[Ally Mcintosh]

https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/innovative-twin-hole-concept-planned-for-duel-on-the-hill


Has this innovative idea by Forrest (with Jeff Danner and Mark Fine) been discussed here? It’s a criminal indictment of this forum if it hasn’t!


The concept is fascinating but I’ve no idea whether it will work in practice. If it actually does, it could be a wonderful twist on how to play golf.


We’re seeing a lot of golf that is moving away from traditional 18 holes at the moment. Reversible courses, 13 hole courses, concepts like the King-Collins proposal at Pinehurst; and now this one. Some work incredibly well, some seem gimmicky. I hope Duel on the Hill will fall in to the former category.

[Ira Fishman]

A really creative concept. I also could envision fun ways in which a group decides which hole to play. I hope that the project gets the necessary approvals.


Ira

[Stewart Abramson]

Sounds like fun, but can a score be posted for handicap purposes? Since there would be a multitude of hole combinations it doesn't seem practical to have a course/slope rating for each combination.

[Jim Sherma]

I know Southmoore fairly well. The head pro Jim Muschlitz has always been a class act. I bought a set of beautiful used Toney Penna blonde persimmon fairway woods (3-4-5) from him back in the early 1980’s when we were both a lot younger and working/playing at Bethlehem Municipal GC. Good days.


I question how successful this type of idea will be. Having occasionally played with one of their regular weekend games that’s filled with better players and knowing many of them well, I doubt that this is a concept that would maintain their business. These are the types of players that drive an oversized percentage of revenue throughout the year given that they fill multiple tee times every weekend fair weather and foul, and also eat and drink well after the rounds squaring the bets and talking smack. Once you lose that type of core customer can a golf facility make up for them? I’m not sure. It’s a neat idea however and I hope them well. I’ll check it out once it’s done, could make a great quick practice opportunity if you lived close and pace of play was quick.


Also wondering where the Blaukovitch preservationists’ uproar is?

[Matt_Cohn]

Kind of reminds me of the routing at Warwick Hills.

[Max Prokopy]

I question how successful this type of idea will be.

I agree, especially on the core golfer front.  A neat idea for pace of play, but did they consider:


Group 1 finishes hole #1A first, picks hole #2A to play.
Group 2 finishes hole #1B second, still wants to play hole #2A, so just decides to wait on the tee of #2A instead of playing hole #2B.  Now the groups are stacked and the "race" is over.


Slow play often boils down to a group not really caring about the needs of others, so I don't know how this concept ultimately solves that at all. 


The idea would be a fun trial once or twice in a year, but I'd be hard pressed to be a regular at something like that. 

[Jason Topp]

Madeline Island Golf Club has a similar concept designed by RTJ Sr. decades ago.  18 hole course on 9 holes of land.  Different corridors and pins depending on the nine you play.


https://www.madelineislandgolf.com/course-details


I played it many years ago and it was pretty fun.  The nines were definitely different experiences.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sounds idealistic.
4 reasons why I won't be there.



4
Only need one hole no one likes and it's like the effect of motorway cones. That's easily solved by making all the holes bland.😁
3
Tee rage as two groups compete to get to the next one. 
Unlike The Loop where you have to judge the relative merits of two courses here people choose which hole they prefer and that's a whole lot easier and clear favourites are bound to emerge.
2
"I'm not playing golf cos I can't post a score"🙄
1
You think you've improved golf and you want to patent this🤯


(I take back the idealistic comment starting to seem like a nightmare)

[Pete_Pittock]

Would most eliminate the need for rangers or marshals.
Doubt if it could be marketed as a championship course.
+1, but would remain the outlier.

[Niall C]

Pete


I tend to think it would make the rangers and marshalls a necessity. Can you imagine one group teeing it up just before another and the second group playing the alternative hole as fast as they can to nick ahead and then find themselves on the next tee at the same time. Bound to cause a rammy.


But reading the article, two thoughts occurred to me, the first one being that for repeat players on a lot of holes there will likely be near universal preferal of one of the alternatives making the alternative more or less redundant. The second point was something that Tony touched on and that was the intent to try and patent the idea. I'm all for folk earning a living and profiting from their hard work and ideas but something about this doesn't quite sit well with me.


Niall   

[Mark Pearce]

I'm all for folk earning a living and profiting from their hard work and ideas but something about this doesn't quite sit well with me.

This, and Tony's comment make me wonder why?  It's almost as if you think there's something dirty about the idea of patents.

[Niall C]

I'm all for folk earning a living and profiting from their hard work and ideas but something about this doesn't quite sit well with me.

This, and Tony's comment make me wonder why?  It's almost as if you think there's something dirty about the idea of patents.

Not at all. In engineering, medicine and technology, being able to patent something encourages significant investment in innovation which is to everyone's benefit. No-ones going to spend tens of million developing a product if it can readily be copied by the competition without the inventor getting any compensation. I think that's generally accepted and approved of.


However notwithstanding the fact that golf course design and construction is basically a civil engineering project, there is a fair amount of "artistic" input in the design which is mainly what we talk about on here. It seems to me that it is this element of the project that Forrest and Co are looking to patent. Now I fully accept that they have the right to apply for a patent, and they may well get it, however there is a fine old tradition of gca's sharing ideas going right back to the early professional golfers. Some of them even wrote books about their ideas and I don't recall any of them looking to patent any elements of their design. I tend to think that was to the benefit of the game.


So while I accept the guys right to do what they are doing, I'm just not convinced of the benefit.


Niall

[Ben Malach]

I have stayed out of this thread because to be honest. I don't have anything positive to say about this concept.


All I will say is there is probably limited value in the patent. As I don't see the value in it. Why would you want to have 100% more maintained area and probably about the same cost on a 9 hole course?


When 9 holes rightly or wrongly are seen as a value option in golf. That's just 1 part of why this idea is on shakey ground. But I don't want to say much more as even this will probably get me in trouble.

[Forrest Richardson]

Good discussion. I’ll do my best to answer and provide context.

— It’s 18-holes, and can easily be managed as two separate nines…Right and Left…not sure if the comment comparing it to 18 holes realizes this…it is an 18-hole design

— The “Duel” format is optional for the owner; busy days, outings, etc.

— The “race” to play a preferred hole would come with obvious protocols…groups would be obligated to play the open hole; no different than skipping or playing a hole twice…you’d be violating courtesies 

— Our goal is to create 18 desirable holes…with favorites throughout

— Handicapping is moving toward GPS and ‘virtual’ play where all sorts of tee combos can be managed; this won’t be an issue 2-3 years from now; the USGA is already preparing to have ratings for multiple tee choices and combinations at a single course — and for men, women, Jrs

— The patent is intended to primarily protect our client, allowing them a reasonable timeframe to complete the project; if it has replication value I’m all for reasonable sharing — guaranteed it would be much more agreeable among our peers than it is among equipment, turfgrass patents and other golf inventions (where's the outrage over Flynn’s Merion Baskets??!!)

Thanks for the discussion.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tony M — If you have a particularly UNfavorite hole, this allows you to work at never having to play it. Doesn’t work elsewhere.

Madeline only has some “pairs” of holes. Our design is different in that regard.

[Forrest Richardson]

Nice piece from GOLF


https://golf.com/travel/clever-golf-course-design-inspire-speedy-play/?amp=1

[Tommy Williamsen]

What a great idea. It is incredibly creative. Good for you guys.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tommy — We'll be first off, but I many take a scooter

[Bruce Katona]

Well Done Forrest on thinking outside the box to grow interest in the game! 


Post a score - as you said the USGA has this perceived issue in its sights. However, there are a lot of golfers who don't post scores or keep handicaps - as shocked as some on this board may find it.


Without innovating the game; golf is threatened to go the way of tennis - outside of 3 warm weather weeks and a week of semi interest in the midst of Northern Hemisphere winter - no one typically cares all too much about it.


I for one am excited to see the "Outside the Box" Woods/McIlroy TGL Monday Night Golf event in the new year.  I'm looking forward to see the technology, how much fun it is or isn't to watch and if they have a gambling sponsor lined up to market this thing. 

[Forrest Richardson]

We have to embrace fun, entertainment and technology or golf will be bypassed. I believe the numbers are 4x as many people watch the International Electronic Gaming Championship as watch the Masters. At present, golf is doing a great job catching up...just look at the technology we have embraced in the game and courses in the past decade. It's astonishing if you really begin to count up the components we now (almost) take for granted.

[Ben Stephens]

I'm all for folk earning a living and profiting from their hard work and ideas but something about this doesn't quite sit well with me.

This, and Tony's comment make me wonder why?  It's almost as if you think there's something dirty about the idea of patents.

Not at all. In engineering, medicine and technology, being able to patent something encourages significant investment in innovation which is to everyone's benefit. No-ones going to spend tens of million developing a product if it can readily be copied by the competition without the inventor getting any compensation. I think that's generally accepted and approved of.


However notwithstanding the fact that golf course design and construction is basically a civil engineering project, there is a fair amount of "artistic" input in the design which is mainly what we talk about on here. It seems to me that it is this element of the project that Forrest and Co are looking to patent. Now I fully accept that they have the right to apply for a patent, and they may well get it, however there is a fine old tradition of gca's sharing ideas going right back to the early professional golfers. Some of them even wrote books about their ideas and I don't recall any of them looking to patent any elements of their design. I tend to think that was to the benefit of the game.


So while I accept the guys right to do what they are doing, I'm just not convinced of the benefit.


Niall

Niall,


Frank Whittle didnt patent his design for the jet engine - one wonders how rich he or his family would be now with the 'Whittle' Engines rather than Jet Engines. Same for Alan Turing - computers could have been called Turing machines instead.


It is a very interesting concept out of the box thinking by Forest and Jeff they should be applauded for doing this.


Augie Piza and Brandel Chamblee have come up with Butterfly golf - 24 holes - 4 x 6 hole loops. There are more conceptual ideas coming out these days to try and make golf more interesting for a wider audience.


Forrest - are you still using yellow balls??


Cheers
Ben

[Forrest Richardson]

I graduated to red balls! As noted, the background behind the patent was to protect our client for the near future. If ...... big word ..... any golf builder wanted to pursue a full patent, we'd all be interested. Doubt that will happen. The year and half of the provisional patent just gives this project time to hold the spotlight.

[Garland Bayley]

Sounds like fun, but can a score be posted for handicap purposes? Since there would be a multitude of hole combinations it doesn't seem practical to have a course/slope rating for each combination.

A long time ago, I posted the concept of using a GPS device to calculate course and slope ratings as you play from a variety of tees, thereby allowing people to play the course any way they want. This concept would work for this situation too. So, if any one sees someone trying to patent the idea, I believe the intellectual property term that applies is "prior art". Of course, I could be wrong as I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

[Ben Stephens]

I graduated to red balls! As noted, the background behind the patent was to protect our client for the near future. If ...... big word ..... any golf builder wanted to pursue a full patent, we'd all be interested. Doubt that will happen. The year and half of the provisional patent just gives this project time to hold the spotlight.

Forrest




I assume you are using Volvik red golf balls - I have one orange Nike ball in case there is frost


Regarding patent the same goes for the construction industry its hard to patent a design where lot of designs are very similar. Patent is also seen as restrictive to one person/company where if shared out would really help others.


For example - Toyota/Lexus held a patent on their self hybrid engines and recently they have released something like 30,000 patents regarding this unique engine design which will help others.




Cheers
Ben

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks everyone for all the thoughts.  Always helpful to hear various pros and cons.  Just a little more background; the existing 18-hole course where this concept could be employed needs extensive changes (if it is to remain a golf course) due to alternative development plans that are under consideration for a portion of the property. The challenge we were given was to find a way to incorporate the new development while preserving as much open space for golf as possible. Furthermore, the original layout by James Blaukovitch had aged over the years, opening the door for the opportunity to incorporate new life into the property, a measure that would help ensure a sustainable financial future not to mention saving golf.  The plan we put together would transform the course while preserving a majority of the golf acreage, continue to provide tee times for public play, create interest and challenge for all levels of golfers, as well as incorporate a fun ‘entertainment’ oriented practice area. At the end of the day, we want a golf facility that will give people a place to recreate and socialize and can remain in financial health for the long term.  The concept does downsize the golf foot print (that has to happen due to the other development plans) but would create a fresh and fun approach to playing the game. 

I worked on an alternative routing for this course (Southmoore) years ago when part of the property was potentially going to be developed.  That work never materialized.  This time, the proposed changes are much more extensive.  Time will tell but the concept we created could obviously be used elsewhere if this particular project gets delayed. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()