Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Joe Hancock on January 06, 2018, 06:47:05 PM
-
In the Minnesota thread, Tommy Williamson made the comment that, paraphrasing, he was disappointed in the bunkering of a particular course. Taken out of context, I thought “How refreshing! Just as it should be!”. But, I’m sure that what Tommy meant was that either a) the bunker wasn’t aesthetically pleasing, or b) the bunkering wasn’t as strategically placed as he felt it could have been, or c) the bunkers weren’t as well maintained as he thought they should have been.
So here’s the deal, in my mind; We praise sandy sites for the turf and playability that it affords for the great game of golf and the ground game we so enjoy......
So why do we place so much emphasis on bunkering and visible sand? Would we have a different emphasis if we could post videos of golfballs running and bounding along the ground instead of still shots glamourizing the artistic bunkers? Honestly, has sand overtaken our infatuation with water????
In the grand scheme of things, how important is sand to you when evaluating....heck, let’s even say enjoying...a golf course?
I know we’ve hit on this before, but let’s be honest and elevate the element of sand to where it belongs in our assesments......is anyone honest enough to say that exposed sand is more important to them than, say, green surfaces?????
(Insert potentially smiling face here)
-
Not me ... I'm on your side here. The most important parts of the golf course are the closely-mown areas. But, as you imply, they don't photograph well.
-
Joe - I think naturally sandy sites allow architects to better disguise their real intentions for -- and the primary function of -- any given bunker/hazard. That in turn can foster more subtlety in both how a course looks and in how it plays. And golfers like that a lot. But on non-sandy sites, in Michigan or Minnesota or Ontario etc, any sand draws attention to itself, and a feature as specifically sandy as a bunker most of all. In that setting, architects can't hide either their intention or the bunker's main function -- and so for golfers like me or Tommy the issue becomes 'binary' ie a bunker either serves a genuine and interesting strategic function, or it doesn't. It is too much in our faces *not* to focus on it.
But honestly - I think I've probably misunderstood your question...
Peter
-
Joe
I guess sand is only as important as the archie makes it...often times that is quite a bit. Many agree that sand is over-emphasized in design yet we still see plenty of non pro/championship courses with 60-80 bunkers. I can understand this to a degree on sandy sites, but even then it is a catch 22. Often times the soil allows for cheap bunkering and the terrain gives placement opportunities, but the better the terrain the less sand is needed for interest. I think for the most part if an archie can't say what he needs to say with 10-40 bunkers he is talking too much.
Sand more important than short grass? Hell, I don't think sand is more important than humps n' hollows!
Ciao
-
Maybe to paraphrase H.L. Menken - "No one's ever gone broke underestimating the architectural acuity of the American golfer -- especially when they've pretended to over-estimate it!"
And maybe to turn J Hancock's bon-mot on its head - "There *is* money to be made from doing less, and jolly boatloads of it -- but only if you do it on extremely large, sandy sites".
(smiley emoticon here...)
-
Joe,
For me it is the thumping of the turf when the ball strikes its surface, the true essense of firm and fast. Putting from 60 - 90 yards is a glorious thing. Links fairways are conducive to more creative shot making instead of just one way, or the wedge way.
I evaluate the true meaning of sand and its importance in the golf shot as much as what it provides in the design stages.
-
If golf had begun as an inland rather than a coastal (or frozen canal?!) activity would there even be any sand bunkers?
Heck, folks might even have grassed over any visibly sandy areas and chased off the sand scraping sheep etc! And Gene Sarazen wouldn’t have needed to invent the sand-wedge (assuming he did!?).
But sand against a green background does show up well in photographs and on TV, probably even more so when coupled with water and trees.
Atb
-
As I've mentioned before IMHO, if sand were the color of grass there would be way, way less bukers...it's contrat in color that makes us want sand....
-
Not me ... I'm on your side here. The most important parts of the golf course are the closely-mown areas. But, as you imply, they don't photograph well.
They photograph very well. Just not many great photographers out there taking the photos.
-
I’m not sure about the term ‘sand’. I see the instruction articles about hitting behind and under the ball in sand, however on the course that I play most often, ‘sand’ means hard pan clay (& often a cigar butt nearby). Sometimes filled with water or mud. One could not get a backhoe to dig under the ball.
On the other hand, I’ve played courses where one sinks ankle deep in the ‘sand’. Unraked bunkers in such situations often make a decent recovery impossible.
On TV. ‘sand’ is the preferred place to miss, as it is very consistent and always raked perfectly, with slopes smoothed to ensure the ball rolling to a flat area. Pros beg for a wayward shot to end up in sand.
So, what is sand for? A hazard costing a stroke? An photogenic replacement for a run-off area? An alternative surface from which to hit?
(I once had a partner who said that he preferred water hazards to sand bunkers, because he was sure that he could get out of a water hazard in one stroke...)
-
In the Minnesota thread, Tommy Williamson made the comment that, paraphrasing, he was disappointed in the bunkering of a particular course. Taken out of context, I thought “How refreshing! Just as it should be!”. But, I’m sure that what Tommy meant was that either a) the bunker wasn’t aesthetically pleasing, or b) the bunkering wasn’t as strategically placed as he felt it could have been, or c) the bunkers weren’t as well maintained as he thought they should have been.
Normally when discuss bunkers it is where they are sited. In the case of Woodhill if felt they were dumbed down. They were placed ok but were not really penal enough. They appear to have been designed to get the sand pro in and out it the least amount of time. I can't imagine they had been designed like this.
-
To play devils advocate, and not just cause i'm a self proclaimed bunker slut....
In addition to a nice bunker adding to the aesthetic of the hole, it brings some heroic/fun properties to the game. As in carrying a big nasty bunker for a shorter approach. I can't recall playing with anyone who bragged about making a carry over a few rumples in the fairway...
-
I think GCA would be much more interesting if a top goal of the designer was to incorporate natural hazards over imported ones - such as sand traps in non-sandy areas.
GCA already does this (or at least used to) with topography, and to some extent with existing water and trees.
What is stopping a designer from creating its own type of hazard from what nature offers at a given site? If the land is clay, why not a hard-pan waste area instead of imported sand?
Make a hazard that someone has never seen before, and he/she will remember it, and it will be a signature of the course. It also is sustainable (maybe even self sustaining), and inexpensive.
-
Joe, it’s hard to sketch short grass areas. Much easier to appear artistic and creative sketching bunkers
-
Kalen,
What if that rumple just in front of the green was 5 feet tall and very firm? And what if the green was shaped with that rumple as it’s main defense? You know, such that flying it over the bump would result in something not so positive, but the wise player capable of putting/ bumping from the fairway kept it on the ground, resulting in something more favorable? Hypothetical, as that doesn’t really exist much in the USA...but just imagine...
Don,
I’ll bring paper and pencils so we can waste an hour each day trying to doodle/ appear artistic.
-
Kalen,
What if that rumple just in front of the green was 5 feet tall and very firm? And what if the green was shaped with that rumple as it’s main defense? You know, such that flying it over the bump would result in something not so positive, but the wise player capable of putting/ bumping from the fairway kept it on the ground, resulting in something more favorable? Hypothetical, as that doesn’t really exist much in the USA...but just imagine...
Don,
I’ll bring paper and pencils so we can waste an hour each day trying to doodle/ appear artistic.
You mean like the valley of sin? I'm all in favor of more holes with those kinds of features....
But I don't think its the same as carrying a big nasty bunker, at least for the average joe.
-
So why do we place so much emphasis on bunkering and visible sand? Would we have a different emphasis if we could post videos of golfballs running and bounding along the ground instead of still shots glamourizing the artistic bunkers? Honestly, has sand overtaken our infatuation with water????
In the grand scheme of things, how important is sand to you when evaluating....heck, let’s even say enjoying...a golf course?
I know we’ve hit on this before, but let’s be honest and elevate the element of sand to where it belongs in our assesments......is anyone honest enough to say that exposed sand is more important to them than, say, green surfaces?????
Let's talk about honesty first in your last question (I am assuming that you are referring to putting surfaces and not green grass entirely). My first exposure to golf was on rudimentary courses most often replacing former crop land, with few if any sand bunkers, and mostly pushed-up greens. The game drew my attraction purely from an athletic standpoint- hitting the ball in the general direction of the green, then toward the flagstick, and finally into the hole, while keeping track of the number of times I hit the ball. Like baseball or basketball, the two sports I played growing up, I could compete against my buddies. Better yet, if no one wanted to play, I could compete against past rounds. Seldom was the quality of the course a consideration; price and proximity drove the decision.
My real interest in gca was stoked when I went to Ohio State and got to experience a real championship course which incorporated all of the important major design features without being dependent on one particular type. Scarlet was not extensively bunkered, but all of them were of consequence. Given the choice of playing a course with heavily undulating green complexes but few bunkers and one that is well-bunkered with flatter greens (say Bethpage- Black), I hold the latter in much higher esteem.
Golf is a game with a very strong tradition. Macdonald, Wilson, Doak and others didn't seek guidance and inspiration by visiting areas with heavy soils for good reasons. Perhaps if we were weaned on the courses I first experienced and didn't have television, we may look more kindly on the design and presentation being suggested. I do think that the game would be much less interesting and compelling.
Most activists appear to have one thing in common, a driving desire to move populations away from their preferences toward their own. I can understand appealing to economy through better positioning, design and construction of the major design features, but I don't think it is useful to suggest that sand bunkers don't belong in regions not blessed with sandy soils. Perhaps this ideal appeals to some here, and it would be interesting to see its proponents actualize this philosophy.
If economy is paramount, our north Texas cotton soils and relatively flat terrain are only suitable to the type of architecture suggested here. Indeed, the father of TX gca, Ralph Plummer, was extremely frugal and typically bunkered his courses sparingly. Nearly all of his courses have had extensive renovation to remain relevant.
My home course has 63 bunkers pretty evenly split between fairways and greens. Even in Texas, golfers want a good variety of hazards. I suspect that Yeamans 80+ bunkers are important to its members, and though the soil may be more conducive to building and maintaining them, why would someone suggest that they might be less valued here?
-
Lou,
Two thoughts. One, you calling Joe an activist is funny. If he’s an activist you’re a grumpy guy yelling at kids to stay off your grass ;D
Two, what if those early courses hadn’t been so rudimentary? What if instead of featureless courses with simple push up greens, they’d been designed with clever use of short grass contour that added interest and challenge?
I don’t think just because one goes from lousy golf courses to a good one that the discussion stops. Maybe you’ve found the holy grail. For some of us in golf that watch the participation drop and the costs rise, we are not yet ready to concede that the game only belongs to the well healed. Maybe we want to hold on to the notion that a kid can grow up on an inexpensive course that is well designed, without the use of the same old expensive props. If that makes me an activist too, well then I’ll march with Joe.
-
There's a terrific little scene in the 1959 version of "Ben Hur":
A powerful Roman Senator (a friend of the Roman Centurion Quintus Arrius, who then-slave Ben Hur had saved from drowning) is trying to convince him to enjoy his new-found freedom and privileges instead of stirring up trouble and revolt in Rome-controlled Judea, where he has become popular & influential among his people. He concludes his appeal with hard-nosed realism:
"A grown man knows the world in which he lives. At present, that world is Rome!"
Don, Joe. et al. -- may good fortune be with you! As mature professionals you know very well the world in which you live; at present, that world is ruled by sand! That's why we have to speak in code, like members of some resistance movement. The Emperor has cast a wide net, and has many who will come to his defense....
-
Lou,
I appreciate the time you took to pen that. I respect you, have ever since we spent time in Aiken.
I am not wise enough to know if you turned the question around on me, making it look as if I’m pushing an agenda. If so, that isn’t really correct. Yes, I have preferences like anyone else, but I was asking questions that I was hoping posters would honestly answer....how important is sand to your enjoyment of the game? And if you appreciate the sandy soil under a golf course more in its exposed form( bunkers, waste areas, etc.) rather than turfed.....why? I often question convention....I do it all the time when analyzing our drainage methods, greens construction specs, etc. The fact of the matter is the golf construction and design industry doesn’t always make sense, if you can believe it.
If asking questions in an attempt to foster frank commentary makes me an activist(I don’t think you were labeling me as such), then I suppose I will gladly wear the badge. I know I will not learn anything if I don’t ask questions.
-
8) Hi, my name is steve, and i play golf,... I've played golf a long time, almost entirely without adult supervision, and Sand is my friend...
I like to engage with Sand, but sometimes he makes me uneasy, though I don't hold it against him, he's just always there, so I just play away, if I miss him, I know we'll meet again.
Simple
-
Moderation my friend....
-
A certain irony that a thread about golf and sand is followed in the Discussion Board by posts about golf in Abu Dhabi and Dubai - per replies 556, 557, 558 and 561 - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51966.msg1560716.html#new
atb
-
Not me ... I'm on your side here. The most important parts of the golf course are the closely-mown areas. But, as you imply, they don't photograph well.
It's not just the photographs. Having a course that relies on thoughtful greens also asks the golfer to take notice. Unless one is fortunate enough to play the course on a regular basis, I'm not sure most do.
Thoughtful green complexes require the golfer to assess and notice and evaluate, not just the results, but what future plays may suggest. Bunkers are far more obvious in their questions and answers.
My own home course has rather pitiful bunkering. I don't think there are more than a couple I think about on any given round. But there are many greens that affect how I play a hole, each and every round. Perhaps if the bunkers were better, I'd be more observant, but by and large, it's the greens that determine my decisions. But I also think a lot of that is that this course is the one course I've played 50+ times. And for people who play regularly, I'd guess it's even more so.
Black and white architecture < grayscale architecture < full color architecture. Bunkers are mostly black and white, occasionally tilting into grayscale, but green complexes are grayscale at a minimum (unless painfully boring) and have the opportunity to be full blown technicolor.
My apologies to those who view this as beard pulling... :) I think it's important, but what do I know?
-
Lou,
Two thoughts. One, you calling Joe an activist is funny. If he’s an activist you’re a grumpy guy yelling at kids to stay off your grass ;D
Two, what if those early courses hadn’t been so rudimentary? What if instead of featureless courses with simple push up greens, they’d been designed with clever use of short grass contour that added interest and challenge?
I don’t think just because one goes from lousy golf courses to a good one that the discussion stops. Maybe you’ve found the holy grail. For some of us in golf that watch the participation drop and the costs rise, we are not yet ready to concede that the game only belongs to the well healed. Maybe we want to hold on to the notion that a kid can grow up on an inexpensive course that is well designed, without the use of the same old expensive props. If that makes me an activist too, well then I’ll march with Joe.
Don and Joe,
First of all, if I was going to get into the golf business, I would want your clones with me. I am a big fan of the UK model and feel more at ease when my capital and operating structures can withstand the inevitable swings in the economies of most social democracies. Controlling costs is just one part of it.
At least as important, especially in a low-growth or flat environment, is the ability to attract enough customers who are willing to pay more than it costs to provide those rounds. I happen to believe that golf is a big world, and though a course cannot be all things to all people, most need to attract a wide variety of customers to succeed.
Whether you gents have an agenda or not- Tom Doak states that he is on your side, whatever that implies- this thread seems to advance a position (closely-mown surfaces as a superior feature to exposed sand in areas lacking sandy soil) in addition to asking questions. Whether you are "activists" in promoting this preference, only you can answer.
As I replied, golf is about tradition and sand bunkers have been an integral part since day 1. Yes, I like sand bunkers of all types in proper scale to the site. My bias is to give the nod to courses that are well-bunkered over those which are not (holding everything else equal, of course).
From the standpoint of the "retail golfer", I think the condition of the greens is most important, followed by turf quality and attractive bunkering. GCA.com clever design features probably rate somewhere, most likely at the subconscious level. I look forward to the opening of The Buck Club, a noble experiment which might shed some light on the efficacy of the design virtues we extol on this site in the marketplace.
As to being grumpy, I have had that proclivity for many years about serious matters. This is not one. And the only time I feel like yelling at someone walking in my yard is when that person doesn't clean up after his dog. The equivalent on the golf course is the guy who doesn't rake the bunker after a shot or fixes ball marks. I have found that it is easier and safer to bite my tongue and tidy things up myself.
-
My experience with pitiful bunkering is the same as George's, but I draw a different conclusion.
The trouble with most bunkers (and sandy vistas) is that they are *not* black and white; in fact they're not even on the greyscale, but more like beige (in colour and interest both).
In my experience, 'carry bunkers' are are almost always much too easily carried, offering neither significant risk nor satisfying reward; and, like their corresponding green-side brethren, are usually so shallow that -- compared to alternatives like tightly mowed hollows and humps or old fashioned rough -- they exact on even just average golfers like me not a 'full shot' penalty nor even a half-shot, but some nuanced little quarter shot based on sometimes leaving us a slightly longer par putt than we might otherwise have. In this context, I'd take black & white instead, in a heartbeat.
In short: my honest answer to Joe's question is that, in the hands of most architects, they are not worth either the trouble or the expense, and long ago became merely crutches for them to use so as to avoid overt criticism.
Eye candy at its worst -- actually no, worse than that, since their long term & ubiquitous use has also spawned this current trend in vast vistas/blowouts of sand, to my eyes a kind of meta-level acknowledgment on the part of some architects that one might as well offer the prettiest and most unnecessary eye candy possible, and then double-down further by providing an even more excessive amount of it.
IMHO
-
Pietro
To be fair, most "blowout" bunkers are on sandy sites. On some level, because the cost is far cheaper, I don't see this as such a big issue on sandy sites. What are the alternatives? The main alternative is rough. In many cases harsh rough, lost ball rough. If a blowout waste bunker can be built instead it might prove to be a more useful feature. At least the ball can be found and played. There are a few such areas on my home course which have been recently cleared to reveal the sandy soil. Because nothing was done to keep the vegetation out rough is taking over again. It looks awful and is unplayable. It isn't as if these are in our face areas of play, but balls do make it this now and again because these fairways are narrow. Anyway, I am all in favour of creating huge bunkers for these two areas...it will never happen though. Rough will grow and in a few years it will be cleared again...seems stupid to me.
Ciao
-
Sean, I appreciate your fair mindedness, and it's important to be fair, and despite my occasional bit of bombast I am trying to be. It just seems to me that, except on actual sand dunes, as one might find in the Sahara Desert, sandy soils just about everywhere will be naturally covered with some kind of scrub and wild-grasses and other kinds of vegetation. Now, if the fairways - i.e. the areas of maintained and manicured turf - were to be only 30+ yards wide, I would agree that in some cases going to the time and effort to 'de-naturalize' these areas and create vast sand blowouts during construction and then to continually maintain them afterwards - against the natural re-encroachment of such wild-grasses and scrub etc - might maybe be worth it. But when the fairway/maintained turf is going to be 50 to 60 yards wide, then for me that 'look' (and all that it requires during construction and afterwards) is completely unrelated to any sane and reasonable sense of playability -- and for that reason alone is unnecessary.
If I miss a 60 yard wide fairway so badly that, even on a treeless site, I might not be able to 'track' and then find my golf ball amidst some scrubby vegetation, it does not seem a harsh penalty at all. It seems like golf.
Peter
-
Pietro
I hear ya, but I ask, where does one draw the line for aesthetics? It sounds like, at least for sand on sandy sites, you draw the line at or near the boundary of wide fairways. Maybe this is a sound approach if there is room for exceptions. Generally speaking, I would prefer archies err on the side of a light touch. What is interesting with this opinion is that I am quite happy to see work done which will generally not effect play, but will improve aesthetics...especially access to interior and exterior views.
Ciao
-
I do wonder what some of the modern era "sand-n-width" courses will be like in a decade or twos time. Will the open sandy areas still be sandy or will there be scrub and trees there? Self seeding, irrigation vapour etc.
atb
-
Having just returned from my first experience with true desert courses in Abu Dhabi and Dubai I'll take sand any day of the week over deep rough. I would think sand blow-out areas are easier to maintain in the desert though I'm certain the wind causes quite a bit of maintenance on the these areas as well in some way or another.
I also really like the look of the Links course with sand blow-out areas and native areas. In fact, that is probably my favorite visual aspect of links golf.
Tom,
if you see this maybe you can further qualify your statement. You say the most important areas are the short grass yes most certainly agree but that almost sounds as if you are suggesting the bunkering and natural blowout areas are then not important. However, they are an integral part of all of your highest rated designs and am I'm of course thinking of Tara Iti, Barnbougle and Pacific Dunes to name a few. Take away the sand and blow-out areas there and as good as the courses are I would argue they would not be as popular or successful.
-
if you see this maybe you can further qualify your statement. You say the most important areas are the short grass yes most certainly agree but that almost sounds as if you are suggesting the bunkering and natural blowout areas are then not important. However, they are an integral part of all of your highest rated designs and am I'm of course thinking of Tara Iti, Barnbougle and Pacific Dunes to name a few. Take away the sand and blow-out areas there and as good as the courses are I would argue they would not be as popular or successful.
David,
Thanks for that. It’s a telling post that hints to the fact that the sand visuals may be as much, or more, for marketing/ customer experience than it is a superior growing medium for the best golf turf. I also read into your post that every architect, when given a sandy site, is going to shoot for the moon on providing the wow factor....I’m sure it would be a struggle not to!
-
I do wonder what some of the modern era "sand-n-width" courses will be like in a decade or twos time. Will the open sandy areas still be sandy or will there be scrub and trees there? Self seeding, irrigation vapour etc.
atb
And here we get to an incredibly valid point. It takes effort to keep a natural blowout once there is managed turf very near to it.
I went out my way to leave the original sand scars at Carne. I'm talking about not touching them at all. But the ones that are next to fairways or greens are now establishing some grass. So the question is, do you leave the grasses that are coming in. Or do you do what is needed to "clean" each blowout?
And that is on completely natural open sand areas. Most golf courses we are talking about have "created" open sand areas.
-
i think we've already established in this group that naturalism is not letting the course do whatever it wants.
It takes hard work, dedication, and a decent budget to prevent the course from being natural...
-
I'd be very interested to know if, given the right site, Tom Doak could be persuaded to build a course without bunkers, using running ground as his main defence. I probably remember old courses through rose tinted glasses but it did seem to me that 40/50/60 years ago the running approach was the go-to shot on most holes on most courses. I don't feel that nowadays. Maybe that's because my golfing days are over.
-
Very interesting topic to me because the evolution of my thinking about sand and bunkering more or less marks my journey in learning about golf architecture. I hesitate to comment because I only have personal experience and no grand wisdom. If anyone cares about my anecdotal journey, and I can’t imagine many do, it goes somewhat along this path: worried about losing mature trees that had a significant strategic role in how our course played, I had an epiphany and wondered what would happen if we replaced all these trees with sand. I knew a little bit about strategic design and proceeded to look at every hole on the course in terms of tree removal and replacing the strategies with a combination of bunkers and sandy waste areas. I didn’t add sand to every hole. In fact, as I sketched out my ideas, I thought I was being very conservative and frugal with the use of sand. However, when satisfied with my efforts, I’d added over 50 sand features.
We’re a sand-based golf course, but our sand is “blow sand,” a very fine sand that has been deposited here by thousands of years of desert winds. An architect called it “silt” because it so fine it compacts into a surface that looks like hard pan and plays like almost nothing else. It is an extremely difficult playing surface for all golfers. As it turned out, my imagined bunkering scheme had a common theme: sand (presumably playable imported sand) was used more often than not as transitions from fairway/rough to native. I didn’t have a plan or goal to do this; it just seemed to my eye that the bunkers should go there to replace trees or add interest to playing the course. This also was about the time I decided I needed to learn much more about gca, bought a bunch of books, joined this site, saw a few courses, etc.
I won’t bore you with the evolution of my thinking about sand and golf design. I imagine mine was fairly typical: the more that I learned, the less I knew for certain, and the more I admired and respected professional golf architects. My amateur bunker doodling also evolved into a full future course master plan, done by pros and based on an optimistic future. Simultaneously, as all of this learning and creative thinking was taking place, the golf business was going rather the opposite direction. Not that great things couldn’t be done—in fact the last 20 years have been sort of a golden age of design—they just haven’t been done by ordinary people for regular golfers.
Put another way, when I look back at my bunker doodles given all I’ve learned since, they are surprisingly good. Clearly, they wouldn’t be built as drawn. Pros would take good ideas and make them much better and get rid of bad ones as a waste of time and money. The primary reason they wouldn’t be built, however, is there is absolutely no way our golfers, the golfers we know and support our course, would pay for the construction and maintenance these new features. My doodles would be very expensive to build and maintain. Does that mean our golfers wouldn’t like them if we built them anyway? No. It just means these golfers can afford or choose to play a much more modest version of the game than the sprawling fields of sand and immaculate turf. No matter how brilliant the design, how much it advances the art, one would simply need to find other, more affluent golfers to pay for most of these brilliant new designs (including well funded developers willing to take bold risks). Don’t know if this is an honest opinion. I feel it is realistic.
-
I probably remember old courses through rose tinted glasses but it did seem to me that 40/50/60 years ago the running approach was the go-to shot on most holes on most courses. I don't feel that nowadays. Maybe that's because my golfing days are over.
My recollection as well. The running shot was usually the first option, fly the shot higher in the air the second.
A pet peeve of mine these days has become links courses with watered approaches, especially with modern grooves. You expect a shot deliberately landed short of a green and a little low in trajectory to land and release. Instead it grips and stops. Arghhhhh!
Atb
-
Edited down - to this!
P
-
Wasn’t Pine Valley much wider 80 years ago, and the rough has been allowed to grow up and into bunkers, with trees too? If PV can’t or won’t manage this maintenance problem than you will or can? Guess they don’t have to -hasn’t hurt the perception of their course, but it could all the lesser ones - I.e. all of them.
-
Just like in the garden or the backyard, best remove any unwanted growth on an ongoing annual basis, when it's very small, or else it'll cost a bunch of £$ and take a long time to do so when it grows into underbrush and trees.
Or you could use (periodically) sheep and goats etc. Mind you quite a few big meat eating species would happily feed off the livestock in many areas of the world....which would still leave the tree and underbrush issue!
atb
-
Not me ... I'm on your side here. The most important parts of the golf course are the closely-mown areas. But, as you imply, they don't photograph well.
They photograph very well. Just not many great photographers out there taking the photos.
Not sure there is a more inspirational time on a course than Morning sunrises and evening sunsets when magical course contours are revealed from a distance with definition....