[ian]

If you care to indulge me, I would like to learn from the group.

I have presented four images produced using photo paint. They have the same technique applied to hopefully hide their origin. One exists today. One has been painstakingly reproduced as close to opening day as I can do. Two are to throw you off. Pick the original and present day if you like; but what I would like you to do is indicate which you like the most and most importantly STATE WHY.

There have been a number of comments concerning a lack of architecture discussion; I would like to start a visually based one (like Tommy used to), I would like to continue to try this technique using other images sent by other members of the group (and on different subjects).

I have not mentioned the course or architect to keep this to a discussion on aesthetics. I'll post that if asked for in a week or so

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ian,
I prefer #4. It has eye-appeal for me as the bunkers to the left and right are not so visually in-your-face. You know they are present but they don't take your mind off the shot at hand.
Number #1 looks lopsided, #2 presents nearly impossible recovery shots from the smallest bunkers, #3 looks too heavy although it and #'s 1 & 4 look more playable than #2.

[Andy Hodson]

Ian

Great exercise!

The first picture got my juices going immediately, and upon examination I think I figured out why. All the bunkers in the left complex, as well as the one on the right, blend in wonderfully with the overall lay of the land. In fact they all look to me as if the are "sliding" or "spilling" down the natural flow of the  topography. The others, while sporting more rugged lines, appear to be banked against the natural fall of the land.

Regardless, all pics present a view that begs to try to hit a wonderful iron shot in.

Keep 'em coming.

[Mark_Fine]

Frankly I'm not sure I really like any of them.  They all look over done and contrived.  That setting to me is calling for something a bit more subtle from a bunkering standpoint!
Mark

[Tom Doak]

Honestly they are all pretty much the same to me.  Same golf hole, all you're asking is whose bunkers are prettier.  (If that's the question I like #3 the least.)

It's a good looking hole but someone should hide the cart path!  Was it there on opening day?

[ian]

Jim and Andy,

Thanks guys, if the rest of the comments are like yours, I'm really going to enjoy this a lot. It only took about an hour to do all four, and the potential is limitless.

Ian

[Dan Kelly]

Give me No. 2 -- which seems to promise the greatest variety of outcomes (the greatest randomness; the highest possibility of good luck and bad luck in the matter of lies and stances).

They appear to be the most hazardous hazards. I like that.

I agree with Tom Doak: No. 3's are the least inspiring.

[andrew roberts]

Thank you Ian

I think #1 is the present day, and I am going to think #4 was the original.
Personally, if #3 is how it appears today, it is not that bad.  Assuming this is a golden age golf course, I believe it is great that the club has at least kept the bunkers.  It is a greater sin to get rid of the bunkers, than to replace them with something more modern.

[ian]

I stuck with the location of the original bunkers, may be I respect the original architect too much? I never thought about moving the bunkering around for this excercise, could for a new one.

Tom, it was not there, and in the future probably won't be either.

Ian

[Steve Lang]

Have I played there before?  Is this the end of a par-5?

On-topic:  I like #4 eye-candy visually, but..

As a player, at first I think I'm more concerned with how the look of the right bunker impacts me. On #1 & #2 they look like snake-eyes, hiding there, it also looks closer and there's even a slight hint of bunkering behind or is that just the cart path?  What happens if i play over the right hazard to stay away from that big gang of bunkers on the left.  On #3 & #4 they look more ominous, to try and push me left, with no bite over them if distance correct??  

Why are those players in that group down left?

As I normally see bunkers, they're typically driving me away from something  beneficial, into something not so..  I wonder about that gang on the left, looks like heck to get out of any of the groupings, though #2's look generally shallower.  

I'll hit a draw to back right center, two putt and get out of town.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Steve,
You may have played here, but it is not a par five.

[Patrick_Mucci]

They all look maintainance intensive.

I hope they don't get much rain.

[Joe Hancock]

OK,

I'll guess #3 is present day, while #4 was the original.

I think the hole would play nearly the same regardless of bunker edge treatment, and I also believe the hole would look better with the 2 trees on the right outta there. While the stump grinder is there, accidently drop it on the cart path in several places so it has to be removed too.

Joe

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Very interesting exercise, Ian.

I like #3 the best.  

#1 seems too repetitive and, frankly, a bit boring.  On the other hand, #2 and #4 are too busy.

#3 is a good compromise.  The bunkers have interesting shapes, flowing yet simple.  Mostly, they are well visible (compare the right bunkers on #3 with the other right bunkers).  The sand flashed up.  They fill the space quite well, without detracting from the overall setting.

If I was to guess, I'd say #1 is the existing bunkers, with #4 being the original.  (I would have said #2 was the original were it not for the difference is style between the right bunker and the left bunkers).

Finally, I agree with Tom Doak and Hancock.  Hide the cart path and remove the two trees on the right.

[A_Clay_Man]

I will stay within my nature and say I like #3. The reason I like it is because the bunkers seem to mimc the saddle shape of the greens and they seems to fit to the area behind the greensite. I could care less about the sliver of cart path.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I'm going to say #1 is original (more understated, under-verticalized bunkering) and #3 is a modern redo (increased visibility and penalness for modern play).  #2 and #4, without more texturing, remind me of a Hurdzan/Fry layout.

[Doug Siebert]

I like #1 the best, but I'd like to see a couple of those filled in, its a bit overdone.

I disagree about removing those trees.  The mounding on the right side would take a low running shot over to that pin position quite nicely, should a player playing for the right side of the fairway to offer a better angle go a bit too far right.  It all depends on the length of the hole as to what yardage the second would play at, but if they got in the way of a lofted shot from the rough and required a runner, the hole sets up perfectly for such a play.  A good hole should offer challenges and opportunities not only after a good tee shot, but also after one that is less than ideal.  A bad hole would just have super thick rough over there to take away any hope of a good recovery.  If there's nothing over to the right to stop it, I might just play for the right side and not care if I go into the right rough, since the approach is a lot better there than where those two guys in the picture are playing from.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

redanman's right.  That whole left side is a mess, regardless of how you try to "edit" it.  Why not just mow it closely kicking all left-leaning balls down the slippery slope to a place from which a REAL recovery shot must be executed.

[A.G._Crockett]

I like #1 the best of these four, but agree with redanman and Rich Goodale that less bunkering on the left, making the green slightly elevated and a missed approach leaving a difficult recovery would be a better hole.
It looks like the fairway slopes to the left.  I'm not sure how much the bunkers on the right would even be in play due to the shape of the hole and the slope of the fairway.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

The left bunkers cover the left third (to half) of the green and serve a very big purpose.

The angle this photo is taken at is not that of the tee shot.

The tee sets up farther to the left and you are forced to carry those bunker (or play the draw around them.)

All this on a green that you CANNOT be above the hole on.

So the bunkers are worthwhile.

As for the trees on the right, they are not in play.

[A_Clay_Man]

If this were a par 5 would'nt everything be in play?

[Mike_Cirba]

First of all, I like the greensite, benched into the hill as it is with a pretty good rise to be negotiated up front.  

I question the need for multiple bunkers on the left, going superfluously well back into or even past the green it seems, as well as the pushed up dirt necessary to give them some uniform structure that "supports" the bunker complex.  

I do like the right hand bunker on the third picture, an it looks a little like something Flynn would build on the high-side entrance.

If I had to choose, I guess I'd pick the third picture, with the caveat that I'd remove at least the two back bunkers on the left.  

But, in a perfect world, the left side would fall off rather sharply (as would seem to fit the terrain without the earthmoving done to "bring up" the bunkers to green level) and bunkering there would be completely unnecessary.

p.s.  Ian - this is a GREAT exercise and I'm happy to see that you've taken the opportunity to bring the discussion back to architectural issues.  Thanks!

[Keith Williams]

Just at a glance, it appears to me that in #'s 3 and 4
the left side bunker complexes seem to stack or be situated
 in just a little too much of a geometric or symmetrical manner; I guess they just appear too "lined up" in terms of visual appearance-almost like stairsteps.  #'s 1 and 2 have the bunkers placed a little more "randomly".  I also like somewhat of a sense of
randomness in the bunker edges, but this can be achieved
by both bunker shape and by shaping of bunker surrounds
to reveal and hide different portions of the sand.  #'s 1 and 2
seem to show and hide flashes of sand from shaping.

Keith.

[Dan Kelly]

OK, so no one else likes No. 2. I don't like 'em much, either. I just like 'em better than the other three choices offered.

It would appear (just guessing here) to require a Bad Mistake to get into one of those left bunkers -- a Bad Mistake being, in my view of the world, properly punishable by a Bad Result.
No. 2's would appear to offer the best chance of Bad Results.

But if our options are greater than 1, 2, 3, and 4: I'm with Prof. Goodale. Mow it. Let the ball bounce away.

Bunkers: Guilty until proven necessary.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Adam,
This is not a par five, but a 219 yard par three.

Ben

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()