News:

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


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2010, 11:55:21 AM »
You find what you're looking for.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Matthew Rose

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #51 on: November 06, 2010, 01:42:36 PM »
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Nicklaus' Renegade Course at Desert Mountain in Scottsdale, AZ:

"...Opened in 1986, ...Golf Digest once called Renegade, "The most versatile course in the world." The 7,443-yard Desert Mountain golf course was carefully designed to let players vary the course's set-up.   Members can choose the degree of difficulty they would like to play. The combination of tee and pin positions offers players of varied skill levels a truly unique test.  The Renegade course features two flags on each hole with some holes having two greens. "

The original nine holes at Thornberry Creek in Green Bay, Wisconsin features a nine-hole, two flag course. I believe that Rick Jacobson (Nicklaus associate) did both courses. Some of the holes have two greens with one flag and some of the holes have one very large green with two flags.

They later built a regulation 18, but they still use this nine for leagues. They will alternate flag placements and tees used, so you end up with four combinations (blue tee-white flag, blue tee-red flag, white tee-white flag, white tee-red flag). It's a fun little layout built in an old quarry with three par-3s and three par-fives and a couple of the par fours are driveable.

I lived and worked on this course as well. Wow, two anecdotes in one thread.... I'm on a roll.
American-Australian. Trackman Course Guy. Fatalistic sports fan. Drummer. Bass player. Father. Cat lover.

Derek_Duncan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #52 on: November 06, 2010, 06:07:03 PM »
Ian,

I think that innovation will come when we have clients with a different perspective.

Among my clients right now are a Chinese painter and a 35 year old woman who is not a golfer.  They are both fascinating people with MUCH different perspectives about golf and its place in the world and its place in their projects, and I suspect those projects will be very innovative as a result.

A successful woman golf course architect will also change the game.  Alice Dye certainly had an impact, but none has yet taken it to a new level.

Tom touches on it here, but I don't think anything about golf design will ever change as long as the owners who commission them and the architects who build them are white, American-British-European-Australian men.

Argue whether or not golf architecture needs to be innovated, but there will be hip-hop and jazz innovation until the point of view of the art is changed.

www.feedtheball.com -- a podcast about golf architecture and design
@feedtheball

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #53 on: November 06, 2010, 07:03:36 PM »
Tom,

OK,  tell me where I can go see the Base Camp Golf theory.  Which golf course and what country? 

Jim,

The closest thing I have seen to that is at Boyne Mountain in Michigan ... Starting at the top of a ski hill and working its way down to the bottom.  But as I said above, it is going to take a different sort of client to want to build the course we talked about years ago, and I would guess it's more likely to happen in a faraway land. 

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2010, 07:07:51 PM »
Steve S,

I played Renegade right after it opened, with Ron Whitten and Lyke Anderson and Joe Black.  It was different, but I really thought it was just a gimmick, and the course never proved popular at all.

That is the problem with innovation, most people try too hard and just don't pull it off.  And there is always the sense that they are only trying innovation because they don't have a great site for a real golf course.  To be truly innovative you would have to be willing to roll the dice on a great site, or else try to build something u usual on a spectacular site that just wouldn't work for a normal course, such as the base camp golf idea Jim and I discussed.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #55 on: November 06, 2010, 08:09:35 PM »
Interesting thread.  I've played and seen golf courses all around the world and frankly in my experience, CB Macdonald's comment is not too far from the truth  ;)  There are some (but not a lot) of new "innovative" concepts in golf.  99%+ of at least what I have seen is some modified version of something I've already seen elsewhere.  There are many variations of original ideas and some are just presented better and/or different then others.  

So to answer the question - Where can we go? - My feeling is to leave that to all the new course designers.  And while they are trying to figure out something unique and clever to design, some of us are just going to continue to focus on doing their best to enhance what is already out there today.  The innovation in that comes from figuring out ways to do this in a cost effective and efficient way (to keep golf affordable) while at the same time educating golfers/committee members about golf architecture in the process. The better they understand design, the more they will appreciate it.  That is good for golf.      

« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 08:44:30 AM by Mark_Fine »

Ian Andrew

Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2010, 08:31:04 AM »
Wow, Base Camp Golf, a facinating idea.

The idea of playing out to a far point has always intrigued me. I love to walk and I walk three miles every day. I always wished that I could walk out to a point rather than always needing to complete a loop.

Where the idea gets more interesting is in the long run. If the course begins at 18 holes that finish at a far point, the course can be extended slowly over time to an infinite number of holes. The player then simply plays as far as they want to, finishing up their round with a call to be retrieved from that location.

Of course the logistics of servicing and maintenance ruin my little fantasy, but the experience would be pretty cool.

Iíve hiked, paddled and rode using this idea and it does make me wonder if the notion of playing out to the middle of no where appeals.

Taking the idea one step further, would we like to play out to a point in the wilderness where we eat and stay for the night and play our way back to civilization the next day with the isolation of the night before leaving us refreshed. That notion involves cabins in the woods or even a lodge in the distance.

There are hiking examples of this in numerous places where you have to walk to your accommodation. You are met with an excellent meal, stellar accommodations, but have had an outstanding nature experience getting too and from that location. The current idea is geared around families, but other more serious kikes are planned around shelters in the mountains.

I certainly loved hiking up to the Plain of 5 Glaciers this year and finding the tea house open near the end of the trail.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2010, 09:00:27 AM »
I just saw this thread. Interesting.

Whitten has it exactly backwards. The problem isn't that there are no new ideas. The problem is there aren't enough designers who understand and can apply classic ideas in a modern context. 

Which puts me in the Pallotta/Arble/Doak camp, I guess.

Bob 

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #58 on: November 07, 2010, 10:18:54 AM »
I just saw this thread. Interesting.

Whitten has it exactly backwards. The problem isn't that there are no new ideas. The problem is there aren't enough designers who understand and can apply classic ideas in a modern context. 

Which puts me in the Pallotta/Arble/Doak camp, I guess.

Bob 

Bob

What classic ideas are you thinking of ? The classic ideas of say the golden age have surely become the conventional. Thinking of MacKenzies 13 rules, how many are now applied as standard by modern GCA's ? (serious question for those GCA's reading this)

Perhaps a little less rigidity in sticking to these classic ideas might produce something different.

Niall

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2010, 12:25:27 PM »
Niall notes:

"Perhaps a little less rigidity in sticking to these classic ideas might produce something different."

A couple of thoughts.

There was nothing "rigid" about classic design ideas, whether during the GA or thereafter. Such ideas constituted a loosely bundled set of basic design principles that were and are now applied in an infinite number of ways.

At the heart of that bundle of ideas was a fairly simple notion. The arrangement of architectural features should promote strategic playing choices. About that core idea there was something like unanimity during the GA. How you implemented that core idea, however, was open to all sorts of interpretations. Still is.

Where I think Whitten goes off the rails - he is, ironically, profoundly wrong - is that this supposed 'failure of new ideas' is better seen as a failure of modern golf architects to take that core GA concept seriously. Better put, the failure of modern gca Whitten complains about is really about a failure to appreciate the radical nature of core GA ideas. For example, in its GA variant, there was little hesitation in building dramatic holes, ones with catastrophic consequences for shots that are nearly perfect, holes that are often thought today to be "unfair" or over the top. There are lots of other examples.

Much of that drama has been drained from modern golf courses. Misplaced concerns about "fairness", an emphasis on landscaping over holes that create real golfing interest, a desire to achieve the 'wow' factor (think 'Signature Holes') over more understated features with real design teeth, an emphasis on aesthetics and 'framing', water issues, and so forth.

Some of those constraints come from outside the profession. From the developers who hire architects, from the economics of building courses as part of a housing development, from having to sell a golf course as a resort destination, etc.    

Those and other factors have had the effect of preventing architects from using their full bag of tricks, virtually all of which are still derived from the GA. A Mike Young operates under more design constraints in 2010 than a Harry Colt did in 1927. To be clear, constraining Mike today is not at lack of ideas. His constraints are imposed on him externally.   

It seems to me to follow that the best architects today are not the ones with truly original ideas (whatever the heck that means). The best designers are those able to implement core GA concepts given modern economic, environmental and cultural limitations.

That explains, I think, the contradiction between Whitten barking about no new ideas and in the same breath exclaiming his love for OM and Sand Hills, both courses that are about, if anything, tried and true GA ideas.   

Peter -

As my music man, this Whitten thing raises an interesting parallel. The harmonic rules worked out by Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven have been tinkered with, expanded and satirized. But as a core structure around which music is still written they remain largely unchanged. The harmonics they developed are as relevant as ever. One might dare to say, like GA ideas, they are timeless.

When people tried to come with 'new' musical ideas - I am thinking of the atonal composers of the 20th century - their new ideas were deeply unpopular. Symphonies can't eliminate them from their programs fast enough.

Which is to say that there is nothing inherently superior about 'new' ideas in music. Or, for that matter, in golf architecture. Thoughts?

Bob            

  
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 12:47:48 PM by BCrosby »

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2010, 12:44:06 PM »

  Dunkerque Golf Club



Designed by Robert Berthet in the 1990's

Ian, the photo you presented intrigued me to imagine that perhaps the designer was giving some homage to World War II fortresses and defense battlements, but upon seeing the rest, methinks his brain is wired with Brillo pads.  It is provocative, though.  

  I've always wanted to play the courses of Normandy where D-Day commenced and when I do, I will definitely make the side trip to play Dunkerque.  
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 12:52:04 PM by Slag Bandoon »
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of oneís life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2010, 12:45:03 PM »
Ian,

I wrote a long response to your post, how I came up with the  theory on Base camp golf in early 2000 but when I hit post  it disappeared.  I will try again tonight, hopefully having the same inspiration.

BCrosby,

Dare to dream about something different.  

Tom,

  I have not seen Boyne Mountain but playing down a ski hill is not what Base Camp golf was formulated on.  

Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2010, 12:49:38 PM »
TD said innovation will come from the clients - and in order to be successful in the future clients need to build more courses that are fun and take less time to play.  The bunkerless idea is great.  I'd prefer minimal bunkering and instead of bunkers on both sides of a fairway, why not one in the middle?  
I'd like to be able to play a course with 3 loops of six holes all available from the clubhouse.  Toronto Ladies Club has members who can play 3,6, 9, 12 or 18 holes (choice is usually age related but they can still golf and others understand).
Anthony mentioned Castle Stuart - friends tell me it looks tougher than Kingsbarns but the ball ends up in play more often so it's more fun (and they score better).  Now if only it was cheaper.....
Many dislike RTJ runway type tees - I like them for easier maintenance, faster access for mixed groups playing different markers, safety, and the fact all golfers face the same looking challenge.
I am sure Ian and the other designers will come up with something great for generations to enjoy.  In the meantime, I love replays of old favourites - which have all changed over the years with different mowers, etc.
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2010, 02:03:22 PM »

Why do we insist in trying to overcomplicate the game of Golf, same applies to design. The best and most enjoyable courses over here are the least complicated and in general certainly not the most expensive to build or maintain.

Gentlemen, there is nothing wrong with the Game or a 9 of 18 hole course. Look at the numbers flocking to Hickory and how that has blossomed. There is a message there if only our Lords & Masters were bother to look. The Game is fun but the lack of serious foresight into the balance between equipment and land has never been understood, certainly by the R&A Ė they do not believe there is even a problem.

To throw the whole principles of the game out the window because some have no vision, or at least canít get past counting the money, does not mean the game is terminally ill. Its has a bad cold but the quacks that control the medication still believe in bloodletting than seeking the source of the problem in the first place. Enough money has been thrown at causing the problem, itís time to redirect that money to correct the balance, starting with the ball and standardising both ball and clubs.

Its not complicated it just requires an open mind and a commitment to our Game with our existing clubs and courses. IF the Government canít govern then we need a way to change the Government and its Members, not for Christ sake to keep changing our courses.

But do remember that very few people care let alone understand golf, its rules or have any idea what we are talking about when we mention GCA. Time for action, certainly but of just continuing trying to make pointless suggestions or comments that will never see the real light of day, no. Ė But then we are only a blog site which believes we know a little more than out fellow golfers  or after all, is the  List of the Top 100 courses in the world or in the UK or America far more important. Moan and do something about it or just stop moaning.

Ask yourselves what are you will to do for the sport you say you love and enjoy Ė if push came to shove I expect the majority choice would stop moaning. Then Thatís your right, see its not complicated we just make its so.

Melvyn

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2010, 02:25:32 PM »

  Ian, a little suggestion of a DVD to rent if you're into natural arts . . .

http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/r/rivers-and-tides-dvd.shtml

Rivers and Tides

It's a documentary of some of Andy Goldsworthy's works.  Bake up a batch of brownies and drag out the beanbag chair.


Melvyn, you make a fine point of not trying to outclever the game.
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of oneís life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2010, 03:01:32 PM »
BCrosby,

Dare to dream about something different.  

I would sincerely like to hear you expand on this a bit.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jeremy Aisenberg

Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2010, 06:02:15 PM »
I just returned from the Mission Hills Star Trophy that was played at Mission Hills new resort in Haikou, on Hainan Island China.  Brian Curley is designing all of the courses there, with the first 5-6 open for play.  Needless to say, he was given a very large property and the freedom to do some different things.  I had the good fortune of playing 4 of the courses.  Though I enjoyed the tournament course, Blackstone, which hosted the event and will host the World Cup next year, the most interesting course to me was the Vintage.  Brian says this course was inspired by many of the classic design features of the late 19th and early 20th century.  While he gives credit to others for the inspiration for this course, I really found it to be one of the most innovative modern courses I have ever played.  Perhaps the key to innovative design moving forward is combining the best of what 400 years of course design has taught us with the advances in technology (both from a construction standpoint as well as an equipment standpoint) to provide golfers with a challenging, enjoyable and inspiring experience.

 See Pics below:











Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2010, 06:38:07 PM »
Ian,

I wrote a long response to your post, how I came up with the  theory on Base camp golf in early 2000 but when I hit post  it disappeared.  

Tom,

  I have not seen Boyne Mountain but playing down a ski hill is not what Base Camp golf was formulated on.  


Jim,

I remember talking a long time about a course strung out on a line while driving through northern AZ to Apache Stronghold ... I thought it was before 2000.  I used to think about the same idea on NY route 17 driving through the Catskills and along  a river on my way to and from Cornell.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2010, 06:44:00 PM »
Bob - I would be very proud just to be a junior staffer at the firm of Crosby, Arble & Doak.  (Maybe I can one day marry into a partnership).

I think the musical analogy is a very good one.  It seems to me that the fundamental 'structures' of western music developed as such (I might even say, were discovered and recognized as such) because they flow out of, or are expressions of, our western psyches, the patterns of sound that are most amenable to our deepest natures.  When composers -- talented and knowlegable -- chose consciously to work outside of those fundamental structures, they made music that was more about them (and their Art, as a profession) than it was about the listener.  And so, naturally, the music they made was the darling of other artists, but of very few listeners. "Decadence' is too strong a word for the decline in an ethos by which the artist serves the audience; but something of the kind is at work there.  I will leave the obvious analogy to innovation in golf course architecture unsaid....

Hope you and the family are well.

Peter



« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 06:45:47 PM by PPallotta »

Lyne Morrison

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #69 on: November 08, 2010, 06:40:22 AM »


Where do we go from here?  -  do work that matters.

Tom D:
íA successful woman golf course architect will also change the game.  Alice Dye certainly had an impact, but none has yet taken it to a new level.í
That is an intriguing comment - could you expand a little?
What influence do you feel a successful female course architect might bring to the game?
How would she best effect change? What would be required to take things to a new level?

Thanks for your thoughts.
Lyne


Melvyn Morrow

Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2010, 08:37:30 AM »

Lyne

The most destructive part of the modern game is the appetite for distance, pushing for longer courses. The Governing Body does not accept that ball travel is the problem and have done the usual hid behind denial.

Owners and some clubs believe that long hitters need to be pampered, so are willing to provide longer courses in the hope of chasing the money. The majority of architects or designers go along with this because they do not want to rock the boat or be seen not supporting the programme.

Those whose who have a duty to look after the Game of Golf are slowly stripping the game of its great assets (the courses) and selling everything else to the highest bidders, all in the belief that golf is about hitting the long ball. How many matches have we seen or read about that have been lost on The Greens. The long ball is just part of the game not the whole bloody game. Old Tom lost out to Young Tommy many times and was teased by Young Tommy as being known the miser of the putting Green (why sink it in one when two or three will do).

Letís look at the game, itís not length that matters, itís the accuracy of the shot, be it 160yards or just 4 feet, distance is the modern sickness that have spread over golf like the Black Death, its first numbs the mind before all the toys come into place to try to compensate. Alas leaving the golfer even more at odds with him/herself.

Before you can go forward you need to reassess what it is we are seeking or for that matter playing, until we all decide on the game we will remain divided. To try to inject variety to a game that is in itself totally confused  will result in further breakup of the game once known as Golf. We must go back to core values to actually consider if there is an actual problem in the first place. My feeling is no the core values are there, mothballed perhaps, maybe side lined but they are there.

WE need to look at a worldwide game based upon the same requirements and laws. I will not go into it in any detail but what sort of message do we sent out when our Majors are all walking matches yet we allow carts sometimes numbering over 200 to be on any one course at a time. The Governing Body sends out the message endorsed by the TV and the greats in our Game that Golf is Waling Game, but its OK to rest between shots by riding. That gives the rider an advantage over the walker, why are we openly allowing cheating. The message being pumped out is just confusing at worst totally wrong because Golf has always been based upon skill, skill to navigate the course, to rise to a challenge or the difficult shot in the hope of clawing a stroke back. Itís a test yet what image is being sent by watching golfers on carts. Half the fun and experience of playing golf has disappeared once you step onto a cart. We are back to core values that I believe only comes from being in contact with the course, feeling every little bit of her shape, contours and curves allowing for a basic understanding in GCA

But the powers that be do not see a problem, but they never have, they never understood technology and its effect upon our great old courses. Even to this day they believe they know best, yet I clearly see the rapid build-up of interest in the Hickory Game, which tells me I am not alone. Why play Hickory when we have such high levels of technology in our game. Could it be that the Hickory Game is becoming more fun more enjoyable and keeping us in closed contact with the game we most enjoy.

Golfers will play just about any course, the professionals will also play any course if the money is there. I feel itís not a male or female thing but a simple act of determination to stand up and be counted on the merits of ones designs. The long hitters can be compensated by proper ball, club control and clever placement of hazards, courses can be designed to limit the long ball but offer more than one option, then we have the site selection of the course which gives the designer the opportunity to rise to the occasions 

I believe that golfers are getting bored as the equipment decides the score these days, want to drop a shot or two, so buy some new clubs, but golfers at heart are honest and want to rise to the challenge by them selves , hence many do not ride, use aids or even caddies, they push their trollies and face the course unaided. Most on this site from my understand fell the same about the game as I do, yet here we are GCA.com with famous designers and architects yet we have not moved the debate on, not raised the stakes or pushed for change. When Tony last summer want help on ball roll back this site suddenly fell silent apart from a hand full. I understand you guys not supporting me but Tony, come on his is one of you he is always there to help, but still his cause (a good start and a bloody good cause was smashed on the rocks of GCA apathy)

Where can we go Ė nowhere unless we start to support the game and send our displeasure to those that currently have the power. But like golf that takes commitment.

Melvyn


TEPaul

Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2010, 08:39:49 AM »
Bob:

Your #59 is excellent, as are most all your thoughtful contributions to this website (I bet that post is the one you wanted to hit the submit button on when I called you yesterday. ;) ).

As I read it the idea of the infusion of Landscape Architecture principles or even just Art Principles into golf course architecture just kept occurring to me. In the last decade or so this infusion of LA or Art ideas and principles into golf architecture has been on my mind. Of the LA or Art principles as articulated by Cornish and Whitten; they labeled them as Art Principles----eg Harmony, Proportion, Balance, Rhythm and Emphasis, the one that has potentially troubled me the most as applied to golf course architecture is Emphasis. They defined that art principle as: the eye is carried to the most important part of the arrangement and then to other details.

I'm OK with that idea and principle in golf course architecture unless it becomes something of an accepted or required standard in golf architecture for where golfers are supposed to hit the ball. If and when that happens, in my opinion, it essentially guts most of the visual, psychological and intellectual curiosity and mystery from the arrangement.

On this general issue and subject of a liberal and standard infusion of Art Principles and particularly Landscape Architecture principles into golf course architecture, even including some of the classic expressions of landscape architecture, some years ago Tom MacWood mentioned that essentially most all of the fundamental ideas and principles of landscape architecture are intended to produce an ďidealizedĒ form and presentation of Nature by dedicatedly removing from the presentation those things that may be in some way visually unappealing or perhaps unsettling and disturbing. I believe he continued that in his opinion this is essentially wrong for golf course architecture.

I have never agreed with much that Tom MacWood has said on this website but that particular thought, in my opinion, may have been one of the best and most thought provoking I have ever seen on GOLFCLUBALTAS.com since it began.

I believe in it as far as I understand it and consequently I think I have come to believe that since earth is essentially the medium of golf course architecture and the golf architect, and that unlike the mediums of other art forms, the architect is not the master of that medium----Nature and her forces (generally wind and water) are! (this is one of the primary themes of Max Behrís writing on golf architecture).

Therefore, it is becoming my distinct feeling that one place where golf architecture can go in the future is back towards the principle that golf should be fit more into what Nature gives it on any site in the way of it natural unadulterated landforms (architecture?) rather than the other way around.

Would that be considered radical and confusing by some, at this point? Would that piss off some? Of course it would; so what? Golf and golf architecture has always confused and pissed off some, perhaps many from time to time; itís probably supposed to do that to survive and prosper. Itís always done that and particularly in the old days, probably far more in the old days than now, and therefore I might even term this as going BACK to the future. But did that fact ever really stop its increasing popularity in the old days?

I donít think so. 


Kyle Harris

Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2010, 08:41:33 AM »
Design so the only frame is the golfer's field of vision.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2010, 08:53:42 AM »
Just one side comment, studies have shown that sand bunkers DO NOT always slow up play.  In fact in some ways it has been found that they speed up play as there are less decisions to make about what club to use if you are in a bunker.  If you are in a grass hollow or in a closely mown area around a green, options are more plentiful and club selection and shot type adds time.  Bunkerless courses have been designed before e.g. Royal Ashdown Forest.  Trust me, that course would be easier if it had bunkers  ;)  If you don't believe me, play it a few times and then comment.

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2010, 08:54:39 AM »
Base Camp Golf,

I remember driving through the Prairies and went... you could tee it up just outside saskatoon and play all the ways to calgary... no problem

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back