Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: mike_malone on May 01, 2011, 11:51:37 PM

Title: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: mike_malone on May 01, 2011, 11:51:37 PM
 I was wondering that today.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Bill_McBride on May 01, 2011, 11:56:21 PM
I was wondering that today.

Why only 8?
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: John_Conley on May 02, 2011, 12:01:43 AM
St. Andrew's has 10 greens (8 double) and the tees are very near the greens.  A lot of people consider it great architecture.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Matt_Cohn on May 02, 2011, 02:26:38 AM
Do you mean all in one place?
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: mike_malone on May 02, 2011, 08:19:06 AM
probably 50 yards at the most from those that are the farthest.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Adam Clayman on May 02, 2011, 08:40:47 AM
Mayday, Having trouble grasping the question. Any better description needed. Otherwise, the answer is either, "depends" or, "Why Not?"
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Kalen Braley on May 02, 2011, 09:14:46 AM
Cypress has a fairly close grouping around the big dune in the middle of the course, but not all within 50 yards of each other, more like 100-150 yards.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Steve_ Shaffer on May 02, 2011, 09:29:57 AM
Were you playing golf when this thought crossed your mind? If so, did the course prompt this question? ....and identify the course in question.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: mike_malone on May 02, 2011, 10:00:59 AM
 What this bunching provides is for multiple options for shorter rounds since this bunching is at the clubhouse. I think it is good design particularly for a private club that one plays often. The other need is that the holes be different in their playing characteristics.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Tom_Doak on May 02, 2011, 10:38:39 AM
Mike:

I think that's good architecture, as long as it can be done without a lot of safety issues from wayward shots.  That many greens and tees that close together sounds difficult to pull off.

Strangely, for the past week, I've been getting feedback from my client in China that having multiple greens and tees close together is a bad thing to them.  As far as I understand it to date, I guess they expect to have some golfers who don't want other golfers to see them out there!  I am hoping I don't have to build a bunch of mounds around tees a la Perry Dye.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Carl Nichols on May 02, 2011, 11:05:09 AM
8 greens and 8 tees, or 4 greens and 4 tees?  If the latter, isn't that a cloverleaf (four-leaf variety) routing?  Pretty sure that's how the Warren Course is routed.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: mike_malone on May 02, 2011, 11:10:33 AM
 It is four tees and four greens. It is #1, #3, #10, #15 tees and #2, #9, #14 , #18 greens at Rolling Green. This is 3 par fours, 3 par threes, and two par fives ( although 18 is sometimes a four).
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Kalen Braley on May 02, 2011, 11:11:08 AM
Quote
probably 50 yards at the most from those that are the farthest.

I would love to see how this is accomplished given that an average green is at 15-20 yards wide.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: mike_malone on May 02, 2011, 11:35:54 AM
 I tried to get the google map of the area onto here but my tech capability failed me.

   Kalen,

    It probably is more but seems close.
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Kalen Braley on May 02, 2011, 11:42:40 AM
Mike,

Which course is it? I can get something posted up or at the very least post a link to it.

P.S. I wasn't trying to mock your last statement, was curious how if someone managed that, it would be interesting to see :)
Title: Re: 8 GREENS AND TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Carl Nichols on May 02, 2011, 11:52:24 AM
Mike--
I love these kinds of routings, since they let you sneak out for a mini-loop of the right length after work, etc.  All other things being equal, of course -- I can imagine losing something along the way if you try to force such a routing.
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Matthew Petersen on May 02, 2011, 04:45:22 PM
Everything requires context, but in general I like the idea. It makes me think of the way certain MacKenzie routings have holes that sort of orbit around a large hill, for example.
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Kalen Braley on May 02, 2011, 05:17:03 PM
Here is the CPC configuration.

You can see 3, 11, 9, and 6 greens...and the tee for 4, 12, 10, and 7

(http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q234/kbjames_70/golf/CPC.jpg)
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Scott Warren on May 02, 2011, 06:18:09 PM
The Valley Club has this exact setup.

The 3rd, 7th and 10th greens and 4th, 8th and 11th tees are all set around the same small hill, with the 4th green and 5th tee only about another 70-90 yards away from the 3rd green, from memory.
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Bill_McBride on May 02, 2011, 07:43:10 PM
Everything requires context, but in general I like the idea. It makes me think of the way certain MacKenzie routings have holes that sort of orbit around a large hill, for example.

Meadow Club and Valley Club two good examples.  I haven't been to Australia :(  but I think there is something similar at Royal Melbourne.
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Kalen Braley on May 02, 2011, 07:53:37 PM
Everything requires context, but in general I like the idea. It makes me think of the way certain MacKenzie routings have holes that sort of orbit around a large hill, for example.

Meadow Club and Valley Club two good examples.  I haven't been to Australia :(  but I think there is something similar at Royal Melbourne.

He also did this to a lesser extent on the back 9 at Pasa.

10 Green, 17 tee, 11 tee, 12 green, 13 tee, and 16 green are all within fairly close quarters of each other...thats 6 greens and tees.

Hmmm, that's 4 courses now, I'm sensing a pattern! :)
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: John_Conley on May 02, 2011, 09:20:49 PM
The title of the thread has changed.  It used to read:

8 greens
-and-
tees close to each other

It now reads:

4 greens & 4 tees
close to each other.

Initially my answer was yes because the only thing that came anywhere close was St. Andrews.  10 greens and all of them near the greens.  I'd like to see someone route just 8 greens, because we'd get some triple greens.  It'd be way cool.

The new thread results in a different answer.  I'll say it depends on where those 8 holes lead to or come from.  I certainly have no issue with such a junction on a course.  It almost guarantees the place will be walkable.
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Ronald Montesano on May 03, 2011, 06:04:31 AM
While not within 50 yards of each other, Golden Horseshoe in Virginia has a bunch in proximity. I liked all the holes and found that they played quite differently.

(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Golden%20Horseshoe%20Gold/ghteesandgreens.jpg)
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Garland Bayley on May 03, 2011, 04:59:43 PM
Is not a determinant of either good or bad architecture. Next question?
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Tiger_Bernhardt on May 03, 2011, 05:38:09 PM
Geez it depends on the land and what close means. also how much if any crossing of each other occur. I generally do not like to have a green and tees for different holes cross. Example being 16 green to 17 tee crosses 4 green to 5 tee at MPCC Shore. I do not think there is a glimpse of cross or even communication at Cypress example up there. The closest one gets is when on 10 tee, 7 tee is very close.
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Rory Connaughton on May 03, 2011, 05:45:07 PM
Mike,

 Is this a Flynn trademark?  I know RG and Lancaster have these convenient interior loops. Others?
Title: Re: 4 GREENS AND 4 TEES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ----GOOD OR BAD ARCHITECTURE ?
Post by: Dónal Ó Ceallaigh on May 04, 2011, 05:43:43 AM
There are 4 greens (4th, 8th, 11th, 14th) and 4 tees (5th, 9th, 12th, 15th) within 70 yds radius at the stadium course as Bro Hof in Sweden. Despite being named the stadium course, this concentartion of tees and greens makes for a very poor spectating experience. Considering you probably have over a 1/4 of the spectators within this small area at any one time, it's is no surprise that there is congestion and too much noise. You cannot follow the players after they leave the 4th or 11th greens, but must make your way around the 14th green, cross the 14th fairway and then re-join the players half way (if you were fortunate enough to get across the 14th without waiting) down the 5th (or 12th) fairway.