, this is where I want as much input as possible):
Fewer holes
I wouldn't say in general, but maybe for a "specialty project" down the road (like remodeling #'s 10 and 11 at Stanford).
design in the style of an architect
I think this would be extremely difficult for people like me who have only seen one or two courses at most designed by major architects.
"problem" solving (e.g. a difficult stretch of land which must contain 2 or 3 holes to connect different parts of the course)
That sounds very cool, as long as it doesn't get too goofy. Also, I would hope this wouldn't lead to too much implied earthmoving.
take on a classic (with or without knowing its identity?)
Would be an interesting idea, although I'm sure quite a few would recognize the course, which would probably make it much harder for them. ;)
Design teams (to take the pressure of everyone needing to learn the software)
How would the logistics work on this? It would be difficult not being able to talk directly with your partner. I suppose you could have a designer and a shaper?
Conducted using only topographic contour maps (no sketchup)
Nahhh
The list could go on, but I'd like the input of anyone and everyone willing to give it.
-
Just a quick followup to let the contestants know that I've not forgotten about the "prizes". I am still working on the cards/logos. In fact Here are 3 more (I've already shown winner Andrew Gray's card):
You know who you are.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/GB-1.jpg)
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/IL.jpg)
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/Armchair%20Arch/JC.jpg)
I'm working on all of them. Once they're all done, I'll take them to the printer and then mail them out. Andrew's will be the only one signed by the judges. Oh, I'll also post the rest of the contestants here once I've finished them.
-
Charlie,
It's Bighorn Cliffs, not Bighorn Ranch.
-
Doh! I'll fix and repost. Sorry about that.
-
Charlie,
What if the contest had practical value instead of just theory? I've wondered for awhile about starting a CGA.com effort to help redesign old uninspired Army and Navy goat tracks as a public service. What if the contest was centered around a particular existing Navy track with a modest budget and realistic chances to build? The winning design could then be submitted to the Navy course for real construction.
Just a thought.
- Peter
-
Peter, I think it would be a terrific idea. Do you think we could get our hands on the necessary pertinent information? I'm talking topo map, with wetlands boundaries, property lines, maybe even current irrigation extents etc? Even if we couldn't, I could always generate most of it from the currently available data.
What kind of timeline are you thinking? (both for starting and for how long participants would have)
I think it would be a much more interesting experience for both participants and the general GCA viewing public than the last contest.
Others, feel free to chime in with some views/suggestions on Peter's idea.
-
Do you think we could get our hands on the necessary pertinent information? I'm talking topo map, with wetlands boundaries, property lines, maybe even current irrigation extents etc? Even if we couldn't, I could always generate most of it from the currently available data.
I think we could if we could find the right course and course manager. I'm not sure how we would do that other than casting the net on CGA to see if anyone has contacts for these types of courses.
What kind of timeline are you thinking? (both for starting and for how long participants would have)
Because it's for a real effort (and good cause) I would be generous on timeline.
Here's a list of Navy courses:
http://www.mwr.navy.mil/mwrprgms/golflist.htm
-
Charlie,
Nice work on the scorecard. I was actually going to put a 3D clubhouse in the shape of a doghouse on my design, exactly like your logo.
As expected, I continue to tweak and modify my original design, for not other reason than I have no life. Although now that I've made all these changes, I don't know if it really any better than the last version. In any case, let me know if it's too late to get my new version to you to go on the scorecard. I only have one more hole to tweak.
(http://www.coltonindex.com/colton_c05_1.jpg)
Jim
-
Jim,
Send me your sketchup file when you're finished, and if you could also send me a word or excel document with the yardages, that would help as well.
Looks good.
-
Charlie,
Here's a Navy course in San Diego, Sea n Air GC on North Island (Coronado) in SanDiego's bay:
http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.aspx?course=104545
This might be a great candidate for a CGA makeover!
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/hrcusa/SeanAir.jpg)
-
Peter,
Looks like there are some ponds to be drained! ;) As a side note, I looked at the Sherwood score card and decided to let my partner deal with hitting over as many ponds as possible by giving him the even holes for his tee shot. We started on 2, had to skip 3, and guess who ended up hitting into the water all day since skipping 3 immediately negated my tee ball rotation.
:'(
;D