This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who is XXXX?
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2009, 08:30:31 AM »

Yes, that magical "turning point" in the fw has gone from 200 yards in Ross day, to 225, 250 in the RTJ era, and to 266.666 (800 feet for ease of scaling as you note) about 1985 or so.  I heard JN saying he was going to 850 feet (about 283 yards) a decade ago, and now its 900 feet/300 yards.  I briefly used 875 feet, mostly because 293 was the average drive yardage on the PGA Tour for a few years, and because mid tees worked out better for bunkers at the turn points, but then just gave up and jumped on the 300 yard bandwagon.

The truth is, 950 feet/ 317 Yards, 975 feet/325 Yards, or 1000 feet/333 Yards is probably a necessity for any course catering to those Tour players, or even the top 1% of amateur players of that distance.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach


Re: Who is XXXX?
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2009, 11:50:55 AM »
Mr Jeffrey, Sir:

I'm quite disappointed in you for offering up that 266.666 yardage. For God's Sake Man don't just throw around some general numbers like that-----if you're going to use actual yardage at least be EXACT about it.

Personally, I think architects are not doing strategic architecture due service by using raw distance stats. I think they should very much concentrate on "Carry" distance stats to really pull some interesting options out of the hat.


  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who is XXXX?
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2009, 12:03:03 PM »

"Scientific" (or modern) bunkering were bunker schemes and placements that were worked out with the purpose in mind of either challenging or accommodating the expected shot types of various types of golfers throughout the spectrum of ability.

Some architects such as William Flynn even recommended that ideally a course should be put in play for a while before the bunker schemes were worked out simply to test via general play where bunkering should ideally be placed.

Obviously, in an overall sense this kind of thing probably devolves down to the application of mathematics----eg some generally set distances and arrangements for expected shots of different types of player. This is also the way an awful lot of bunker designing is done today.

For instance, it was not that long ago that fairway bunkering for the expert player for a tee shot was in the 267 yard range (which just happened to be 4" on a ruler on a 1 by 200 topo map ;) ). Today most architects have taken that fairway bunker placement for the tee shot of the expert player out to around 300 yards.

Basically, that's "scientific" bunkering.   ;)

I think I get it, but not sure I like it; many holes would have very similar bunkering and it does not take into account prevailing winds or downhill holes.


Re: Who is XXXX?
« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2009, 11:05:26 PM »
"Early 20th Century period. 

According to some no Scottish Import (sounds like crates of Singel Malt) designed Myopia or a few other US courses. These courses being home grown courses plucked out of the minds of those in the golfing know who understood the game better than any early Import (what a word, I can hear them shouting from their graves 'we are not imports or numbers, we are Human Beings from Scottish' - or am I wrong again)."


As usual, I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say or imply there. Would you like to try to clarify or do you think you should just leave it alone?  ;)

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Who is XXXX?
« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2009, 05:46:00 AM »

Tom P

Tom Mac made the statement in his reply#20 “Most of the early American courses were designed by British Imports.”  I believe most of the “British Imports” to be from Scotland, hence my comment ‘Scottish Imports’.

You in a previous post did not attribute Myopia to Campbell but to a home grown American. I spent the rest of the post commenting on being referred to as ‘Imports’ not being the right word for these gifted men and how it also sounded like whiskey exports to America not human beings.

Cannot see it was that difficult to understand unless you are getting paranoid looking for the subliminal anti American message in my every post. If I have something to say about America or an American, rest assured, I will come straight out and say it.

Trust this answers your question and the e-mail you also sent.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who is XXXX?
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2009, 06:27:09 AM »

Were the American courses more in line of accept bunkers as their major hazards omitting most other forms commonly found on GB&I courses of the same period. Buildings, tracks, stonewalls mounds, burns, trees, heather, whins, dry gullies, fences, roads, quarries & pits to name but a few hazards.

I thought that the early American courses relied mainly upon the humble bunker and very little else.   


Our early courses had their fair share of stone walls, ditches, roads and such, but there were fewer examples because there were fewer golf courses. While the game was exploding in the UK in the 1890s, it was just starting in the US and the growth we did have was concentrated in only a few large cities. I would agree with you later on the bunker did become the major tool of the American golf architect, but that movement was strongly influenced by modern British developments, particularly from the heathland around London.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who is XXXX?
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2009, 06:46:27 AM »

What is Scientific bunkering?

Thats a good question. Although you often see the word used in golf architecture back then no one that I'm aware of actually defined precisely what it meant. Back then the word was used often in many different areas and circumstances. Here is the definition of scientific from a 1913 dictionary.

"1. Of or pertaining to science; used in science; as, scientific principles; scientific apparatus; scientific observations.

2. Agreeing with, or depending on, the rules or principles of science; as, a scientific classification; a scientific arrangement of fossils.

3. Having a knowledge of science, or of a science; evincing science or systematic knowledge; as, a scientific chemist; a scientific reasoner; a scientific argument.

Bossuet is as scientific in the structure of his sentences. Lander.

Scientific method, the method employed in exact science and consisting of: (a) Careful and abundant observation and experiment. (b) generalization of the results into formulated Laws" and statements."

I believe the word was used to differentiate the previous less thoughtful methods of design from the modern methods that began to develop with increased study of the art and craft. At the turn of the century you had a number smart men beginning to study, write about and discuss what constituted a well designed hole or golf course, and from that developed some guiding principals. As a result golf architects spent more time thinking about and arranging and orientating golf holes, and features on golf holes, in contrast to the old ways.

In the later years (late teens and twenties) you find it used more often in America to define a bunkering style. And the best I can tell it meant bunkers would come into play on just about every shot, including the greens, which were often very well bunkered, especially on shorter holes or shorter approaches. The American style was a hybrid of strategic and penal, leaning slightly toward the penal.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 06:50:15 AM by Tom MacWood »


An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()