Links Corner Forum

Hi Danny, I use 10 digit on all of mine, give or take 1depending on how cranky the APCD is acting. You are going to have some mellow greens but I like your idea.

Glenn

"THE NITPICKER"is always ready for action.
Those who can't do...nitpick".
But I'm trying!

Playing course such as just experienced on hole #12 I am unsure if hit into water to left of green there if that deserves penalty of being OOB. There is a saying when talk to doctors that it hurts when I do something and doctor responds, then don't do what was doing as causes pain. Funny quote applies here as then just hit tee shot on green and then all is good. Brought texture assignment property up just to question if that is what intended and here I admit to being lazy not checking info if was put out.

As for tournament version hole #17 would treat it as what it is---just a long par 3 instead of hole being a par 4 and with this lowers course par to be 70. Hole #14 seems to be a good idea to have back tee on practice putting green as hole plays 225 yards from there and see that plays directly into wind if were to use that setting. Using this tee option there is no need to remove trees or bushes and line of sight from that new fictional tee and the 9th green I believe is close by but not in line of sight really unless as possibly using this practice putting green to extend hole #9's length that is fairly long already---then the 14th green would need to be moved out into lake keeping the tees there now as are. Also the view of green is good and open to left side of green, and not have to hit over parts of other holes that see on some notable real courses in Great Britain/Ireland part of world that have seen thanks to John Brooks showing the layouts of some course probably to make holes play longer with land have not permitting something more reasonable instead. Not thinking that would cut and paste present green farther out in lake away from shore as do in real life by tugging cables holding floating green platform unless hole #9 is lengthened as a possible alternative that have seen brought up. Hole #4 is just awkward enough with green being too far away with present back tee to drive and there is so much trouble surrounding it with OOB and bushes causing penalty drops that even hitting a short wedge to green for second shot after layup in fairway is tough. Could make back tees be farther back, but that would simplify layup having to hit full shot to what is tricky fairway to hit as certainly do not want to go through fairway the way it currently plays. If were to do that then would experience sidehill lie forcing aim to be more to right possibly having a tree deflect second shot.

gene_golf wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 8:17 pm Playing course such as just experienced on hole #12 I am unsure if hit into water to left of green there if that deserves penalty of being OOB.

Hi Gene. I personally believe that should play as a lateral hazard. However, Links doesn't offer a drop for that. If you went into the water, Links would have wanted you do drop straight backwards away from the pin. You would not have been able to do that on this course. There's simply no place to drop. The only logical option I had was to make the water OOB in areas where a drop would not be possible, such as the water that crosses the front of green 11.

gene_golf wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 8:17 pm As for tournament version hole #17 would treat it as what it is---just a long par 3 instead of hole being a par 4

That is already in the plans. I removed a tree in the left dogleg so you have a clear sight of the green, and I am changing it to a par 3.

gene_golf wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 8:17 pm and with this lowers course par to be 70. Hole #14 seems to be a good idea to have back tee on practice putting green

Green 14 will be moved out to 218 yards from the back tee, which is the distance shown on their current scorecard. The present tee box positions will remain the same, but the yardages will change for all 5 tees when the green is moved back.

gene_golf wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 8:17 pm Hole #4 is just awkward enough with green being too far away with present back tee to drive and there is so much trouble surrounding it with OOB and bushes causing penalty drops that even hitting a short wedge to green for second shot after layup in fairway is tough. Could make back tees be farther back, but that would simplify layup having to hit full shot to what is tricky fairway to hit as certainly do not want to go through fairway the way it currently plays. If were to do that then would experience sidehill lie forcing aim to be more to right possibly having a tree deflect second shot.

The way the fairway drops downward behind hole 4's teebox, there's no place to place another tee. If you tried, you would not be able to see the fairway. I do however plan on putting some tall pins inside the dogleg so you won't have a straight shot to the green. If you want to go for it, you will need to use the wind, or bend your ball around them.

Dan

Dan I was waiting to bring this up because I thought you were going to open up the discussion of change suggestions yourself soon. At least I dont think I've mentioned this to you yet... maybe I have. I think hole 15 changing par from 5 to 4 is a more needed change than changing par of 17, I remember hitting a 5 Iron second shot into the green the first time I test-played 15, and on gusty or windy it could sometimes even be enough with Driver + SW. I think the hole would play well as a par 4. However, I first had that thought before I learned that you were open to more substantial changes like greens, trees and tee areas, so maybe you're actually planning on removing or moving the tennis courts and making way for a tee somewhere behind them? That could work too of course. I bet the hole will still always turn out reachable or sometimes reachable in two.

Im not opposed to what you said about hole 17, but while that will make it nearly one stroke harder to score in relation to course par, it will make it a tiny bit easier to score under 60 or under 70 for example. Im usually in favour of counting difficulty in relation to par rather than stroke count, but this course is one of the easier ones to score under 60 on so that will probably be in the mind of players on common occasion (I bet some of the veterans on Pro+Classic will even be able to go under 50!). I was thinking there probably is enough room behind 17th tee to perhaps build another tee area and make the Driver be required to reach the green. Only meant as food for thought.

[quote="Danny D" post_id=12879 time=1641368511 user_id=75]
[quote=gene_golf post_id=12876 time=1641327468 user_id=177]
Playing course such as just experienced on hole #12 I am unsure if hit into water to left of green there if that deserves penalty of being OOB. [/quote]

Hi Gene. I personally believe that should play as a lateral hazard. However, Links doesn't offer a drop for that. If you went into the water, Links would have wanted you do drop straight backwards away from the pin. You would not have been able to do that on this course. There's simply no place to drop. The only logical option I had was to make the water OOB in areas where a drop would not be possible, such as the water that crosses the front of green 11.

A couple of years back USGA changed rules on lateral water hazards. I believe took away other side option. I can see where if hit into water the drop gets you closer to hole. Some courses in Links have seen where have drop zones, but rules in golf make it allowable for drops on other than lateral water hazards where 2 club lengths in line where ball entered hazard going backwards to where played previous shot. If a drop zone could be fudged here and not sure entirely possible, at least that would give some credit not having to hit again from tee. Possibly on 200 yard hole, the 12th could be set about 40 yards from green to right side of water, so there would be no chance of being closer to hole assuming shot was better and went more distance than say a muffed shot of only 150 yards. Also opened course up just now only to check yardages listed and also checked course website, course in Links shows at 6,445 yards---whereas course card shows course from back tees being over 6,800 yards with difference for hole #14 accounting for about 50 yards, also hole #12 at 250 yards makes up another 50 yards. Looking at course scorecard there are no individual hole handicaps, but see at far right side there are places for handicap and net score to be entered---so I take it handicap only matters for whole course in general. But if were to play only front nine and have a 9 handicap---then I guess you would get 4 1/2 strokes towards net score.
https://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/i ... olf-course

[quote=Adelade post_id=12884 time=1641378684 user_id=107]
Dan I was waiting to bring this up because I thought you were going to open up the discussion of change suggestions yourself soon. At least I dont think I've mentioned this to you yet... maybe I have. I think hole 15 changing par from 5 to 4 is a more needed change than changing par of 17, I remember hitting a 5 Iron second shot into the green the first time I test-played 15, and on gusty or windy it could sometimes even be enough with Driver + SW. I think the hole would play well as a par 4. However, I first had that thought before I learned that you were open to more substantial changes like greens, trees and tee areas, so maybe you're actually planning on removing or moving the tennis courts and making way for a tee somewhere behind them? That could work too of course. I bet the hole will still always turn out reachable or sometimes reachable in two.

The 15th hole from back tee shows it playing 475 yards to a front pin location and 500 yards to a rear pin position. Checking out what was written, I take drop and go directly backwards behind tennis courts where there is edge of practice putting green and with same front pin location shows length of this revised par 5 at 540 yards, also the rear pin position would then be 565 yards. Presently the left fairway sand trap is meaningful as is roughly 300 yards to it from back tee, but lengthening hole that sand trap would not come into play for drive then. Removing trees and bushes to make holes play longer and tougher---so agree that tennis courts are in way of course being more challenging. With real scorecard showing hole playing 495 yards---then with lengthening hole #15 this makes course now roughly 6,870 yards without Danny adding length to other holes not brought up. The course is listed as a resort course and not as a championship or tournament type of course.

Other notable courses nearby in Idaho: https://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/i ... -lake-club
and https://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/i ... black-rock

Adelade wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 10:31 am Dan I was waiting to bring this up because I thought you were going to open up the discussion of change suggestions yourself soon.

I didn't actually open it up for discussion. I was just explaining some things to Gene. I plan to open things up, but a step at a time, not all at once.
Other than the green and pins, I have 2 suggestions made by Pete. They will be covered one item at a time.

First is to get the greens and pins set up for tournament play. I asked Pete if he would like to do it, and he graciously accepted the task. He and I have been working together. It will be a long slow process, depending on how many greens that I re-contour. When Pete looked at 17, he suggested changing it to a par 3. That is simple enough so I added to a list of possible revisions. He also suggested moving the back tee 10 yards farther back on hole 9 to make it play just a bit longer. I also added that to the list. I will complete each item on the list in what we all feel is the order of importance. Before anything permanent is done to each item, I will post polling questions on that specific item and the logical and fair way to make the final decision is by vote. I'm sure if we have a lot of ideas submitted that there may be some disagreements, but I can't think of a more fair method of choice. We'll just have to see how things work out as we progress.

Once again, I will open each item up for discussion and a vote as I go down the list. But one-at-a-time. I do not want to be hit with a hundred different tasks all at once. I will add your suggestion for hole 15 to the list. It will get covered eventually.

One thing of note is Pete's pin setting. Like I did with you on the resort edition, I will let him set them up any way he likes. All I do is set the greens up for him. If there are any disagreements with his choices players can discuss it with him. He is the "Official Greens Keeper" for the tournament edition.

Adelade wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 10:31 am so maybe you're actually planning on removing or moving the tennis courts and making way for a tee somewhere behind them? That could work too of course. I bet the hole will still always turn out reachable or sometimes reachable in two.

A lot of the holes are reachable in 2 with the right wind. Being a tournament course, it will be up to the tournament directors to set the wind conditions and pin/tee placements. I had never heard of moving or removing a tennis court. I don't know how others might feel about that, but if the majority like the idea, I suppose anything might be possible. We'll get around to discussing that eventually.

Adelade wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 10:31 amI'm not opposed to what you said about hole 17, but while that will make it nearly one stroke harder to score in relation to course par, it will make it a tiny bit easier to score under 60 or under 70 for example. Im usually in favour of counting difficulty in relation to par rather than stroke count, but this course is one of the easier ones to score under 60 on so that will probably be in the mind of players on common occasion (I bet some of the veterans on Pro+Classic will even be able to go under 50!). I was thinking there probably is enough room behind 17th tee to perhaps build another tee area and make the Driver be required to reach the green. Only meant as food for thought.

Unfortunately, because of the size of the plot and the way it's laid out, we are somewhat limited in extra yardage. When I looked at hole 17, I don't see enough space behind the back tee to move it more than 18 to 20 yards. It's 23 yards to the OB fence line on the other side of the cart path. What I did see though was a way to move the existing green about 100 yards further back and use the existing green space as fairway landing area. With that huge bunker there, it would make for a tight landing area, with about 80 or so yards left to the new green. As you said, food for thought.

I'd ask everyone to offer suggestions on reasonable ways to make the course play a little harder for tournament play and please be patient while me and Pete get the greens in shape.

Dan

gene_golf wrote: ↑January 5th, 2022, 5:24 pmA couple of years back USGA changed rules on lateral water hazards. I believe took away other side option. I can see where if hit into water the drop gets you closer to hole. Some courses in Links have seen where have drop zones, but rules in golf make it allowable for drops on other than lateral water hazards where 2 club lengths in line where ball entered hazard going backwards to where played previous shot. If a drop zone could be fudged here and not sure entirely possible, at least that would give some credit not having to hit again from tee. Possibly on 200 yard hole, the 12th could be set about 40 yards from green to right side of water, so there would be no chance of being closer to hole assuming shot was better and went more distance than say a muffed shot of only 150 yards. Also opened course up just now only to check yardages listed and also checked course website, course in Links shows at 6,445 yards---whereas course card shows course from back tees being over 6,800 yards with difference for hole #14 accounting for about 50 yards, also hole #12 at 250 yards makes up another 50 yards. Looking at course scorecard there are no individual hole handicaps, but see at far right side there are places for handicap and net score to be entered---so I take it handicap only matters for whole course in general. But if were to play only front nine and have a 9 handicap---then I guess you would get 4 1/2 strokes towards net score. https://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/i ... olf-course

Hi Gene... As I mentioned before, Links doesn't allow lateral drops, plus it won't let you drop closer to the hole. To allow a drop, would mean that drop zones would need to be installed on the other side of the water hazard. I know it sucks to have to re-hit from the tee, but sometimes those are the things about a course that add to the difficulty, and forces you to play it in a more manageable manner when you are in a tournament and every stroke matters.

I want to touch on hole 14, score cards, and my experiences and thought process during construction.

I set out to replicate the course as closely as possible as it exists today. One of the first things I noticed was all of the different score cards I found on the web. I looked at about 6 different sources and could find no 2 alike. My final decision was to follow the one that Coeur d"Alene provided.
I began replicating the course from Google Earth overlays, and I used GE for references on various yardages and locations of everything. When I got to hole 14 I noticed that, because of the movable green being changed every day, it would have been impossible for me to create 5 tee boxes in the same place that have them installed. I had several suggestions that I should move the existing back tee over to the practice green. My decision on that was no, because then I am deviating away from the original existing design, and I did not want to do that. I wanted to replicate the resort course to as close as I am capable.

So I found a Coeur d"Alene web page with the scorecard and flyover movies on it, and that is the scorecard I trusted to be the most accurate. I then set out to make it measure up to those yardages and began construction. About halfway thru I ran into a 6 or 7 month delay do deal with an illness, and then I went back to work on it. About 3 months before the completion, I discovered that Coeur d"Alene had updated their scorecard and a lot of the yardages changed. Including 14.




So now I start readjusting the yardages differences to get all of the holes to match up with the NEW scorecard.

Then comes 14. I see they still show on the scorecard that it's 218 from the back tee. But the other 4 forward tees matched the scorecards yardages. That is impossible unless you move the back tee back so it's 218 away, like onto the practice green. Well, no, because then it's not designed like it is today. So, I concluded that the logical move would be to move the green out to where the 4 forward tees match the scorecard yardage and then just take whatever it gave me for the back tee, which turns out to be 170yds to the center of green. The scorecard has a warning on it that the yardage for 14 changes every day, and obviously they had it moved to where the yardages matched the 4 forward tees when they created this scorecard, and then put down 218 from the back on the scorecard, with a disclaimer as to why.

Here's the page with the scorecard and flyovers if you want to check it out...
https://www.cdaresort.com/play/golf/hole-by-hole

In the tournament edition, I planned on moving the green back to 218 yards from the back tee, and then putting new distances on the new scorecard for the 4 forward tees. With other planned revisions, the yardages will change, so a new scorecard will be created specifically for the TE course...

Best wishes all,

Dan

To the discussion of the scorecards, let me add this: Me and Dan discussed the old scorecard over a year ago, how the yardages on it in many cases seemed way too long to fit the holes. I remember even looking at historical satellite images to see if the course was built longer in the past and it definitely didnt seem like that was the explanation. I instead concluded that they must have measured wrong, for example maybe they measured from the back edge of furthest tee to the back end of the greens or something (perhaps even purposely trying to make the course appear further on paper than it was). The new scorecard being published online since then seems much more sensible, so they must have known the old one was misleading. In the beginning, 6803 yards already felt kind of short, so to me it felt like we were cheated a bit by the old scorecard when it turned out the course would end up playing even shorter than what we thought back when Dan decided to create the course.