Thank you for the review,
b101! Great to see how the course played, and how the design features read with fresh, experienced eyes.
Lots of good stuff to take from this. I know I’ll incorporate a lot of your feedback into the editing process for contest #2 — random sculpting funk around the fairways, splining issues when joining mega fairways, unintended green tiny runoffs etc.
I’ll bloviate a bit on my intentions and process for anyone interested in the ramblings of an amateur architecture nerd and beginner eSports designer:
Hole 1 - only template adjacent at best
This one started out life as a par 4 with a Redan green, but the green changed forms as I edited the course. I’m glad it did because the front seems to play better as pin-able area rather than as a false front. Cool to see the putt from there.
Hole 2 - Lion’s mouth drivable 4
This one’s a take on a reversed Sweeten’s 5th. I used an autogen tree on the right to guard the generally but not always preferable right side layup.
Hole 3 - Double plateau 3
I’d just gotten back from a day at Sweeten’s when I designed this course, and this hole is the most direct rip-off. The green is a toned down version of the double plateau 8th there. I’ve got two pins on the right plateau, one in the swale, and one on the left. I thought of the right pins as a par 3, the swale pin as a 2.5, and the left as a 3.5. A 2 is possible on the left with a great shot that runs up, but it’s really easy to miss long left and ping pong back and forth. The intended smart play is just short of the green with an easy chip.
Looking back on this course, this green is probably my least favorite. I think it’s too much of an all-or-nothing proposition. I really enjoy the green at Sweeten’s, but I’ve only played there a couple times. I wonder whether I’d enjoy it as much if it were my home course.
Hole 4 - Cape
A drive that hugs the pond shortens the hole and produces the better angle to most pins. The green allows a run up but is guarded by hazards on 3 sides—bunkers left and right, and the practice green long. Putting back onto the square green from the practice green is no fun.
Speaking of the practice green, this was an area where my plans didn’t read as intended. This is intended as something of a triple green that combines playing surfaces for 4 and 6 with the practice green. Adding little flags here would’ve helped a ton. Thanks for calling that out.
Hole 5 - Road
I used the pond to guard the preferred angle on this one, but to b101’s point, I have too many hazards on the left. Throughout this a tried to use the autogen bushes and pinestraw to break up the massive fairways randomly. I still like this idea in theory, but it’s back to the drawing board for execution. With a little distance, I don’t think this version quite works.
Hole 6 - Not a template per se, but inspired by 5 at St Andrew’s and 2 at Talking Stick North
I tried to use the OB as a hazard all down the right side and tuck the green up next to it, so that the right side provides the best angle and the player must eventually take on the OB (if the don’t on the tee shot, they’ll eventually have an approach shot pointing at it). And the green complex is based off of St Andrew’s 5th—big swale before it and a knob separating the front from the massive back. Going long of the hole is the safe play, but because the green runs away, you’re left with a challenging lag putt. The back 1/3 of this green was intended to be a practice green similar to Oakmont’s 9th.
Church pews were a big swing and a miss: hindsight and what not.
Holes 7-18 Reversible pitch and putt with all sorts of template foolishness thrown in (Dell, turtleback, short, thumbprint). These holes might be better than 1-6, which is, like, maybe not the best 6-hole contest strategy.
Thanks again to everyone putting this on and engaging! This has been a ton of fun, and I look forward to future contests.
