Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Doug Wright on June 16, 2003, 11:25:41 AM
-
At Olympia Fields some of the fairways collected drives and areas at the bottom of false fronts collected short second shots hit into very small areas littered with divots. As such, it was a crap shoot whether a player got a decent lie or ball in divot. Some of the modest suspense created by the tourney was watching the balls roll into the collection areas to see if they did/did not end up in a divot. The first hole at Pacific Dunes has a couple of large collection areas right in the middle of the fairway to the same effect.
Question: Is this poor design? It would seem so, particularly where the player hits a proper tee shot and has no option/ability to avoid said collection area. Yeah I know rub of the green and all that (think Payne Stewart on the back nine of the last Open at Olympic) but this seems different IMO.
All The Best,
-
Doug- You ask if it's poor design, I think because of it's function that that is a hard one to say 'yes' to. I have seen so many of these little drains lately that, while it sucks to find one, the need out weighs the playability and aesthetic issues. Don't we all wish perfect drainage just happened, but especially on sites where D.R.A.'s(drainage retention areas) are mandated by law, it is understandable. It's that or risk drowning the turf
-
Isn't this how bunkers were invented?
-
Doug,
Id say that the shot was not executed as good as the player would have wanted if the ball ends up in one of these collection areas.
Woods at #6 springs to mind in the 2nd round when he underclubbed with a 6 iron and caught the slope and brought it back into one of these areas.
I like the idea of having areas where lies are not predictable, especially for the top players.
As a side question, how many shots were holed from bunkers? and from off the green in this Open? answer - a ton of them!
These guys have the conditions too good, make them play a little.
-
Bandon Dunes has a bunch of those low areas with a metal drain grating at the bottom. You could tell from the profusion of divots at the bottom that a whole lot of balls wound up in those steep little catch basins. IMO it's poor design to have a lot of those, when drainage could be routed off the fairway rather than into drains. I didn't get into one but can see where it would be tough to hit a good shot out.
-
Good one Matt Cohn ;)
I'm not talking about those drainage areas with catchbasins we see on many modern courses. And hey if TW or whomever underclubs and ends up at the bottom of a false front then tough luck for them. I'm all for the slings and arrows of fate on a golf course. However, if all balls hit in, say, a 20-30 yard-wide area (especially from the tee) funnel miniature-golf style back to a single divot filled hole, is that good architecture? Why not modify the area slightly so it's slanted (a la Olympic, Cherry Hills #18, many others) and not a hole?
-
I think Doug is (W)right and Matt has the answer. It is a design "flaw" but one that can be rectifed by putting in a bunker. There is a similar area to the right of the 16th green at Pacific Dunes that wa similarly hacked up when I was there and would benefit from being bunkerized, IMHO
-
Rich,
That's essentially what Nicklaus did at (at least) Castle Pines GC, where short shots at 5, 6 and the par 3 16th roll back into greenside "collection bunkers."
All The Best,
-
My biggest complaint about that approach is that it takes away a number of options. On #16 at PD, you have the option to hit a flop shot, bump and run into the hill or simply putt it. If it was bunkerized, you would only have the option of a high explosion.
-
If I recall correctly CC of the D, Dye's course had a fairway with so many humps and bumps in close prox and each valley seemed to have it's own drain. Don Mahaffey and I looked at each other and I know I was thinking 'what the hell?' but that's probably exactly what Pete said when he thought of it 'what the hell!'.