|
Post by bunkerd on Feb 9, 2021 17:35:57 GMT -5
Thank you to the person who put me on to B101 vids on YouTube. Learnt a lot
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Feb 10, 2021 8:53:31 GMT -5
Delighted to hear it. I'm a bit behind on the Yarra ones, but I'll be adding to those shortly. Stupid kids...
|
|
|
Post by cd06 on Feb 10, 2021 9:02:13 GMT -5
I've really enjoyed b101's tutorials as well - loved the one on the short par four design. Folks, if you haven't watched Ben's tutorials yet, you've really been missing out!
|
|
|
Post by bunkerd on Feb 11, 2021 9:32:33 GMT -5
Loved the long par 3 vid. Gave me loads of ideas
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Feb 11, 2021 13:34:02 GMT -5
Long par threes are so much fun to design as it’s basically the best type of hole to control the ground game the player experiences. As long as you design with the mindset that length =/= difficulty and instead design based on the type of club that’s being hit, they are often the best par three on a course.
Just don’t make a standard par three and add a back tee of 50 yards beyond what makes sense. Then it’s comfortably the worst hole...
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Feb 11, 2021 20:27:19 GMT -5
A biarritz is a long par 3.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Feb 12, 2021 3:17:34 GMT -5
Bit of a tangent here... I'm not as anti-biarritz as I used to be, but its design feels more muted than ever as we have seen many amateurish replicas that don't really understand what shots the hole is trying to ask for and how to make those interesting/playable. Plus, as that design has been overused, it no longer stands out or feels as interesting - whilst not a Biarritz, a large part of why I loved the 17th at Springbrook is that it used the same concept in a very different way.
In short, gauging distance and rollout via the swale is a brilliant concept for a long shot and setting that up perfectly as a par three makes sense, which is why the hole works. IMO, par threes are a great chance to make a hole and greensite unique, which is why I tend to steer away from template par threes as a few of them (Redan and Biarritz, for example) are very recognisable. Plus, visually, it often looks a bit clunky to me and it's very hard to make it fit with the land.
Obviously, none of this is saying 'don't make biarritzes' or 'Biarritz = bad', but wanted to explain my opinions a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by richnufc99 on Feb 12, 2021 6:26:06 GMT -5
Bit of a tangent here... I'm not as anti-biarritz as I used to be, but its design feels more muted than ever as we have seen many amateurish replicas that don't really understand what the shots the hole is trying to ask for. Plus, as that design has been overused, it no longer stands out or feels as interesting - whilst not a Biarritz, a large part of why I loved the 17th at Springbrook is that it used the same concept in a very different way. In short, gauging distance and rollout via the swale is a perfect concept for a long shot and setting that up perfectly as a par three makes sense, which is why the hole works. IMO, par threes are a great chance to make a hole and greensite unique, which is why I tend to steer away from template par threes as a few of them (Redan and Biarritz, for example) are very recognisable. Plus, visually, it often looks a bit clunky to me and it's very hard to make it fit with the land. Obviously, none of this is saying 'don't make biarritzes' or 'Biarritz = bad', but wanted to explain my opinions a bit more. Hi Ben... I’ve watched your long par 3 / short par 4 musings on YouTube... I’m still trying to clarify in my own mind what are the defining features of the two, and at what point a long par 3 evolves into a short par 4... I realise length, elevation, hazards etc are all factored in, but was interested in your thoughts. I agree, designing these types of holes is rewarding, especially when you then watch someone pull off a long iron / hybrid sh%$ short of the green and run up close to the hole...
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Feb 12, 2021 6:51:28 GMT -5
Bit of a tangent here... I'm not as anti-biarritz as I used to be, but its design feels more muted than ever as we have seen many amateurish replicas that don't really understand what the shots the hole is trying to ask for. Plus, as that design has been overused, it no longer stands out or feels as interesting - whilst not a Biarritz, a large part of why I loved the 17th at Springbrook is that it used the same concept in a very different way. In short, gauging distance and rollout via the swale is a perfect concept for a long shot and setting that up perfectly as a par three makes sense, which is why the hole works. IMO, par threes are a great chance to make a hole and greensite unique, which is why I tend to steer away from template par threes as a few of them (Redan and Biarritz, for example) are very recognisable. Plus, visually, it often looks a bit clunky to me and it's very hard to make it fit with the land. Obviously, none of this is saying 'don't make biarritzes' or 'Biarritz = bad', but wanted to explain my opinions a bit more. Hi Ben... I’ve watched your long par 3 / short par 4 musings on YouTube... I’m still trying to clarify in my own mind what are the defining features of the two, and at what point a long par 3 evolves into a short par 4... I realise length, elevation, hazards etc are all factored in, but was interested in your thoughts. I agree, designing these types of holes is rewarding, especially when you then watch someone pull off a long iron / hybrid sh%$ short of the green and run up close to the hole... One small factor but it changes how you approach the hole design entirely: whether the player should expect to reach the green in one or for reaching the green in one to be an achievement. With a short four, reaching the green should be doable, but not expected. As a result, the balance shifts toward defending the green heavily. With a long three, reaching the green should be expected and so the balance shifts toward helping players to reach the green, even with mishit shots. I am now tending to make long par threes with the mindset of par being very easy to achieve, bar a complete blowup.
|
|
|
Post by richnufc99 on Feb 12, 2021 7:06:34 GMT -5
Hi Ben... I’ve watched your long par 3 / short par 4 musings on YouTube... I’m still trying to clarify in my own mind what are the defining features of the two, and at what point a long par 3 evolves into a short par 4... I realise length, elevation, hazards etc are all factored in, but was interested in your thoughts. I agree, designing these types of holes is rewarding, especially when you then watch someone pull off a long iron / hybrid sh%$ short of the green and run up close to the hole... One small factor but it changes how you approach the hole design entirely: whether the player should expect to reach the green in one or for reaching the green in one to be an achievement. With a short four, reaching the green should be doable, but not expected. As a result, the balance shifts toward defending the green heavily. With a long three, reaching the green should be expected and so the balance shifts toward helping players to reach the green, even with mishit shots. I am now tending to make long par threes with the mindset of par being very easy to achieve, bar a complete blowup. That’s a helpful distinction... this is a good example of the creative aspects of design where some of the aspects start to blur and differences can be subtle, but if you get it right it leads to that sort of change in the mindset of the player.
|
|
|
Post by bunkerd on Feb 12, 2021 7:40:17 GMT -5
Bit late to the party "Redan and Biarritz" any links or images I can go look at. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Feb 12, 2021 7:46:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bunkerd on Feb 12, 2021 8:23:00 GMT -5
Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by coursedesignHQ on Mar 4, 2021 1:02:05 GMT -5
|
|