Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jeff_Brauer on April 25, 2010, 04:43:09 PM
-
I stayed away from the first thread, but had a few thoughts on strategic design, related more to actual design and not designers themselves. ;)
In short, I recall the old HWWind Golf Digest article on architecture, circa maybe 1967?, which I have long since lost, but recall vaguely. It had a few diagrams of a slight dogleg par 4 hole and a statement something like "To the purist, a single bunker can dictate the entire strategy of the hole." The diagram showed a single bunker on the inside front corner of the green, and text explained that this bunker alone was enough to cause a choice to be made to play the inside route with its shorter approach or the longer outside route with an open approach.
Do you generally agree, or do you think there needs to be a fw bunker to reinforce the tee shot option and create some risk in taking the shorter more aggressive tee shot line?
Sometimes, it seems to me that gca's (moi included) just can't leave well enough alone and use a single bunker/hazard only to punish one type of missed shot - the aggressive line, misplayed.
Do you think a second bunker in any target area (i.e., bunker right, bunker left) nullifies any real strategy and makes it simply a test of accuracy? What if that hazard is something other than a bunker, with a different penalty value (water, grass bunker, etc.)?
Was the original ANGC the best expression of the minimalist, purist, strategic course with its limited bunkering?
-
It all depends on the length of the hole. If the hole is 450 yards or something as a par 4, then that requires a lower lofted club where line either over the bunker or from the side might make a difference. Or on a very short approach shot where it would be difficult to spin the ball with a partial wedge. But for approach shots hit with 8 iron through a full wedge (even full lob wedge) then the bunker at the green is somewhat pointless since the it will be a high lofted shot coming into the green. But if its a 7 iron approach or greater then line makes a difference into the green since the shot is lower.
And no, when done right, a second bunker does not nullify all strategy and can often times make it better.
-
Strategy starts with the smallest bump, hollow, ridge or turn of angle. Strategy doesn't necessarily increase with increased hazards. Every archie has to make his own decision on what he is trying to achieve on any given hole, but in many cases the more hazards introduced increases the odds of limiting options. That isn't necessarily bad or poor, it is just making (hopefully a conscious) decision on what end of the strategic continuum is being emphasized. The quote I originally posted I think skirts at the idea of the relationship between the use of natural hazards, strategic design, how naturalism (not only aesthetically but in a presentation PoV as well) fits into this dynamic and how the use of artificial hazards can eat away at that dynamic and be counter-productive. It is a shame that the other thread devolved into an either/or battle as I don't believe in the least that this is what W-S are hinting at.
"The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake rather than over-decoration and the crowding of artificial hazards. The strategic school above all aims at escaping formality by limiting the use of the artificial bunker, the excessive employment of which can easily crowd a course to the ruin of everything that contributes to spaciousness of design."
Ciao
-
Jeff -
I think I'd re-write HWW's sentence: "To the purist, a single bunker can dictate the entire strategy of the hole. To the simpleton, said strategy will be immediately and unmistakably clear. I don't mean to imply that the purist is a simpleton; only that he could be."
Also: I think strategy is a code word with multiple/differing meanings. If it's code for a physical test, then two more bunkers could usefully be added to that first one, each further from the tee and at a sharper angle to the preferred line. If it's code for a mental challenge, then not only would one bunker do well enough, but the smallest and deepest of pot-bunkers would work best of all.
Sean -
Yes. "Strategy starts with the smallest bump, hollow, ridge or turn of angle." And it's my favourite kind. But it is only in the land of the blind that the one-eyed jack is king. The big shapes, obvious signifiers, and artificial moundings of the modern American high-end daily fee course isn't a hospitipal home for subtlety. It is not a coincidence that W&S were based in the UK, and that the quote you use describes the characteristiics of many of the fine inland courses you play (and prefer).
Yes, I realized on the other thread that it wasn't a binary strategic-penal issue that W&S were trying to address. I just thought, and said, that in this particular quote they didn't for me 'unpack' the equation very well, certainly not as well as you just did.
-
Jeff
This hole plan by Simpson from Simpson & Wethered "The Architectural Side of Golf" does what you were referring to - except it has two bunkers at the green, but obviously the front left one is the one that dictates the best line of approach.
cheers Neil
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/SimpsonStrategicHole.jpg)
-
Neil:
The best part about that drawing is the outline of the fairway, and the fact that the dot for the landing area is way over to one side of it.
I noticed when I first started working construction that the posts set out for the landing area are always placed right in the center of the fairway (and usually the center of the clearing as well). I think that is one reason why modern architects often miss the sort of subtle strategy which Simpson had in mind ... we always think of the center.
The best instructions I ever gave to a shaper were what I told Eric Iverson when we started building Riverfront ... I told him that when he was building the greens and bunkers, he should always go back to the landing area and go twenty yards left of the post and twenty yards right, and try to make the green look as different as he could from those two points.
-
The best instructions I ever gave to a shaper were what I told Eric Iverson when we started building Riverfront ... I told him that when he was building the greens and bunkers, he should always go back to the landing area and go twenty yards left of the post and twenty yards right, and try to make the green look as different as he could from those two points.
This diagram could just about be the 5th hole at Riverfront. Tom & Eric put a fairway bunker at the outside edge of the fairway. Immediately adjacent to bunker is the best line to the green.
-
Tom D - I know you meant what you just wrote, but I genuinely don't understand it. Where does the "subtle strategy" lie in the hole that Neill posted? As W&S themselves note, "a good player who wants to make his second shot easier must take an initial risk with his tee shot" [i.e. landing it on the extreme right edge of the fairway]. But the reason the good player needs to do this is crystal clear, isn't it? Even for the golfer playing the hole for the first time it was crystal clear, no? 80 years ago he would've stood on the tee, seen the massive green-side bunker on the left and the opening to the right of it, and immediately realized that he needed to play to the extreme right-side of the fairway in order to have a clearer shot (and a chance at the run-up shot that was probably required back then) to the green. The playing of the hole seems obvious enough to me. What's more interesting -- and subtle -- is how you (in your instruction to Eric Iverson) have to think about constructing that golf hole.
The second point that W&S make under that photo -- i.e. about the true line to the hole never being in the centre of the fairway -- reinforces this for me. It seems much more a piece of valuable instruction/advice to architects than it is a playing hint to golfers. But the fact that, in the modern era, most architects for many years didn't heed that advice doesn't make the advice itself (or the ensuing golf hole) particularly subtle, does it? It seems to me a potential element of subtlety, i.e. dependent on other elements like the green contours and the challenge/interest of the green surrounds. But in an of itself, it is a physical challenge and test of skill (i.e. put your ball here); but not a question-posed to the golfer's mind (i.e. where should I aim my tee shot?)
Peter
-
Jeff Brauer:
That initial post of yours was really quite something, both for your observations and your admissions of some of your own inclinations with architecture. I really admire you for that post, Mr Jeffrey.
I vaguely remember that was the way this website was long ago when it first opened. That was back in 1999. I don't even know if they're on here anymore. There were some interesting posts, some trenchant and impactful responses and they seemed to be over in less than ten or twenty posts and never, EVER, ten to twenty pages! And then the "noise" began and things got way more complicated on here for a whole lot of reasons and for which I sure don't hold myself totally blameless. With coming up on close to 40,000 posts over eleven years how could I? ;)
-
Jeff
This hole plan by Simpson from Simpson & Wethered "The Architectural Side of Golf" does what you were referring to - except it has two bunkers at the green, but obviously the front left one is the one that dictates the best line of approach.
cheers Neil
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/SimpsonStrategicHole.jpg)
Neil,
So what, in your opinion does the right side green bunker add to the strategic quality of the hole? While not knowing the relative depths, etc., I think this is what Wind was talking about. The left bunker may push the tee shot right. But the right bunker just says "aim at the center of the green". Is there just strategy on the tee shot, or would a soft, grass bank on the right get golfers to thinking about shading right again?
Or, is it presumed that the approach shot will and should be aimed at the pin if the golfer attains the right hand side, and thus the shot is inherently of lesser strategy than the tee ball?
I also wonder how accurate those pencil lines are? Those sketch marks in front of the green seemingly show a slope going upward more from right to left. Thus, a shot from the left that also skirted the left bunker would presumably kick right and away from the green, and is that part of the penalty besides the bunker? Would it be nearly impossible to run the ball up on the green? I think many gca's would probably offer some hope of getting it home from there using a creative shot.
TePaul,
Thanks for the thoughts, but I think we tend to view the past in rose colored glasses as part of human nature. I didn't expect too much response from this, based on a long history of similar nearly dead end threads I have posted that have gone nowhere! It seems its easier for most to discuss actual holes, rather than concepts. So, it was great that Neil posted a pictorial example, as it may spur discussion.
Anyway, rather than expounding on other impressions you have, what do you think? I think JKMoore's post sort of ties into your thoughts about lack of definition on the other thread, in at least that he mentions small knobs and bumps rather than sand bunkers as the primary drivers, and they are usually not distinct to the golfers eye.
Tom Doak,
I noticed the non centered fw pole. Somehow, that happens to me somewhere along the way almost automatically as things shift around. I don't think many would draw it that way, mostly because the hole would actually end up shorter than it would measure by the USGA, and no owner wants to find out his 7200 yard course came out to 7133 because of such staking follies......
-
I too notice that in many Simpson sketches he indicates the landing zone to one edge or another of the fairway. However, to carry on PP's point, I think the hole would work better with more room left. As it is, there is really only an angle to be gained with the nest shot. If distance were put on offer by adding more fairway left the player has a real choice of shorter approach or better angle - that same single left-hand bunker dictates play. Sure, conditions of the ground and wind would help the thinking player make that choice, but there are always folks who bang away. So in other words, the dogleg aspect of the hole becomes a choice rather than dictated. For me, the right hand bunker is neither here nor there, but there must always be variety just to keep the golfer thinking and for aesthtics.
Ciao
-
I think I would like the illustrated hole better if there were a hazard near the right side of the fairway, no matter whether it's a bunker, rough ground or a creek. As it stands there is no risk driving out to the right.
-
In short, I recall the old HWWind Golf Digest article on architecture, circa maybe 1967?, which I have long since lost, but recall vaguely. It had a few diagrams of a slight dogleg par 4 hole and a statement something like "To the purist, a single bunker can dictate the entire strategy of the hole." The diagram showed a single bunker on the inside front corner of the green, and text explained that this bunker alone was enough to cause a choice to be made to play the inside route with its shorter approach or the longer outside route with an open approach.
Jeff, To differing degrees, I don't think you can accept a good number of principles, written 50-100 years ago when the gap between the best, better, mediocre and poor golfer was much narrower in terms of distance.
A cookie cutter, "one fairway bunker fits all" just doesn't work today, and six sets of tees isn't the answer either.
It's far more difficult to design for today's broader spectrum of golf than it was 50-100 years ago.
Do you generally agree, or do you think there needs to be a fw bunker to reinforce the tee shot option and create some risk in taking the shorter more aggressive tee shot line?
With young golfers carrying the ball 300 + I don't see how a single bunker can provide equivalent strategy and decisions for all levels of golfers.
I think the extension of the ability/distance spectrum forces the architect to think in tiers when it comes to presenting a challenge commensurate with the golfer's ability/distance.
Think back to when John Daly was winning the British Open and Jack Nicklaus was the commentator relating how the shot should be played (according to Nicklaus's game. Daly did everything contrary to Nicklaus's strategy because he could fly the ball much farther than Nicklaus, who himself flew the ball prodigious distances when he arrived on the scene.) So, here we have the greatest golfer of all time, and his strategy, like the Maginot line, was outflanked and overflown. I think back to when Bobby Jones declared that Nicklaus played a game with which he was unfamiliar with. Well, Nicklaus could have said the same thing about Daly. And, Jones and Nicklaus were the greatest golfers of their era.
So, how does an architect resort to simplicity, minimalism on today's typical sites ?
He can't, if he wants to present a golf course that's appealing and challenging to today's broad spectrum of golfers.
Sometimes, it seems to me that gca's (moi included) just can't leave well enough alone and use a single bunker/hazard only to punish one type of missed shot - the aggressive line, misplayed.
Then I have to ask: Does the course present itself as a challenge that's fun to pursue for ALL level of golfers ?
That's the hard part.
Anyone can design a challenge for a very narrow spectrum of golfer, the difficulty is designing a challenge that's fun to pursue for the ENTIRE spectrum.
That's one of the reasons why I advocate changes to I&B ;D
Do you think a second bunker in any target area (i.e., bunker right, bunker left) nullifies any real strategy and makes it simply a test of accuracy?
NO, I don't.
Unfortunately, I think your challenge is somewhat akin to three dimensional chess.
What if that hazard is something other than a bunker, with a different penalty value (water, grass bunker, etc.)?
There's nothing wrong with that.
It doesn't have to be something as penal as water or OB.
What's appealing to me is the use of uneven to difficult slopes within a fairway or adjacent area.
# 10, or 13 at ANGC are good examples.
Dick Wilson designed some great doglegs around water.
The closer you went to the water, the better your angle of attack into the green, but, if you played too far from the water, not only did your angle of attack seriously deteriorate, but, bunkers were there too penalize those who played too "safe", especially on the shorter holes.
The water, around which the hole followed provided a universal hazard for every level of player at every level of distance, although, today, on the shorter holes, long drivers actually try to fly it to the green under the right wind conditions. I guarantee you that Wilson NEVER dreamed that that was an option.
I see nothing wrong with substituting an extensive bunker or bunkering to fulfill the strategic role of the water.
So, why is there anything architecturally inappropriate about additional bunkering ?
Was the original ANGC the best expression of the minimalist, purist, strategic course with its limited bunkering?
NO.
The limited bunkering was only made possible by the pronounced terrain and water features.
ANGC is NOT your typical site.
-
Jeff, I would guess that much in the sketch would depend on what the ground contours were doing. Not only would the slope of the fairway impact the approach, but the contours around and on the green too. For instance, the right side bunker. On face value I would assume that it is there to nider the short bail-out from the left. So, if the throat is canted left to right, it would impact that much more that if it were the opposite. The same witht he left bunker. If the back-greenside slope carried onto the green, causeing any shot over the bunker from the left to lick off right, it would even deter the wedge shot that John Moore proposed would render that bunker irrelavent. However if the green slope right-to-left, well that's different. And as for the aerial vs the run-on from the right? Depends if the green is sloped towards you or away from you.
TD - perhaps to many put too much emphasis on the turn point poles. I tr to keep them on the line of charm rather than a mathematical bisector of the hole but always rely on them as simply markers for centrerline layout. What is really unfortunate is that some Regulatory Bodies and Courts of Law place the wrong emphasis on these centerlines to ascetain prescribed distances for separation. One could have that sketch hole along a righthand OB and show the centerilne right down the middle to set the distance to OB - all the while knowing that many shots would actually be aimed further right, thus effectively minimizing the "real" distance.
-
Tim,
The perspective above the hole diagram shows what Simpson was thinking, presumably, and it looks to me like the approach slope is from left to right and might very well kick any shot from the left down away from the green. As to the green, it is clearly visible, so I gather his intent would be to have the back right higher for that reason, as I think most gca's would do. I know a few who would make the left higher to totally screw the left approach shot as basically impossible to hold the green!
Of course, that begs the same question of strategy - if you can't really hit the green from the left due to bunker and fall away green, is the left side of the fw really an option, or is it a mirage? Or, do you make it more difficult via the bunker but not impossible by adding reverse green slope?
As to the right side bunker, you say it may be to hinder the bail out. My basic question, in "pure' strategic design where you are trying to encourage certain shots, not necessarily punish them - Why punish a bail out shot? The golfer has already given up hope of a birdie, barring miracle chip in and in strategic design, is there any need to punish the bail out further? Depending on his scramble ability, he has a 30-70% chance of bogey just by being off the green, averaging 50% and thus the notorious "half stroke penalty."
The bunker reduces the chances of par a bit, but is it really, really necessary to do that in strategic design? Yes, its theory, and yes, I would argue hole length and variety matter, too. But, I would also argue that those second bunkers get put in far too often around the greens and in reality, are unnecessary for strategy in that sense.
-
Jeff,
A drive that carries 300 would put the golfer extremely close to the green, leaving him an L-wedge at the most.
Unless the left side of the green is banked away from the left side bunker, it's an easy flop shot from the fairway and/or rough
While the hole looks great in sketch form, in reality it wouldn't be much of a hole today.
235 yard drives were long when I was starting to play, now, young girls, barely teenagers can hit it that far.
I think you have to defend the hole/green, from direct assault, as well as conventionally.
Thus, a field of bunkers in the rough left of the green, and right of the green would seem appropriate.
Those bunkers would catch inaccurate long drives failing to find the fairway, without negatively impacting the average golfer playing the hole conventionally
It would seem that sloping the left side of the green is a mandate if one wants to frustrate long hitters whose drives land in the left greenside bunker.
-
Pat,
Someone on the other thread noted or asked if modern architects have done much to advance strategic thinking over the golden age. You sort of answer that by showing how we have modified it for today's conditions, and there are other examples, too. But I do agree with most of your posts, especially in regards to fw bunkers needing to be spread out down the fw to have similar impacts for most golfers.
One question arises from your posts - while we presume that so many players are bombing it 300 yards, statistically, its still quite small a %. Should strategy be aimed, as you seem to suggest, at less than 1% of golfers on a typical CC or public course? Or should it be aimed at those single digit handicappers who can benefit from correct placement as a way to offset the advantages of the longer hitters?
-
Pat,
Someone on the other thread noted or asked if modern architects have done much to advance strategic thinking over the golden age. You sort of answer that by showing how we have modified it for today's conditions, and there are other examples, too. But I do agree with most of your posts, especially in regards to fw bunkers needing to be spread out down the fw to have similar impacts for most golfers.
One question arises from your posts - while we presume that so many players are bombing it 300 yards, statistically, its still quite small a %. Should strategy be aimed, as you seem to suggest, at less than 1% of golfers on a typical CC or public course? Or should it be aimed at those single digit handicappers who can benefit from correct placement as a way to offset the advantages of the longer hitters?
Jeff, it's a good and fair question.
To answer it I would ask; "For whom did the "Golden Age" architects, the ones revered on this site, design for ?"
The "average" golfer ? The "hacker" ? Or, was it for the better to best golfers who represented a small percentage of the overall number of golfers ?
NGLA, Seminole, ANGC, Pine Valley and many, many others weren't designed for the average, mediocre or poor golfer.
They were designed primarily for the elite golfer of their day.
I think the same thinking has to be a critical design principle today, even though the gaps between those levels has increased dramatically
-
Jeff,
As to your original post, I am one of those who "can't leave well enough alone" in most cases as my inclination is to dictate strategy for both the tee shot and the green. I am one who usually (not always) puts the fairway bunker in to allow for a mental "discussion" right from the start. Sometimes the palcement of that fairway bunker is less intrusive, inviting more people to work with the strategy and sometimes it is more intrusive, setting the strategy aspect up for a reduced amount of players. Depends on alot as you know.
Lester
-
Pat,
Someone on the other thread noted or asked if modern architects have done much to advance strategic thinking over the golden age. You sort of answer that by showing how we have modified it for today's conditions, and there are other examples, too. But I do agree with most of your posts, especially in regards to fw bunkers needing to be spread out down the fw to have similar impacts for most golfers.
One question arises from your posts - while we presume that so many players are bombing it 300 yards, statistically, its still quite small a %. Should strategy be aimed, as you seem to suggest, at less than 1% of golfers on a typical CC or public course? Or should it be aimed at those single digit handicappers who can benefit from correct placement as a way to offset the advantages of the longer hitters?
Jeff
I would probably take a different view from Pat. While I agree with him that trying to produce a design today which challenges all levels of players is much harder than 90 years ago, I am not sure challenging all levels of golfers is a reasonable goal for archies to attain. Thinking back on Classic American designers such as Tillie and Flynn; these guys designed extremely difficult courses meant to dramatically improve the quality of player in the US. Indeed, many of these courses are still very challenging for the club player today despite huge advancements in course conditions and technology. I don't think we need to design courses today in the hope that they will improve the quality of golfers. We need to design courses which will please the club player rather than worry so much about how the aspiring pro or very good amateur is going to be challenged. My thinking is that the scratch player (not plus cappers) is the high end of the target down to 18s at the low end. An archie should be able to build something enjoyable and challenging in this range without resorting to length or 75 bunkers as the primary defenses against good scores.
Ciao
-
No one picked up on some of the points/questions from my earlier posts, but undaunted I'll carry on: Famed golden age film director Frank Capra said that the movies he made only started to get really good when he discovered an important secret, i.e. "Drama isn't when the actors cry, it's when the audience does". I think many artists/craftspeople (musicians, painters, writers) have to work through the same potential pitfall as architects do -- i.e. the tendency to mistakenly equate the challenge/questions they face in creating something good (e.g. how do I build this hole so that it has strategy for a range of golfers) with the eventual challenge/questions that actual golfers will face in playing that golf hole. There does not seem to me to be anything all that 'subtle' in any design conception -- but on the other hand, when a whole set of factors both planned and unplanned including green contours and wind and maintenance practices and pin positions etc are added to that intitial conception, the playing of the hole will present challenges both physical and mental. I think modern architects have done just fine in bringing the golden age strategic ideas forward; I just don't happen to think that those strategic ideas, in and of themselves, were all the subtle or complicated in the first place.
Peter
PS - and I note that over and over again, the posts veers from talking about strategy as a mental component (presenting choice to the golfer) to talking about it as a physical challenge/test (making it hard for the better player).
-
Jeff, it's like a Worshek(sp?) ink-blot test. It depends on how youo interpret those hatchings. They could just as easily be meant to have the fwy higher than the green and the appraoch slope R-to-L into a gathering bunker and the green could slope leL-to-R with exists in the saddles but the mounds running into the greenfor some support. Just saying. (although you are probably correct with your assessment).
-
Jeff
I would probably take a different view from Pat.
While I agree with him that trying to produce a design today which challenges all levels of players is much harder than 90 years ago, I am not sure challenging all levels of golfers is a reasonable goal for archies to attain.
Thinking back on Classic American designers such as Tillie and Flynn; these guys designed extremely difficult courses meant to dramatically improve the quality of player in the US. Indeed, many of these courses are still very challenging for the club player today despite huge advancements in course conditions and technology.
Both the golfer and the mentality of the game were different then.
Those early architects were more closely connected to the penal roots in the UK.
They didn't have to worry about Juniors, Seniors, Ladies and Handicapped golfers.
They could design for the elite, with the club not having to worry about stocking its membership in order to survive financially.
I don't think we need to design courses today in the hope that they will improve the quality of golfers.
I never stated or hinted that improvement in the quality of golfers was a design consideration.
Where did you get that notion from ?
We need to design courses which will please the club player rather than worry so much about how the aspiring pro or very good amateur is going to be challenged.
If that's the case, why has virtually every club lengthened its golf course ?
In today's macho US Open, PGA, Masters world, if you don't design a course with some measure of difficulty/length, you won't be able to sell sufficient memberships to sustain it.
One affirmation of my theory is the inordinate number of golfers who play from the wrong (longer) tees.
My thinking is that the scratch player (not plus cappers) is the high end of the target down to 18s at the low end.
An archie should be able to build something enjoyable and challenging in this range without resorting to length or 75 bunkers as the primary defenses against good scores.
Your theory has been proven wrong by Flynn and other architects who purposely incorporated elasticity into their designs.
Your theory has also been proven wrong by experience over the last 30 years.
If you built a course to fit your segment of the market 30 years ago, it would be obsolete today.
There are some who claim that distance has been maxed out.
I'm not so sure. Will someone develop a new shaft that produces increased distance ?
A ball with a cover that produces less friction/wind resistance ?
A combination ?
My theory is that the theory of elasticity was valid 100 years ago and that it remains valid today.
-
"it's like a Worshek(sp?) ink-blot test."
TimN:
I think that one has always been a real poser for anyone to spell. It's a Rorschach test, named after the Swiss psychiatrist, Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922), who invented it.
It uses all kinds of ink blot patterns to reveal the underlying personality of someone depending on what they see in a Rorschach test. Now you take, Pat Mucci, for instance; it doesn't make any difference which Rorschach test you show him; he's pretty much going to see a beautiful naked women in any and all of them somehow.
-
Peter Pallotta,
If the design principles/strategic ideas of the Golden Age architects weren't that subtle or complicated, why didn't more modern day architects pick up on them ? ;D
-
"it's like a Worshek(sp?) ink-blot test."
TimN:
I think that one has always been a real poser for anyone to spell. It's a Rorschach test, named after the Swiss psychiatrist, Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922), who invented it.
It uses all kinds of ink blot patterns to reveal the underlying personality of someone depending on what they see in a Rorschach test. Now you take, Pat Mucci, for instance; it doesn't make any difference which Rorschach test you show him; he's pretty much going to see a beautiful naked women in any and all of them somehow.
TEP, I knew I was butchering it, so i didn't even attempt to bluff muy way through. I just wish this had a Spell Check on it! ;D
-
Jeff
I would probably take a different view from Pat.
While I agree with him that trying to produce a design today which challenges all levels of players is much harder than 90 years ago, I am not sure challenging all levels of golfers is a reasonable goal for archies to attain.
Thinking back on Classic American designers such as Tillie and Flynn; these guys designed extremely difficult courses meant to dramatically improve the quality of player in the US. Indeed, many of these courses are still very challenging for the club player today despite huge advancements in course conditions and technology.
Both the golfer and the mentality of the game were different then.
Those early architects were more closely connected to the penal roots in the UK.
They didn't have to worry about Juniors, Seniors, Ladies and Handicapped golfers.
They could design for the elite, with the club not having to worry about stocking its membership in order to survive financially.
I don't think we need to design courses today in the hope that they will improve the quality of golfers.
I never stated or hinted that improvement in the quality of golfers was a design consideration.
Where did you get that notion from ?
We need to design courses which will please the club player rather than worry so much about how the aspiring pro or very good amateur is going to be challenged.
If that's the case, why has virtually every club lengthened its golf course ?
In today's macho US Open, PGA, Masters world, if you don't design a course with some measure of difficulty/length, you won't be able to sell sufficient memberships to sustain it.
One affirmation of my theory is the inordinate number of golfers who play from the wrong (longer) tees.
My thinking is that the scratch player (not plus cappers) is the high end of the target down to 18s at the low end.
An archie should be able to build something enjoyable and challenging in this range without resorting to length or 75 bunkers as the primary defenses against good scores.
Your theory has been proven wrong by Flynn and other architects who purposely incorporated elasticity into their designs.
Your theory has also been proven wrong by experience over the last 30 years.
If you built a course to fit your segment of the market 30 years ago, it would be obsolete today.
There are some who claim that distance has been maxed out.
I'm not so sure. Will someone develop a new shaft that produces increased distance ?
A ball with a cover that produces less friction/wind resistance ?
A combination ?
My theory is that the theory of elasticity was valid 100 years ago and that it remains valid today.
Patrick
Many courses have been lengthened, but many have also not been lengthened to anywhere near the degree which would make them as relatively difficult as 80 years ago. Yes, I agree that some degree of length for challenge is desirable, but it in no way should dominate the design - if our goal is to design for the handicap player. Elasticity has a place in design, but it can't be relied upon to challenge the 18 marker and the touring pro.
I would disagree that classic courses of GB&I have penal roots. The penal school of architecture was fully developed in the USA.
Good design never becomes obsolete. That is why the many thousands of visitors flock to GB&I to play courses that were never intended to challenge the best and certainly fall far short of that today. However, what these classic GB&I courses do offer is a fairly equal measure of challenge, beauty playability and most of all, fun. Will a touring pro find nearly all of these great courses too easy - yes, without a doubt. Can a scratch golfer sometimes take it down to the 67s and perhaps lower - yes. Can a 9 capper very occasionally shoot par - yes. What of it? Many thousands of satisfied members and visitors play these gems each and every year and have done for countless years. IMO, it is these courses designers should be looking to emulate rather than the championship or many hundreds of championship wanna be courses that we currently see used as templates. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Perfectly good ones are lying about. All it takes is for people more people to recognize and embrace this fact.
Ciao
-
Patrick
Many courses have been lengthened, but many have also not been lengthened to anywhere near the degree which would make them as relatively difficult as 80 years ago.
Sean, in most cases, simply because they're land locked and can't extend the tees back.
Yes, I agree that some degree of length for challenge is desirable, but it in no way should dominate the design - if our goal is to design for the handicap player. Elasticity has a place in design, but it can't be relied upon to challenge the 18 marker and the touring pro.
Elasticity has always been "inventoried" to challenge the best players.
The mid to higher handicaps can continue to play from "member" tees.
I would disagree that classic courses of GB&I have penal roots.
The penal school of architecture was fully developed in the USA.
The penal school in the U.S. was a derivitive of the designs in the UK.
It remains so today.
The classic courses of GB&I remain far more penal that U.S. courses.
Good design never becomes obsolete.
No one ever stated that "good design" became obsolete, but, the product failed to keep up with the user, and thus, the product became obsolete if it wasn't amended/altered.
That is why the many thousands of visitors flock to GB&I to play courses that were never intended to challenge the best and certainly fall far short of that today.
So, St Andrews, Turnberry, Troon, Muirfield and other courses of GB&I weren't intended to challenge the best players of their time ?
Why did they hold British Opens on those courses if they didn't want to test the best golfers ?
However, what these classic GB&I courses do offer is a fairly equal measure of challenge, beauty playability and most of all, fun.
Is that because they won't let you play from the "Championship" tees ?
I know golfers who wouldn't play a second round at Troon and other courses because they couldn't handle the sod walled bunkers on their first round.
Golfers want to be punished.
That's why they drop balls in the DA at PV, just to experience adversity.
Will a touring pro find nearly all of these great courses too easy - yes, without a doubt.
Nonsense.
From the Championship tees these courses present a formidable challenge.
Can a scratch golfer sometimes take it down to the 67s and perhaps lower - yes.
Not from the championship tees.
Can a 9 capper very occasionally shoot par - yes.
Not in a million years.
What of it? Many thousands of satisfied members and visitors play these gems each and every year and have done for countless years.
NO, they haven't.
They've played from an abbreviated distance, from other than the championship tees.
Please stop denying their existance vis a vis exclusion from the discussion.
IMO, it is these courses designers should be looking to emulate rather than the championship or many hundreds of championship wanna be courses that we currently see used as templates.
Again, you're denying reality.
The "these courses" you're looking to emulate are LONG CHAMPIONSHIP golf courses.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Perfectly good ones are lying about. All it takes is for people more people to recognize and embrace this fact.
It ain't happening.
The only reason visiting golfers don't play the championship tees is that the golf course prohibits them from doing so.
As Shivas says, "golfers and chics dig the long ball"
-
If the design principles/strategic ideas of the Golden Age architects weren't that subtle or complicated, why didn't more modern day architects pick up on them ? ;D
Patrick - I think that for about the first 40 years after WWII, most architects in America simply ignored those design principles/strategic ideas. And the architects (and developers) who did the ignoring did it for pretty much the same reason people always ignore principles and ideas, i.e. money. There wasn't any money to be made in honouring those fundamental strategies. You could probably list better than I could all the reasons why there wasn't any money to be made in replicating the golden age style and ethos, but here are some guesses: changing demographics (i.e. a wider range of players, talent-wise, and a lot more of them, numbers-wise); changing economic models (i.e. away from primarily the small, exclusive private club model); changing technologies (i.e. both in construction methods and maintenances practices, eg gang mowers); and changing tastes, especially after the emergence of television. The kinds of GB&I courses that Sean (rightly) praises clearly manifested the kinds of strategies that are being discussed on this thread -- clearly manifested them, that is, for anyone with eyes to see, and with the willingness to see. But for a big chunk of the latter half of the 20th century in America, most architects and developers didn't want to see. They didn't want to replicate/recreate/honour those GB&I courses. So that now, in nostalgia and regret, we look back at a drawing of a decent hole by W&S and unduly praise it as a paragon of strategic subtlety. Again, I think it's a simple and wonderful hole. But complex in design it's not. And that's not intended to be a criticism.
Peter
-
The hole diagram is basically the way the 3rd at Glasgow Gailes plays except they have a couple more bunkers up the right after the turning point and the have a fairway bunker on the outside of the dog-leg. That last bunker is merely a target for me as usually a full tilt driver is going to leave me short.
I suspect the fairway bunker was put in to deter the longer hitters and force them to hit into a narrower landing area to the right and beyond. As far as I was concerned the "correct" strategy didn't occur to me until quite number of plays. That probably says more about me than the golf hole.
Niall
-
Peter Pallotta,
Which post WWII American architects ignored those principles ?
I don't think that Dick Wilson did, but, I could be mistaken.
What principles do you feel were ignored, and by whom ?
-
Patrick - I used the word "ignored" mostly to contrast your notion that modern-day architects didn't "pick up on" the strategies of the golden age architects, i.e. I used it to argue that this was a conscious decision rather than an unconscious inability. But to keep using the word, I'd rephrase your last question this way: "Which post World War II architects ignored the approach of predecessors like Colt and Flynn and MacKenzie by a) trying to create/define/control a site instead of working with its natural strengths, and b) by moving strongly in either of two philosophical directions -- i.e. the heroic or the player-friendly -- instead of utilizing the traditional strategic designs/and use of angles of the golden age"? And my answer would be: "Almost every single one, except for Pete Dye".
Peter
-
Patrick - I used the word "ignored" mostly to contrast your notion that modern-day architects didn't "pick up on" the strategies of the golden age architects,
I may have missed it, but, where did I make that statement ?
i.e. I used it to argue that this was a conscious decision rather than an unconscious inability.
I'd agree with the conscious versus unconscious decision.
But to keep using the word, I'd rephrase your last question this way: "Which post World War II architects ignored the approach of predecessors like Colt and Flynn and MacKenzie by a) trying to create/define/control a site instead of working with its natural strengths, and b) by moving strongly in either of two philosophical directions -- i.e. the heroic or the player-friendly -- instead of utilizing the traditional strategic designs/and use of angles of the golden age"?
And my answer would be: "Almost every single one, except for Pete Dye".
How did Dick Wilson fail your test ?
Interestingly enough, when Pete was designing/building Hilton Head he told me that he was importing some of the features he found and liked when he visited the UK. Those features tended to be penal in nature. He also indicated that the American golfer had gotten spoiled with the softening of features/challenges
I don't think you can discount the trend toward "player friendly" designs/features/courses or the emerging retail golfer as Mike Keiser calls them.
Golf experienced a post WWII increase in popularity where a more diverse crowd was drawn to the game and the courses it was played on.
In addition, resorts and residential communities with golf courses were springing up in number.
I can't imagine a resort or residential community building a course that would terrify golfers.
Dick Wilson's Blue Course at Doral might have been one of the exceptions
Resorts in Carlsbad, CA, Scottsdale, AZ and Florida are an interesting study as are the residential community courses that sprang up in numbers in the sunbelt/s
-
Patrick
Many courses have been lengthened, but many have also not been lengthened to anywhere near the degree which would make them as relatively difficult as 80 years ago.
Sean, in most cases, simply because they're land locked and can't extend the tees back.
Yes, I agree that some degree of length for challenge is desirable, but it in no way should dominate the design - if our goal is to design for the handicap player. Elasticity has a place in design, but it can't be relied upon to challenge the 18 marker and the touring pro.
Elasticity has always been "inventoried" to challenge the best players.
The mid to higher handicaps can continue to play from "member" tees.
I would disagree that classic courses of GB&I have penal roots.
The penal school of architecture was fully developed in the USA.
The penal school in the U.S. was a derivitive of the designs in the UK.
It remains so today.
The classic courses of GB&I remain far more penal that U.S. courses.
Good design never becomes obsolete.
No one ever stated that "good design" became obsolete, but, the product failed to keep up with the user, and thus, the product became obsolete if it wasn't amended/altered.
That is why the many thousands of visitors flock to GB&I to play courses that were never intended to challenge the best and certainly fall far short of that today.
So, St Andrews, Turnberry, Troon, Muirfield and other courses of GB&I weren't intended to challenge the best players of their time ?
Why did they hold British Opens on those courses if they didn't want to test the best golfers ?
However, what these classic GB&I courses do offer is a fairly equal measure of challenge, beauty playability and most of all, fun.
Is that because they won't let you play from the "Championship" tees ?
I know golfers who wouldn't play a second round at Troon and other courses because they couldn't handle the sod walled bunkers on their first round.
Golfers want to be punished.
That's why they drop balls in the DA at PV, just to experience adversity.
Will a touring pro find nearly all of these great courses too easy - yes, without a doubt.
Nonsense.
From the Championship tees these courses present a formidable challenge.
Can a scratch golfer sometimes take it down to the 67s and perhaps lower - yes.
Not from the championship tees.
Can a 9 capper very occasionally shoot par - yes.
Not in a million years.
What of it? Many thousands of satisfied members and visitors play these gems each and every year and have done for countless years.
NO, they haven't.
They've played from an abbreviated distance, from other than the championship tees.
Please stop denying their existance vis a vis exclusion from the discussion.
IMO, it is these courses designers should be looking to emulate rather than the championship or many hundreds of championship wanna be courses that we currently see used as templates.
Again, you're denying reality.
The "these courses" you're looking to emulate are LONG CHAMPIONSHIP golf courses.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Perfectly good ones are lying about. All it takes is for people more people to recognize and embrace this fact.
It ain't happening.
The only reason visiting golfers don't play the championship tees is that the golf course prohibits them from doing so.
As Shivas says, "golfers and chics dig the long ball"
Patrick
No, the penal school came to full fruition with the Oakland Hills redo for the famous Hogan Open. It was a slow process which may have even started with Pine Valley and eventually led to Oakland Hills and has lingered on in American architecture to this day.
The championship courses of GB&I are relatively far and few between. There are a great many more well designed courses which were never intended to challenge the best and continue to fall far short of that goal. Thousands of visitors and members enjoy these courses for what they are and I would say part of that enjoyment is that they are NOT championship tests. In general, the more a course is designed for championships, the less strategic and more obvious it is. You continue to focus on the very best players and the and how they are challenged whereas I am much concerned and interested in the handicap player and how to satisfy their needs.
Ciao
-
Patrick
No, the penal school came to full fruition with the Oakland Hills redo for the famous Hogan Open. It was a slow process which may have even started with Pine Valley and eventually led to Oakland Hills and has lingered on in American architecture to this day.
To claim that RTJ's work at Oakland Hills, which was a mild modification to an existing course, was the culmination of the Penal School of Golf Design is absurd.
How was Oakland Hills different, pre and post RTJ ?
The championship courses of GB&I are relatively far and few between.
That they weren't mass produced is of no consequence and in no way diminishes their penal nature, which remains today.
There are a great many more well designed courses which were never intended to challenge the best and continue to fall far short of that goal.
Could you name 10 ?
Thousands of visitors and members enjoy these courses for what they are and I would say part of that enjoyment is that they are NOT championship tests.
Which of these courses enjoy thousands of visitors and are well known to the golfing world outside of GB&I ?
In general, the more a course is designed for championships, the less strategic and more obvious it is.
Pine Valley, NGLA and Hollywood not strategic ? Obvious ?
How many times have you played these courses
You continue to focus on the very best players and the and how they are challenged whereas I am much concerned and interested in the handicap player and how to satisfy their needs.
Obviously, you're reading comprehension needs improvement. I never focused on the best players and ignored the remainder.
What I focused on is in fact the requirements for appealing to and at the same time challenging the broad spectrum of golfers, not a single faction.
You can't focus on one group as you want to do, and ignore the other groups.
Please go back and reread my posts.
-
Patrick
I don't care to re-read your posts. I got the gist the first time round. If you choose not to regard Oakland Hills as on the more penal end of the strategic continuum then lord help us if you ever get to design a course. RTJ added fairway bunkering, significantly to both sides of landing zones, added trees and bunkering near greens. The net effect was a move toward the penal end of the continuum. The course played totally differently for the '51 Open than the previous Open at Oakland Hills and the 287 total score for Hogan reflected those changes - still one of the highest winning scores in the past 75 years. Its a great pity because a friendly restoration would see the re-emergence of a great course, but not a championship course.
Well known and respected courses which are not championship courses.
St Enodoc
Enniscrone
Woking
Rye
Addington
Pennard
Tenby
Broa
Carne
Machrihanish
Dunbar
New Zealand
Swinley Forest
There are plenty more, but I thought I would accommodate your qualifier which I never mentioned for this brief list.
Ciao
-
Patrick
I don't care to re-read your posts. I got the gist the first time round.
Obviously you didn't.
But, I can understand your reluctance to reread my posts as that would be tantamount to an admission of misunderstanding on your part.
If you choose not to regard Oakland Hills as on the more penal end of the strategic continuum then lord help us if you ever get to design a course.
That wasn't the issue. You stated that Oakland Hills was the fruition of the penal design which started earlier.
Some would say that Pete Dye with his PGA West, TPC Ponte Vedre, Crooked Stick and Hilton Head had significant elements of the penal school, indicating that Oakland Hills did NOT represent the fruition of penal design.
I then asked you to list how RTJ managed to convert Oakland Hills to the "fruition" of penal design.
As to my design capabilities, on the infinitesimal amount I've done, the results were pretty good.
RTJ added fairway bunkering, significantly to both sides of landing zones,
On what holes ?
Photos subsequent to 1951 don't seem to confirm your claim that he added fairway bunkering, "significantly to both sides of the LZ.
added trees
Again, photos subsequent to 1951, some as late as 1964 when the trees would have matured, don't confirm that claim.
and bunkering near greens.
Which greens ?
The net effect was a move toward the penal end of the continuum.
Are you sure that added length wasn't a primary factor contributing to the difficulty of the design ?
The course played totally differently for the '51 Open than the previous Open at Oakland Hills and the 287 total score for Hogan reflected those changes - still one of the highest winning scores in the past 75 years.
Wasn't the previous Open in 1937 ?
Its a great pity because a friendly restoration would see the re-emergence of a great course, but not a championship course.
By "restoration" are you advocating a return to the course as it existed and played in 1918 ?
I'm not a fan of a great number of changes made to courses in order to accomodate the games of the PGA Tour Pro, but, elasticity has been and continues to be a critical design element. I know 58 year old amateurs with septuple by-passes that can hit the ball 300 on the carry.
And, he's an 8 handicap.
You can't keep your head in the sand and ignore the realities of how the game is played today.
I also know 17 year old high school kids who fly it 300 yards.
The game has been ALLOWED to change, vis a vis equipment, and courses must retain the intended challenge presented by the architecture.
Thus, architects must design for a far broader spectrum of golfer, and not the game of a narrow band of players.
Well known and respected courses which are not championship courses.
St Enodoc
Enniscrone
Woking
Rye
Addington
Pennard
Tenby
Broa
Carne
Machrihanish
Dunbar
New Zealand
Swinley Forest
There are plenty more, but I thought I would accommodate your qualifier which I never mentioned for this brief list.
They may be well known to the locals/regionals, but, I can assure you that 90 % to 98 % of the golfers in the U.S. never heard of them, and 99+ % of the golfers in the U.S. couldn't pinpoint them on a map.
Golfers alien to GB&I have heard of the Open rota courses and are anxious to play them.
If I asked 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 golfers in the US to name the top 5 or 10 courses they'd like to play in GB&I, not one of the ones you listed would make up .1 %, or be named at all.
You're living in a fantasy world on this issue.
-
Tom D - I know you meant what you just wrote, but I genuinely don't understand it. Where does the "subtle strategy" lie in the hole that Neill posted? As W&S themselves note, "a good player who wants to make his second shot easier must take an initial risk with his tee shot" [i.e. landing it on the extreme right edge of the fairway]. But the reason the good player needs to do this is crystal clear, isn't it? Even for the golfer playing the hole for the first time it was crystal clear, no? 80 years ago he would've stood on the tee, seen the massive green-side bunker on the left and the opening to the right of it, and immediately realized that he needed to play to the extreme right-side of the fairway in order to have a clearer shot (and a chance at the run-up shot that was probably required back then) to the green. The playing of the hole seems obvious enough to me. What's more interesting -- and subtle -- is how you (in your instruction to Eric Iverson) have to think about constructing that golf hole.
Peter:
Sorry to be late to get back to you, I just spent 12 hours plus working on some subtle strategy of my own.
What is subtle to me in the Simpson sketch is just exactly what Bill M. disliked about the hole ... that there is no fairway bunker to give you a clue of where to go. Without a bunker, most people are going to play the shortest route to the hole, or the center of the fairway, but they are almost never going to think of playing to the outside of the dogleg, so that they can attack the slope in front of the green at a better angle. And I think the bunker at the right of the green is a good one, because shots from the middle or left will be carried toward that bunker if they are pushed a bit to the right.
Plus, Bill M. assumes that being in the rough to the right is no big deal, but it might well be a big deal ... or at least it was back in those days. They didn't manicure the roughs much, and trying to hit a long club out of the rough was always going to be an iffy proposition.
-
Patrick
I don't care to re-read your posts. I got the gist the first time round.
Obviously you didn't.
But, I can understand your reluctance to reread my posts as that would be tantamount to an admission of misunderstanding on your part.
If you choose not to regard Oakland Hills as on the more penal end of the strategic continuum then lord help us if you ever get to design a course.
That wasn't the issue. You stated that Oakland Hills was the fruition of the penal design which started earlier.
Some would say that Pete Dye with his PGA West, TPC Ponte Vedre, Crooked Stick and Hilton Head had significant elements of the penal school, indicating that Oakland Hills did NOT represent the fruition of penal design.
I then asked you to list how RTJ managed to convert Oakland Hills to the "fruition" of penal design.
As to my design capabilities, on the infinitesimal amount I've done, the results were pretty good.
RTJ added fairway bunkering, significantly to both sides of landing zones,
On what holes ?
Photos subsequent to 1951 don't seem to confirm your claim that he added fairway bunkering, "significantly to both sides of the LZ.
added trees
Again, photos subsequent to 1951, some as late as 1964 when the trees would have matured, don't confirm that claim.
and bunkering near greens.
Which greens ?
The net effect was a move toward the penal end of the continuum.
Are you sure that added length wasn't a primary factor contributing to the difficulty of the design ?
The course played totally differently for the '51 Open than the previous Open at Oakland Hills and the 287 total score for Hogan reflected those changes - still one of the highest winning scores in the past 75 years.
Wasn't the previous Open in 1937 ?
Its a great pity because a friendly restoration would see the re-emergence of a great course, but not a championship course.
By "restoration" are you advocating a return to the course as it existed and played in 1918 ?
I'm not a fan of a great number of changes made to courses in order to accomodate the games of the PGA Tour Pro, but, elasticity has been and continues to be a critical design element. I know 58 year old amateurs with septuple by-passes that can hit the ball 300 on the carry.
And, he's an 8 handicap.
You can't keep your head in the sand and ignore the realities of how the game is played today.
I also know 17 year old high school kids who fly it 300 yards.
The game has been ALLOWED to change, vis a vis equipment, and courses must retain the intended challenge presented by the architecture.
Thus, architects must design for a far broader spectrum of golfer, and not the game of a narrow band of players.
Well known and respected courses which are not championship courses.
St Enodoc
Enniscrone
Woking
Rye
Addington
Pennard
Tenby
Broa
Carne
Machrihanish
Dunbar
New Zealand
Swinley Forest
There are plenty more, but I thought I would accommodate your qualifier which I never mentioned for this brief list.
They may be well known to the locals/regionals, but, I can assure you that 90 % to 98 % of the golfers in the U.S. never heard of them, and 99+ % of the golfers in the U.S. couldn't pinpoint them on a map.
Golfers alien to GB&I have heard of the Open rota courses and are anxious to play them.
If I asked 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 golfers in the US to name the top 5 or 10 courses they'd like to play in GB&I, not one of the ones you listed would make up .1 %, or be named at all.
You're living in a fantasy world on this issue.
Patrick
Do your own legwork on Oakland Hills. I know how the course evolved and I guarantee that Ross didn't envision what is there today. Those radical changes started with RTJ for the '51 Open. It isn't a matter for debate.
While I never stated that there are countless wonderful non-championship courses in GB&I that Americans know of, I think for the type of golfers who actually travel overseas to play golf, my list is of courses is well known. That said, whether or not Americans know of what is probably a list of at least 200 non-championship courses which are joy to play has no bearing on my original comments nor on the fact they do exist.
Most of my conversations with you bear no fruit. Therefore, I shall take this opportunity to to disengage.
Ciao
-
"Tom D - I know you meant what you just wrote, but I genuinely don't understand it. Where does the "subtle strategy" lie in the hole that Neill posted? As W&S themselves note, "a good player who wants to make his second shot easier must take an initial risk with his tee shot" [i.e. landing it on the extreme right edge of the fairway]. But the reason the good player needs to do this is crystal clear, isn't it? Even for the golfer playing the hole for the first time it was crystal clear, no? 80 years ago he would've stood on the tee, seen the massive green-side bunker on the left and the opening to the right of it, and immediately realized that he needed to play to the extreme right-side of the fairway in order to have a clearer shot (and a chance at the run-up shot that was probably required back then) to the green. The playing of the hole seems obvious enough to me."
PeterP:
If the playing of that W-S hole seems obvious to you because you looked to that big left greenside bunker as perhaps most of what dictates the strategy of that hole from tee to green, then good for you. That proves you "get it," that you are reading the architectural strategy of that hole well. Sometimes that's all an architect asks of a golfer on various holes.
This particular hole strategically is a perfect example of what Behr called "indirect tax" architecture or strategy where neither the risk nor the reward comes immediately on the first shot, or tee shot, it comes on the approach shot and how its affected by where the tee shot is. Not all holes need to be this way but this is a perfect example of "indirect tax" architecture.
-
Sean S,
They did hire Ross to redo OH for the '51 Open, and he did do a plan which consisted of adding numerous bunkers in red pencil. He died soon after so they hired Jones. While there are some differences to the plans each drew, Ross did envision the "new OH to be very similar to what RTJ did, if it was to be mostly a tournament course.
-
Jeffrey:
That's very interesting. I've never heard that.
-
Sean S,
They did hire Ross to redo OH for the '51 Open, and he did do a plan which consisted of adding numerous bunkers in red pencil. He died soon after so they hired Jones. While there are some differences to the plans each drew, Ross did envision the "new OH to be very similar to what RTJ did, if it was to be mostly a tournament course.
Jeff
Yes, I know Ross did some plans for OH and that RTJ altered the Ross plan somewhat with his own plan. My comment about Ross not envisioning the course as it turned out refers to two things. First, how those changes led to what we have today - even more penal than in in '51. Second, I don't believe Ross mentioned anything about added trees nor the rough, but I could be wrong as it has been a long time since I was looking into this matter.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I don't recall anything about trees either and the plan really was about bunkering. I have told the story about how I was ashamed to even have briefly walk out of the empty maintenance building with the plans. Not to steal them, but to take them to Kinkos for a large scale color copy and then try to sneak them back in without being detected! But, its been a while since I have seen them, too.
I am curious about how much more penal it is now than '51 in your opinion - my take is that Hills and others merely moved most of the bunkers down the fw to again make them applicable to modern tournament play....
-
They may be well known to the locals/regionals, but, I can assure you that 90 % to 98 % of the golfers in the U.S. never heard of them, and 99+ % of the golfers in the U.S. couldn't pinpoint them on a map.
Golfers alien to GB&I have heard of the Open rota courses and are anxious to play them.
If I asked 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 golfers in the US to name the top 5 or 10 courses they'd like to play in GB&I, not one of the ones you listed would make up .1 %, or be named at all.
You're living in a fantasy world on this issue.
You have excelled yourself here, Pat. Your criteria for well known and respected now becomes "well known and respected in the US". Well, frankly, that's utterly stupid. Whilst many (perhaps all) of the courses Sean mentioned may not be well known, or indeed known, to the majority of US golfers, the same is true of many (indeed the vast majority) of the great US courses not being known by UK golfers. I'd include Pine Valley, Cypress Point, NGLA and almost anywhere else that doesn't host a major. Ask any number of randomly selected UK golfers where in the States they would want to play and you'll get a list of Major championship venues. Hardly surprising, I think.
That doesn't make any of these courses (UK or US) any less relevant for their design intent. The fact is, as Sean pointed out, that the majority of UK courses were not designed with the intent of test ing the best players. What you will find is courses with two or three sets of tees which sensibly test scratch golfers to teen handicappers and which almost anyone can get a ball round. To be honest, ignoring relatively new "Championship" tees, the same could be said of some of the Open venues.
[/quote]
-
" have told the story about how I was ashamed to even have briefly walk out of the empty maintenance building with the plans. Not to steal them, but to take them to Kinkos for a large scale color copy and then try to sneak them back in without being detected!"
Mr. Jeffrey:
Goodness Gracious, GREAT BALLS OF FIRE!!
Even though redemption is a pretty fine thing I am now going to have to label you the "Kinko Oriented Copy Burglar" amongst your other impressive career accomplishments!
-
Your criteria for well known and respected now becomes "well known and respected in the US". Well, frankly, that's utterly stupid. Whilst many (perhaps all) of the courses Sean mentioned may not be well known, or indeed known, to the majority of US golfers, the same is true of many (indeed the vast majority) of the great US courses not being known by UK golfers. I'd include Pine Valley, Cypress Point, NGLA and almost anywhere else that doesn't host a major. Ask any number of randomly selected UK golfers where in the States they would want to play and you'll get a list of Major championship venues.
Ask many a UK golfer the courses they know in the States and you will get Augusta National and Myrtle Beach... Many UK golfers go to The States for the sun first and quality golf second... The more educated will know of Pine Valley and Cypress Point... Hardly anyone (and I really mean almost no-one) will have ever heard of NGLA...
-
"Hardly anyone (and I really mean almost no-one) will have ever heard of NGLA..."
Ally:
Then why is it that every American golfer has heard of Shibboleth on Solway GC, and Burnham and Barroom GC and Whiffensnoofer on the Mersey GC over there?
-
They may be well known to the locals/regionals, but, I can assure you that 90 % to 98 % of the golfers in the U.S. never heard of them, and 99+ % of the golfers in the U.S. couldn't pinpoint them on a map.
Golfers alien to GB&I have heard of the Open rota courses and are anxious to play them.
If I asked 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 golfers in the US to name the top 5 or 10 courses they'd like to play in GB&I, not one of the ones you listed would make up .1 %, or be named at all.
You're living in a fantasy world on this issue.
You have excelled yourself here, Pat.
Your criteria for well known and respected now becomes "well known and respected in the US".
That wasn't my criterion, that was my qualifying statement and response to Sean's reference to thousands of GUESTS.
Well, frankly, that's utterly stupid.
No it's not.
What's stupid is your reading comprehension skills, or rather, the lack of them.
Whilst many (perhaps all) of the courses Sean mentioned may not be well known, or indeed known, to the majority of US golfers, the same is true of many (indeed the vast majority) of the great US courses not being known by UK golfers.
That's NOT the issue.
It was never the issue.
Equivalency has nothing to do with Seans and my discussion
I'd include Pine Valley, Cypress Point, NGLA and almost anywhere else that doesn't host a major.
Ask any number of randomly selected UK golfers where in the States they would want to play and you'll get a list of Major championship venues.
That's precisely my point.
Haven't you been reading these posts ?
Hardly surprising, I think.
That doesn't make any of these courses (UK or US) any less relevant for their design intent.
That wasn't the issue.
Please enroll in a refresher course in reading comprehension.
The fact is, as Sean pointed out, that the majority of UK courses were not designed with the intent of test ing the best players.
That too, was never the issue
What you will find is courses with two or three sets of tees which sensibly test scratch golfers to teen handicappers and which almost anyone can get a ball round.
That's nice, but, NO ONE in the U.S. has heard of them, and Sean was specific in referencing thousands of visitors to these courses.
To be honest, ignoring relatively new "Championship" tees, the same could be said of some of the Open venues.
There's a difference between "ignoring" a tee and being "prohibited" from playing the same tee.
[/quote]
-
Patrick
Do your own legwork on Oakland Hills. I know how the course evolved and I guarantee that Ross didn't envision what is there today. Those radical changes started with RTJ for the '51 Open.
It isn't a matter for debate.
Yes, it is, because I'm challenging the depth of your knowledge concerning those changes.
Changes which had very, very little to do with tree planting as you alleged
In addition, photos taken after the 1951 don't confirm your statement that every fairway had bunkers flanking both sides of the fairway in the DZ.
While I never stated that there are countless wonderful non-championship courses in GB&I that Americans know of, I think for the type of golfers who actually travel overseas to play golf, my list is of courses is well known.
For the "purists" I'd agree, but for the thousands of guests you referenced, I'd disagree
That said, whether or not Americans know of what is probably a list of at least 200 non-championship courses which are joy to play has no bearing on my original comments nor on the fact they do exist.
That wasn't the issue.
If they're not well known outside of the UK, who's going to travel to play them ?
Most of my conversations with you bear no fruit. Therefore, I shall take this opportunity to to disengage.
I understand !
That's your usual response when you can't answer pointed questions that challenge your position.