Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on January 26, 2015, 08:59:58 PM
-
When you look at courses like Pine Valley and NGLA there seems to be a randomness in the hazards that acts to thwart distance.
Be it cross bunkers, doglegs, bunkers or other architectural features.
In the 50's and 60's it seemed like RTJ and even Dick Wilson crafted their designs on a more regimented basis.
Hazards were less random and more fixed in the DZ.
And, like the Maginot Line, those hazard became obsolete when metal woods and the ball created a quantum leap in distance.
Yet, features like the cross bunkering on # 5 at NGLA and # 7 at PV thwarted distance.
The random nature of the bunkers at NGLA, which to some appeared irrelevant and out of play, suddenly took on added significance as distance off the tee increased.
In some cases, at both courses, increased distance became an impediment to scoring, such as on # 3 at NGLA and # 1 at PV.
I won't use the term "formulaic" for design in the 50's and 60's, rather the term "predictable"
There seems to be a better understanding of "randomness" with regard to hazards today, and that understanding seems to have a purpose.
Has architecture returned to it's roots, back toward "randomness" ?
-
Pat,
Could you explain a bit more about how increased distance can impede scoring at NGLA 3?
-
Pat,
Could you explain a bit more about how increased distance can impede scoring at NGLA 3?
Keith,
Hazards that previously didn't come into play, came into play with increased distance.
Some examples are:
The knee high rough and bunker on the steep hill through the fairway at # 3.
The cross bunker on # 5.
The Principal's nose bunker on # 8
The cross bunker on # 9
The berm on # 11
The water and pit bunkers on # 14.
The Bunker/Mound on # 17
The Fairway bunker in # 18 fairway
-
Pat,
I can't help but wonder if the escalating costs, then and now, of construction, materials, maintenance, etc. contributed to the more calculated placement of features. Nowadays, the random features seem to be limited to the best sites and the best architects, generally speaking. In thinking of bunkers, the added cost of the specialty sand alone is a huge factor as to whether a bunker should or shouldn't exist.
Joe
-
Pat,
Could you explain a bit more about how increased distance can impede scoring at NGLA 3?
Keith,
Hazards that previously didn't come into play, came into play with increased distance.
Some examples are:
The knee high rough and bunker on the steep hill through the fairway at # 3.
The cross bunker on # 5.
The Principal's nose bunker on # 8
The cross bunker on # 9
The berm on # 11
The water and pit bunkers on # 14.
The Bunker/Mound on # 17
The Fairway bunker in # 18 fairway
Thanks. I guess if you hit it really long on 3, you could go right, but the overall benefit of enhanced distance would be ending up in the same spot but being able to hit 3 wood to get there?
-
Pat, is DZ the same as OLZ (Optimum Landing Zone)? Sure, all the evidence points to DZs or the zone where the golfer hits a Driver are further from the tee, thus the potential to bring new hazards into play that may not have previously been in the DZ. OLZs on the other hand don't move, the club required to reach the OLZ may have changed.
I do notice on many newer courses the OLZ varies more greatly than on courses from 50s & 60s.
-
Pat, also the cross bunker on #15
-
Patrick:
I agree with your premise. The best evidence is a quote from Jack Nicklaus about having to go back and update his courses from 20 years ago because the fairway bunkers were "obsolete". That's what happens when you put them at the "right" distance for a particular day.
Mark Pavy:
Most top golfers today think your Optimum Landing Zone is as far out there as they can hit the driver. Not one of them thinks like Hogan.
-
Wasn't there talk of "scientific design" a century ago? Didn't this mean measuring shots and distance, and bunkering accordingly? Putting doglegs at specific distances, etc.?
And, I believe RTJ went out to measure tee shot distances before modifying Oakland Hills, not put bunkers out and then forced players to hit that far.....in short, I have always thought design was reactive to play and have never given this much thought, thinking more distance was sought after by golfers since about the second tee shot ever, back at TOC.
And, my belief is most architects followed the leader, and when RTJ and DW put bunkers at 250 only, so did they. Just as if CC put more random bunkers now, so will others.
But, didn't the idea of taking out short bunkers, duffers headaches start with Tillie on his Depression Tour, due to cost? And, Mac at ANGC used bunkers sparingly, and only where they would affect good players, and didn't that become the model moving forward for design? Cost influenced, yes, but also the idea that you only challenged the good players with hazards, because the game was hard enough as you topped shots and muffed shots down the fairway?
I do recall one of my first green designs for Killian and Nugent. I always liked the idea of bunkers short of the green, for the framing and balance they gave. (I must have seen those somewhere in the 1965-1977 era to like them) and was told quickly by both boss and green committee chair, that "those bunkers don't come into play." The idea was pretty firmly rooted then. However, more influential architects, like TD and CC, and better economic times slowly reversed that philosophy on higher end courses.
BTW, judging by the number of bunker reduction projects I do, it is still pretty firmly rooted. When money is an object, bunkers get reduced to those strictly "necessary" to attain the challenge of the design.
Just my take, but an interesting conversation starter.
-
BTW, judging by the number of bunker reduction projects I do, it is still pretty firmly rooted. When money is an object, bunkers get reduced to those strictly "necessary" to attain the challenge of the design.
Jeff:
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for putting in 200 bunkers so some will always be relevant. But if you only put them in for "good" players, and good players start hitting the ball 25 yards farther, then you'll have zero relevant bunkers.
My ideal is to have a few relevant fairway bunkers for each player, whether they carry the ball 160 yards or 300. With a forward tee or two, you can reduce the total number a bit.
-
TD,
Didn't think that. I don't think you over bunker courses.
I guess the relevant architectural questions might be, is it cheaper to build them and wait for them to become relevant? Is a bunker the best and only way to challenge some 320 players when you can narrow fairways, add contours, or whatever.
As for a few shorter bunkers, I agree. One of my favorite stories from the KN days is planning a shorter bunker and hearing an old member question why it is there to punish him. Killian said he paid the same dues as other members and deserved to hit it in a few bunkers as much as the other guys. They bought it!
-
I'm a short hitter who, depending on the situation, may play from what most clubs call the "men's tees" or from what's typically known as the "senior tees". I've noticed that on some courses when I play from the different sets of tees I will find *different* bunkers in play but a similar *number* of shots with a bunker in play. At other courses, there might be fairway bunkers to account for on 15 holes from one set of tees and on virtually no holes on the other.
An idea has been percolating in my mind that there's a valid test in there for how effectively (or at least how well suited to my own preferences) the fairway bunkering on a course might be. A given player could play several times from each of two (or even three) sets of tees and see if there are interesting bunker-related decisions from just one certain set or from all of them.
I'd suggest that in important ways, courses where I have to play one certain set of tees or else I can totally ignore the fairway bunkers are inferior designs to courses where I interact with the bunkering even from 30 yards shorter or 20 yards longer per hole than my "normal" tees.
-
Oh boy , Good one here! . How about equity and fairness getting into the GCA equation. As AP brought golf to the mases , more and more people began to participate that didn't have roots in the game. The influx of these players into the game most likely dumbed down the design techniques of some GCA's , and formulaic design proliferated . Bunkers at 240-260 , doglegs at predetermined distances and so on and so on .
The origins of five different tee boxes ( ugh) no doubt were birthed due to,this same thought process, the more I see formulaic design , the more I love quirk !
-
Pat,
Excellent premises and I have no doubt that the designs of the 50s and 60s not only played into the hands - but sped that up. I don't know if it's "formulaic" "predictable" or "penal" but I think these two pictures show exactly what you're talking about.
Here is an example of why distance is the only skill needed:
(http://img1.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/1788/media/images/Firestone_Country_Club_-_South_383442.jpg)
Drive it past the bunkers and you have no need for strategy or even accuracy
And I know you didn't mention the 17th at NGLA, but this is the example I thought of (from Ran's tour). Distance is not needed as much as a thoughtful approach and execution.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000596.jpg)
-
Pat - very good question/insight. I've been thinking about it, and while my thoughts are not directly related to your question they may be relevant nonetheless.
I'd put your question the other way around, i.e. did the distance issue play into the hands of modern design?
But that I mean: the courses you mention (and others like them) were the product -- and the playground -- of a select class of well- travelled, well-educated, golf-loving men who had the means and the opportunity and the time to not only discover what they liked and thought best about golf course architecture but also to make it manifest (in the ground first, as designers, and then as players and supporters via club membership).
Which is to say, even if distance was not a key issue back then (or as key as it would later become), this class of golf afficiandos were well aware (and appreciative) of the value of cross bunkers and doglegs and 'random' architectural features, and would have been aware regardless of technological factors.
By the time we got to the 1950s, architects I think could use the 'distance issue' as a pretext for modern designs, but those designs were changing anyway primarily because the days of the small and select group of wealthy afficiandos of the 1910s and 20s were giving way to millions of average joes just taking up the game and not having the time (or perhaps interst) to learn about all the great features of classic golden age designs (like the ones you mention); and so a professional architect like RTJ was going to design, in large part, for THEM and not for that previous class. It was the 'masses' that now represented the money.
Coincidentally, I think the reason those classic features are now again coming to the fore is that we now HAVE developed not the same class but a similar class of select (and knowledgable) golfers -- at least in sufficient numbers to make places like Bandon a success. The economic landscape has changed again, and the 'target' audience for great modern designs once again has the time and means and opportunity to make architecture-related choices.
Peter
-
Not quite relevant, but something I wanted to bring up and maybe more related here than a separate topic.
I recalled a Lee Trevino comment that instead of max distance, the course ought to be designed where there are best tee shots at 220, 240, 260, 280, etc. so tee shots are a mix of distance and distance control. Sounded interesting enough to me, and on three occasions, have designed holes with pond or tree front left of green, to make the right side desirable, and then placed bunkers at 300 to limit drive, and 255 (all back tee measurements) to require carry and some distance control.
One was at Sand Creek Station, which has hosted some tourneys, including last years Publinx. Feedback was to get rid of the short bunker. Players understand laying up for position, but don't get laying up and carrying for distance control. No one liked it, apparently. And, more comments said that with two bunkers right, it was a better play to steer well left on the tee shot to avoid trouble, even with a pond carry on the second, especially since that risk was taken with a mid iron (maybe more, as this 465 hole plays into the wind)
Still the point is, its better to take risks on the second shot than the tee shot. I have heard that a lot from good players, and wonder if the GA theories ever worked, and/or if the distance gains simply nullify them if they ever did. I can see the point of the better player.
And, for cost reasons, subtly, etc. I can see more contour from 280-320 as the prime way to challenge them, over the more visible fw bunkers.
-
And, for cost reasons, subtly, etc. I can see more contour from 280-320 as the prime way to challenge them, over the more visible fw bunkers.
I think the good/bad player disparity of penal-ness is even greater in a fairway bunker than a greenside bunker. Unless you've got really deep bunkers,they're no hazard at all to a good player.
Are many clubs removing fairway bunkers completely or just moving them into the new LZ's?
-
Not quite relevant, but something I wanted to bring up and maybe more related here than a separate topic.
I recalled a Lee Trevino comment that instead of max distance, the course ought to be designed where there are best tee shots at 220, 240, 260, 280, etc. so tee shots are a mix of distance and distance control. Sounded interesting enough to me, and on three occasions, have designed holes with pond or tree front left of green, to make the right side desirable, and then placed bunkers at 300 to limit drive, and 255 (all back tee measurements) to require carry and some distance control.
One was at Sand Creek Station, which has hosted some tourneys, including last years Publinx. Feedback was to get rid of the short bunker. Players understand laying up for position, but don't get laying up and carrying for distance control. No one liked it, apparently. And, more comments said that with two bunkers right, it was a better play to steer well left on the tee shot to avoid trouble, even with a pond carry on the second, especially since that risk was taken with a mid iron (maybe more, as this 465 hole plays into the wind)
Jeff:
I've had the same experience. There is a hole at Crystal Downs where a full driver generally leaves you with a hanging lie for a short approach, so it's better to lay back off the tee, as Hogan would have. I tried to do a similar hole at High Pointe, and no one ever laid back, and they complained about the awkward second shot, so the owners put in a back tee so if you weren't a long hitter you wouldn't even get to the crest of the hill. :)
-
And, for cost reasons, subtly, etc. I can see more contour from 280-320 as the prime way to challenge them, over the more visible fw bunkers.
I think the good/bad player disparity of penal-ness is even greater in a fairway bunker than a greenside bunker. Unless you've got really deep bunkers,they're no hazard at all to a good player.
Are many clubs removing fairway bunkers completely or just moving them into the new LZ's?
The ones I work with are trying to downsize total bunker area by 15-30% for cost reasons. I am not sure what high end clubs are doing, although I did talk with someone at a JN course who brought him in to move bunkers further out, so where cost is not as critical that mentality may still be in play.
It is interesting, if sometimes depressing work. But, I think the same mentality of the 1930's, 1970's is at work. If a bunker sees not enough or too much "business" it may get removed, especially with the cost to build and maintain bunkers these days.
-
Tom,
That brings into play the reverse of the "short guys deserve bunkers, too." That is, how much effort should go into architecturally punishing the longer and/or better player? Certainly, there are many who feel there are no such measures that should be taken, and that their advantage ought to be rewarded, rather than challenged more to equalize things.......Of course, your situation seems to be of the mentality that the course architecture ought to work around the way he wants to play, rather than adjust their game to the way the course suggests you should play, which most around here would consider dumbing down, mental laziness, or just plain crazy.....
-
;D
PP. we said the same thing,and I agree with you!
-
;D
PP. we said the same thing,and I agree with you!
OMG!!
Sorry, Archie -- usually I read through all the posts on a thread before posting, but this time I saw Pat's original post last night and just hit reply this am. Remarkably, you said in just two 2 sentences what it took my 5 paragraphs to say!
(I bet you learned that at Pine Valley ;D)
-
A further indication of this issue is the manner in which bunker placement plays into course rating. The distance and placement off the tee is part of the evaluation process so that those that are the 'correct " distance from the tee will lead to a higher course rating. I have heard more than one experienced rater comment that an architect knew what he was doing because of the proper placement of fairway bunkers in relation to tees.
-
I recall the tale of a developer flying around Atlanta years ago in a copter dropping paint balloons when he saw a tract of land he liked. That leads to the image of a golf course architect flying over his already routed yet bunkerless course dropping water balloons on a windy days to identify the location of bunkers.
Should golf architecture be more random and less measured?
Bogey
-
:-\
PP , you are the man ! If u knew me better you'd be terrified that we think alike
-
I also think formulaic design leads to the need for multiple tee boxes - which does not work well because groups of people tend to want to play from the same tee boxes. For that reason, I think playing the course from the "wrong" set of tees is a decent way to judge its quality.
-
Interesting that a fair amount of courses are now re installing the bunkers that Tillie removed. Maybe the ODG were right from the beginning?
-
Most top golfers today think your Optimum Landing Zone is as far out there as they can hit the driver. Not one of them thinks like Hogan.
Tom, you know that's not true. I've only played one of your course designs (multiple times with groups), Barnbougle Dunes. All the golfers worked out very quickly not to take driver on 3,4,9 (from the forward tees)12 and 15.
-
Most top golfers today think your Optimum Landing Zone is as far out there as they can hit the driver. Not one of them thinks like Hogan.
Tom, you know that's not true. I've only played one of your course designs (multiple times with groups), Barnbougle Dunes. All the golfers worked out very quickly not to take driver on 3,4,9 (from the forward tees)12 and 15.
Mark:
It's easy to decide against driver if there are multiple bunkers you're scared of, or a sharp dogleg with trouble going through it, or if the hole is short and you want to hit a full pitch for your approach. However, Hogan would lay back to a flatter spot for his second shot even if it meant hitting 4-iron home from there ... the last Tour pro I saw do the same thing was Nick Faldo.
-
Most top golfers today think your Optimum Landing Zone is as far out there as they can hit the driver. Not one of them thinks like Hogan.
Tom, you know that's not true. I've only played one of your course designs (multiple times with groups), Barnbougle Dunes. All the golfers worked out very quickly not to take driver on 3,4,9 (from the forward tees)12 and 15.
Mark:
It's easy to decide against driver if there are multiple bunkers you're scared of, or a sharp dogleg with trouble going through it, or if the hole is short and you want to hit a full pitch for your approach. However, Hogan would lay back to a flatter spot for his second shot even if it meant hitting 4-iron home from there ... the last Tour pro I saw do the same thing was Nick Faldo.
Dave Pelz's data analysis revealed that increased distance is directly proportional to lower scores.
Yes there are other factors to consider, but that was the general conclusion.
-
Most top golfers today think your Optimum Landing Zone is as far out there as they can hit the driver. Not one of them thinks like Hogan.
Tom, you know that's not true. I've only played one of your course designs (multiple times with groups), Barnbougle Dunes. All the golfers worked out very quickly not to take driver on 3,4,9 (from the forward tees)12 and 15.
Mark:
It's easy to decide against driver if there are multiple bunkers you're scared of, or a sharp dogleg with trouble going through it, or if the hole is short and you want to hit a full pitch for your approach. However, Hogan would lay back to a flatter spot for his second shot even if it meant hitting 4-iron home from there ... the last Tour pro I saw do the same thing was Nick Faldo.
Dave Pelz's data analysis revealed that increased distance is directly proportional to lower scores.
Yes there are other factors to consider, but that was the general conclusion.
For pro golfers? Its time to start thinking of golf and design in terms of the handicap pleyer. Referencing what pros do is about as useful as a hole in the head.
Ciao
-
Sean,
As much as we'd like to dismiss them, they will remain an enormous factor as long as the PGA Tour is on TV every week.
-
Sean,
As much as we'd like to dismiss them, they will remain an enormous factor as long as the PGA Tour is on TV every week.
Nor does it make conforming to their game the right thing to do.
Joe
-
Sean,
As much as we'd like to dismiss them, they will remain an enormous factor as long as the PGA Tour is on TV every week.
Nor does it make conforming to their game the right thing to do.
Joe,
But that's what every golfer aspires to, to play like the Pros.
It may not be what we view as good for the game, but, 99.9 % of golfers want to hit it longer.
There's an interesting phenomenon with golf.
If the US Open or the PGA comes to a course, every golfer in the land now wants to play that course.
And, they want to play it from where the PGA Tour Pros play it.
Even Shivas admitted that if he got the chance to play ANGC, that he'd play from the Masters tees, about 7,600 yards.
I know that 7,600 is well beyond my comfort level, but, I understand his desire to play a course he's seen on TV every year for decades.
And, he's subconsciously or even consciously hoping, that he'll hit a shot that's the envy of a PGA Tour Pro.
All of us have that Walter Mitty inside of us when it comes to golf
Golfers are a nutty bunch.
Inherently, we think we're better than we really are.
We try heroic shots, shots far beyond our ability, and every now and then, we pull one off and that fuels our insanity and makes us try even more heroic shots.
-
Saw on Golf Digest Stix (whatever that is, just got an email) that in a field test of 170,000 golfers (or rounds, not sure which), those who shot 75-80 only averaged 235 yards off the tee, and those who shot 85-90 averaged only 196 yards. And the 80 max shooters only hit the green 48% of the time, the 90 shooters 27%. And, I recently learned that the typical (if there is such a thing) woman hits it 150 yards max, but then only 40% of the time.
To be honest, I would associate most 75 shooters with 260 yards, and most 90 shooters with 235. I guess Tee It Forward has the right idea. But those stats show the real distance problem in golf - the guys who pay the bills sure need more of it to cope with today's course length, which is far too influenced by discussions like this one.
I agree with Pat that too many golfers want to play too far back, and that may be even more true when they play a famous course, although I have never been tempted to tackle all 7000+ yards of any course. To me, the back tees are merely a rumor.....
I have always felt that the only issue is to come up with some new term above "championship course" for true tournament courses, and then forget 7000+ tees on all but those 50-200 courses. I say new term, because I don't think existing courses want to get downgraded in terminology to "recreational course" or some such. Maybe we only need to call true championship courses, i.e., one that actually hold a tournament, to Platinum Level Championship Courses, and anything up to 6800 can be called Gold, or some such. That still denotes a proper and good level of challenge.
In any case, its amazing just how much form doesn't follow function in golf course design.
-
I met with a gentlemen, when I first went out on my own, about building a public course for him. His plans, by another architect, were for the typical 7200+ yard layout crammed into a small site. It did not work and even he knew it.
I explained to him that vast majority of his rounds would be played closer to 6000 yards and that the people playing the back tees either don't pay for golf or are going to slow your average round time by half an hour. That his project would be ideal around 6400 where everything fit fine and the landscape wouldn't have to be transformed to make it fit.
He said it all made sense, but he wasn't going to change his plans because he couldn't market a 6400 yard course. Most developers are not golfers and they tend to do what everyone else does to play it safe. The only time a development breaks stride is when the developer understands that a great experience has nothing to do with a total number on a card.
In my experiences, distance has been in reaction to being embarrassed. Architects aren't the ones being embarrassed, its clubs and organizations that feel that way. Perhaps some modern architects have tried to get ahead of the curve, but most react to the pressure coming from the people who employ them.
-
Ian,
It's a sad truth.
For whatever the reason, golfers today, want to claim that they play a devilishlly difficult, long course.
The fact is that they rarely play it, but instead, want to reference it, like the "Red Badge of Courage"
A Difficult course, somewhere along the line, replaced a quality course, and I think TV and the PGA Tour played a major role in that transition.
Jeff,
For whatever the reason, for a period of time, maybe still today, mid to short courses are often looked upon with disdain.
They're looked upon as being too easy.
Easy for whom is the real question.
Certainly not for the members.
The problem is ........................ outsiders or good young golfers who bomb the ball a mile.
Golfers who can ignore all of the architectural features that the members have to deal with.
Enter the distance race and lengthening holes, stage left.
-
When you look at courses like Pine Valley and NGLA there seems to be a randomness in the hazards that acts to thwart distance.
Be it cross bunkers, doglegs, bunkers or other architectural features.
In the 50's and 60's it seemed like RTJ and even Dick Wilson crafted their designs on a more regimented basis.
Hazards were less random and more fixed in the DZ.
And, like the Maginot Line, those hazard became obsolete when metal woods and the ball created a quantum leap in distance.
Yet, features like the cross bunkering on # 5 at NGLA and # 7 at PV thwarted distance.
The random nature of the bunkers at NGLA, which to some appeared irrelevant and out of play, suddenly took on added significance as distance off the tee increased.
In some cases, at both courses, increased distance became an impediment to scoring, such as on # 3 at NGLA and # 1 at PV.
I won't use the term "formulaic" for design in the 50's and 60's, rather the term "predictable"
There seems to be a better understanding of "randomness" with regard to hazards today, and that understanding seems to have a purpose.
Has architecture returned to it's roots, back toward "randomness" ?
There is a better understanding of "randomness" here at GCA and among a small group of architects... that it serves to keep a course interesting for more golfers under changing conditions of equipment and soil/weather conditions, but if you look at what is being built, it's not so prevalent.
Reading an article about Weiskopf's redo of TPC Scottsdale, it was all about a New Maginot Line.
-
There is no point of diminishing returns for being able to hit the ball longer. Not for elite players and not in the long term. That is because every increase in ability to hit the ball longer is answered by a lengthening of the playing field and the moving of tee-shot hazards farther and farther from the back tees.
In a counter-factual reality in which clubs, developers and tournament organizers adopting Sean Arble position of basically responding to longer hitters with the attitude "So what they hit it longer. Let 'em have at it" there would eventually be a point of diminishing (scoring) returns. We see that on so many tournament or major championship venues where the top players are hitting very few drivers, maybe a 3-wood or two and a whole bunch of 3-irons and such off the tee of Par 4 and Par 5 holes. Why do they do this? Because once you can hit an iron 260 yards there is very, very little return on hitting it 330 with a driver.
All that is a very interesting dynamic. But I see no support whatsoever, much less any groundswell of support, for the proposition that a good course ought to just stand pat and let the very best players attempt to 3-iron it into submission if they can. Instead, the social norm is that my course has to be long enough to induce the longest hitters to use driver on every hole and to hit 3-woods into at least one or two of the Par 5's. So I lengthen my course, temporarily keep up my Maginot Line pretensions and a couple decades hence I do it all over again when every college team has a couple of stud players who can hit it 20 yards past where Rory hits it today.