[Charlie Goerges]

Here is the image:

[Ian_L]

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.

[Steve Lang]

   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

[Charlie Goerges]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Steve Lang]

  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..

[Charlie Goerges]

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!

[Charlie Goerges]

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).

[Dan Moore]

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. 

[Charlie Goerges]

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

[Dan Moore]

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. 

[Charlie Goerges]

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).

[Tom_Doak]

Charlie:

You are hereby authorized to post the entire "packet of comments" about our design if you so desire.

[Jason Topp]

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

[Ian_L]

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).

[Charlie Goerges]

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):



Scorecard back (it will be smoothed out etc):




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):



Here, the judges’ rankings for each competitor (judges names removed)





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.

[Charlie Goerges]

001 Jim Colton:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38988.0.html





002 Steve Lang:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38996.0.html





003 Tom D/Charlie G:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39001.0.html





004 Garland Bayley:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38984.0.html





005 Dave Stringer:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38987.0.html





006 Greg Davis:

Hole by Hole Tour: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39036.0.html





007 Ian Linford:





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

[Steve Lang]

 

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..

[Jim Colton]

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

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Kalen Braley]

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 Bayley]

...

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.

[Charlie Goerges]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()