|
Post by jacobkessler on Jul 26, 2017 7:55:23 GMT -5
Bringing this thread back (maybe) Why is it that you can google "golf course design ideas" and it comes up with a bunch of miniature golf courses? I've been wondering the same thing. On a side note, there is a great book about design by Geoff Shackleford called 'Grounds for Golf' with a lot of good insight. My courses are in no way amazing, but I feel like I have learned a lot from that book. A friend of mine owns it (his son wants to be a golf course architect when he grows up- cool!) and let me borrow it for a bit. I wasn't able to read the whole thing but there was definitely some interesting stuff in it that changed the way I look at design.
|
|
|
Post by mrvinegar206 on Apr 5, 2018 16:40:06 GMT -5
I will try to explain why 15 is one of the three worst holes at ANGC, behind 7 and 17. The Sergio debacle spurred me to write this as it is a perfect example of why its flawed.
There are three scales we simplify GCA to.
1) Strategic (meaning there are options) <<<----->>> Dictative (meaning there are no choices)
2) Penal (meaning you lose a stoke or two for mishits) <<<----->>> Forgiving (there's no stroke penalty for a mishit)
3) Hard (meaning difficult to score on) <<<----->>> Easy (meaning easy to score on)
The most prominent courses in the world will find a delicate balance on all three scales. Note: balance isn't necessarily in the middle for all three scales. I will explain further down.
You will hear about "half par holes." This is the easy-hard scale. The balance is usually in the middle, but it depends on what the target audience is. Kapalua is on the easier side. Oakmont is on the hard side. Note, both are well respected.
Carnoustie is mostly penal. The Old Course at St. Andrews is mostly forgiving. I chose those courses because its easy to point at water hazards and say that makes a course penal. Yes, the Blue Monster is extremely penal, but the comparison between Carnoustie and the Old Course is far more fascinating because they are both links courses in fairly close proximity. We make the distinction between easy-hard and penal-forgiving because, even though penal is hard, no one would say the Old Course is easy even though its mostly forgiving. There is a distinction. Note, both are well respected.
The final scale is where you find the good courses and the bad courses. Strategic vs. Dictative. Kapalua, Oakmont, Carnoustie, and the Old Course are all strategic. Firestone is not. Dictative courses are usually seen as bad. It's important to note that a course that or a hole to dictate how its played isn't quite the same. Confusing, I know. This phrase is often applied to the Stadium Course at Sawgrass. Even though it requires a certain shot-shape for each drive and approach, there are still a ton of options, strategy, to play the holes there.
Same thing with many of the holes on ANGC. The drives on 2 and 13 demand a draw. The drive on 18 demands a cut. However, a 3 wood is a legitimate option on each of those holes so that you don't have to curve it around the corners as much.
Here is where 15 (7 and 17 too) suck. They are 100% dictative.
15 might be one of the most biased toward the long hitter holes there is. The further you hit it, the more run down the hill you get. For example, Sergio hit 8 iron in the final round last year, while you see some of the short hitters hitting some hybrid in. If you are a short hitter and think you are gonna hit it over the back with your hybrid club you have to lay up depending on the pin. For a majority of the pins, you are dead over the back, so you lay up on one of the steepest slopes on the course. Pinching a wedge off the tight turf off an extreme downhill lie to a green that wants to send it back into the pond, especially with the closely mown turf pond edge, is ridiculously difficult. Doing what Sergio did is extremely easy, and short hitters have to deal with that shot in 3 or all of the rounds.
The only option is to hit it as long and straight as possible. This appears on 7 and 17, too.
On 7, if you don't hit it long and straight enough, you are stuck on a downslope a long way from the green. The green complex is so severe and with the bunkers in the front, a long approach from the downhill lie is nearly impossible. Don't believe me? Go listen to the No Laying Up podcast with Bones where he talks about when Phil had a long iron and intentionally hit it into the patrons long because that was the only option he had.
On 17, if you drive it long and straight enough, you can reach the top of the hill and get a little bit more roll, have a flatter lie, and see the green. A shorter hitter doesn't get any of those.
Those are easy to pick out cause they dictate the same thing. Long straight drives. Let me give you another one.
How do you feel about 4? It is one of your least favorite, too, right? They have made the hole so long that a long high ball flight is the only way to keep it on the green. Incredibly, they have made it so long, even long hitters struggle on this hole. The green is so shallow and so steep, almost every player would rather have the bunker shot from front right than long. The hole is so long and hard, it ultimately dictates that you put it in the bunker for the highest chance of success. That is also a bad hole.
Yes, you heard me right. There are four BAD holes at ANGC. It didn't use to be that way. All four have changed fairly significantly from what Mackenzie and Jones had designed them as, and it shows. ANGC used to be #1 or #2 in the rankings, but if you look at some rankings, I think i have seen it at #5 and #6 on some now. Its falling. (I think Golf Digest has it at #2 still, but they take bribes and is, overall, a bad ranking). As the general public learn what good GCA is, a course to have four BAD holes isn't a top two course in the world. This is why some people are asking for changes to be made. The course could easily be top two again.
If you want to have one hole where a long straight drive is rewarded, I guess have it be 15. It is a par 5, so I guess keep the excitement; however, remember that its an exception. It is extremely biased. Don't let the eagles or the fact that "its risk/reward" distract you from the fact that it is flawed. To help balance it out, at a minimum, they should grow the rough up on the bank. It punishes the short hitters who layup more than the guys who go for it and come up short. The pond still demands a well-struck second… just ask DJ after his 2nd shot today.
Also, at a minimum, 7 and 17 should be addressed. The new chairman explained that 13 doesn't ask for "a momentous decision" like Jones described the hole to have, hence why they want to slide the tees back onto the newly bought land. Maybe he will get to 7 and 17 soon. We can hope.
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Apr 5, 2018 17:38:39 GMT -5
Honestly, I have no problem with hole 15. Yeah it’s tough, but
1) this is the masters, I don’t think we want it to become an event where the winner is -20 every year (although the Spieth -18 was pretty epic!)
2) there’s plenty of room on the green to spin it back. Sergio went in the water because he kept attacking the pin. If he spins it from the back side of the green, he’ll be totally fine
I just don’t see why people are so mad about it, the hole is in no way unfair
|
|
|
Post by mrvinegar206 on Apr 5, 2018 17:46:58 GMT -5
Two things.
1) I did not say 15 is tough. It is on the easier side of the easy-hard scale. It plays to a very easy stroke average.
2) Dictating holes cause unfairness. The green on 4 is dictative and is pretty unfair. 15 is more unfair than it should be. I tried to find the middle ground in my penultimate paragraph. Grow the rough on the bank up and I'm fine with the hole. Can you pass that minor tweak?
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Apr 5, 2018 17:54:46 GMT -5
Eh, I just think the shaved banks are a classic at Augusta
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 18:13:10 GMT -5
Honestly, I have no problem with hole 15. Yeah it’s tough, but 1) this is the masters, I don’t think we want it to become an event where the winner is -20 every year (although the Spieth -18 was pretty epic!) 2) there’s plenty of room on the green to spin it back. Sergio went in the water because he kept attacking the pin. If he spins it from the back side of the green, he’ll be totally fine I just don’t see why people are so mad about it, the hole is in no way unfair I didn't take that as a complaint as much as a commentary on what makes for good design. You guys see me talk about the same exact things when I stream critiques.
|
|
|
Post by mrvinegar206 on Apr 5, 2018 18:16:21 GMT -5
Eh, I just think the shaved banks are a classic at Augusta If you mean "origins of the course" classic... Oh no no no. The banks of Rae's creek were very natural. Same with the tributaries on 13 and 15/16. When they dammed up the creeks on 15 and 16, they shaved the banks of the ponds. Then they dammed up and made the pond on 11. They manicured that. The manicuring then spread from 11 to 12. They didn't shave the tributary on 13 until much more recently if I recall correctly.
|
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Apr 5, 2018 19:34:02 GMT -5
More 3 and 8!! More 3 and 8!! (cause I like them...:-P)
|
|
|
Post by theclv24 on Apr 5, 2018 19:51:27 GMT -5
The hard thing about debating the merits of holes at Augusta (in comparison to other courses) is that we all view it as a course that the Masters is played on, as opposed to a course that we could play. When debating a hole like the 15th, we don't even think about what the hole must be like for the average amateur player.
The 15th can be quite fun as a spectator, knowing that 3 or 13 is possible by the same player, and especially fun on Sunday. For the amateur player the hole is god-awful, as is the 7th.
Therefore I think the only thing that can really be debated at Augusta is what would make the hole more exciting or more interesting in relation to The Masters. This is something I am playing around with in the designer, as I've taken a pretty deep dive this year into the history of Augusta. I am not to 15 yet, but this fairway used to be miles wide, with just a handful of small trees in the center-left, which is the group of tall pines that cut into the path of the approach shot for any drive that leaks even a little left. If there was a whole other path available to the green along the left side of those trees, does the hole become more interesting?
|
|
|
Post by mrvinegar206 on Apr 5, 2018 20:00:24 GMT -5
The hard thing about debating the merits of holes at Augusta (in comparison to other courses) is that we all view it as a course that the Masters is played on, as opposed to a course that we could play. When debating a hole like the 15th, we don't even think about what the hole must be like for the average amateur player. The 15th can be quite fun as a spectator, knowing that 3 or 13 is possible by the same player, and especially fun on Sunday. For the amateur player the hole is god-awful, as is the 7th. Therefore I think the only thing that can really be debated at Augusta is what would make the hole more exciting or more interesting in relation to The Masters. This is something I am playing around with in the designer, as I've taken a pretty deep dive this year into the history of Augusta. I am not to 15 yet, but this fairway used to be miles wide, with just a handful of small trees in the center-left, which is the group of tall pines that cut into the path of the approach shot for any drive that leaks even a little left. If there was a whole other path available to the green along the left side of those trees, does the hole become more interesting? When we factor in the amateur game, that wedge off the tight turf off an extreme downhill lie to a green that wants to send it back into the pond, especially with the closely mown turf pond edge, goes from ridiculously difficult to borderline impossible. I have read an article talking about about the hole is likely the number 1 handicap hole cause a scratch will make par but a 20 handicap is gonna sh%$ the bed on 15. The advantage of going way left in your scenario is you'd be hitting more into the slope of the green, plus a little bit more green to work with on the angle, would combine into a shot more likely to hold. That middle/back middle pin becomes a target you could do at. Possibly the front right pin, too.
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Apr 5, 2018 20:10:34 GMT -5
But if you’re talking about the amateur game on 15... most amateurs don’t have the spin that the pros have. Yeah, the greens are concrete and slope really far, but it starts with the fact that the pros generate so much backspin to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by mrvinegar206 on Apr 6, 2018 1:37:01 GMT -5
But if you’re talking about the amateur game on 15... most amateurs don’t have the spin that the pros have. Yeah, the greens are concrete and slope really far, but it starts with the fact that the pros generate so much backspin to begin with. You semi-missed the point. A tight extreme downhill lie with a wedge for a 20 handicap will likely result in one of two mishits. 1) They catch a little turf first on the hill. A shot hit into the bank with a wedge is going back in. Or 2) They have so little spin on it and its coming in so low in bounces over the back. A 20 handicap doesn't have the touch of the pros, so expect a Leishman chip to rear its ugly head from just over the back. Both of these issues are fixed if you let the bank be shaggier.
|
|
|
Post by PithyDoctorG on Apr 6, 2018 5:33:13 GMT -5
The last few years there was second cut about two thirds of the way down the bank so a ball trickling off the green held up (might have been a Billy Payne thing since this is the first year of the Ridley era).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 6:58:26 GMT -5
I don't think it's hole design as much as it is the thought process. If it was 1930, an Amateur would have developed the skill to hit a 2/3 "dead-hands" 9-Iron or PW into 15 from that location. But those shots aren't taught or practiced anymore because everything has become target golf.
|
|
|
Post by mrvinegar206 on Apr 13, 2018 10:59:53 GMT -5
Here's your cool architecture photo of the day!
Go to the bottom right picture for 16 at ANGC in 1964!
|
|