[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

Perhaps you missed the distinction I was making earlier between trouble within a bunker hazard and I'll include the "surrounds" as well, with what is being discussed in this particular instance.

I said, "My views and Patrick's are not exactly similar.  I believe that anything you throw into the context of the bunker hazard...depth, long grass plantings, trees, homicidal children, quicksand, snakes, or fires of hell is fair game....within the hazard!"

For what it's worth, I'll side with Max Baer, who argued that hazards should not be there to punish, but should instead "protect the hole".    

Could you tell me what Baer might think of this one as far as fulfilling that role?  

Couldn't resist, Tom.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

I'm not sure what Max Baer thought the function of bunkering was--whether to punish or not, but I'm fairly sure that Max Baer would argue that his fists were definitely there to punish anyone who decided to get into the ring with him.

But our own Max Behr's thoughts on bunkering (or the golf hazard) were that they should be looked upon by a golfer as a 'call upon his intelligence', nothing more.

Clearly this is sort of a glass half empty/glass half full thought. But the most interesting thing about Behr's thoughts on bunkers (hazards) wasn't what they should or shouldn't be in and of themselves but what they could accomplish in conjunction with other architectural features such as fairway width and the strategic balance of golf holes.

In a real way Max Behr was just not a "dictating centerliner" in an architectural sense. To him that type of thing was far too obvious, too man-made, not thoughtful enough for the golfer. But again, the thing that was most important to the hazard feature to Max, I'm sure, was the fairway surrounding it.

I'm not real sure about this bunker and tree you're talking about on #15 at Hidden Creek. But if I go down there I'll keep an eye out for it. All I can tell you about Coore & Crenshaw is I really like their attitude about all this. It's fun to walk around and discuss holes and stuff with them and their crew but whenever someone like me starts gushing all this doctrinaire and formulaic purist stuff to them about what an archtiect absolutely cannot do they generally say nothing but look at you like they're thinking; "My God man, don't get so worked up and serious--breath a little, let it hangout, take a chance, have fun, try something out of the ordinary just to see what happens."

I have heard Tom Fazio say and I've read his writing that there's a whole ton of stuff he thinks an architect can't or shouldn't do with architecture because someone (or golfers generally) may not like it. Coore and Crenshaw don't seem to be that way, certainly not to that extent. Their attitude sometimes seems to be try it as someone might notice it and think its interesting. And they also seem interested in looking back at architecture of another era for an interesting concept or whatever.

I really like that idea about homicidal children within bunkers, though MikeC. I think I'll pass that one along to them. How would you recommend those homicidal kids be handled by maintenance? Perhaps with a big Catholic Ruler!

[AWTillinghast]

For what it's worth, I'll side with Max Baer, who argued that hazards should not be there to punish, but should instead "protect the hole".    

Yes, but a hazard that doesn't punish can't serve the purpose of protecting the hole!     Behr was speaking of the difference between a hazard that serves a strategic purpose, rather than just being there to punish a bad shot.

Question regarding the 15th at HC?  It's hard to tell from the pictures, but are there no pin placements that would be attacked better from nearer that bunker?

[Mike Worth]

T E Paul - One of the reasons this board is distasteful to some is because of silly distinctions - like the one you just made about the characterzation of my quote of you.  You would have to be pretty anal to make a distinction between what I said in my post and what you posted as a response.  

Since we're being a stickler for detail, you wrote "they're a bit concerned that the golf course will be as well understood by general players and members as they want it to be and hope it can be".  This is the aspect where I believe the members "get it".  Do you get it now?

[TEPaul]

"Behr was speaking of the difference between a hazard that serves a strategic purpose, rather than just being there to punish a bad shot."

Good point. He felt that hazards in architecture set merely to punish "bad" shots were no more than a "mirror of a golfer's faults to the golfer" and therefore served no real rational or intelligent purpose. He felt if a golfer needed something to remind him of his faults it would be better for him to go see his golf professional.

[Mike Worth]

To AW, there are no pin placements on #15 that are better attacked from that bunker, or from that side of the fairway for that matter.

I'll let the architechtual despots on this board argue this point of why the bunker and the penalty/double penalry, but to hit  in that bunker a couple of bad things have to happen.  First thing is your drive is off line about 10 yards to the right of where you should be aiming.  The 2nd point is good golfers will use a 3 wood from the member tee.  I used a driver for a variety of reasons I won't get into here.  So I hit the ball too far, especially since the fairway is shorter the farther right you go.  

Bottom line is to get in that bunker, you have to be right of the proper aim point, and long.  

[TEPaul]

SS1:

I don't know who you are so I was just trying to make things as accurate and clear for you as possible, thinking that might be what you were asking for. After all that's what the man said to me so I thought I would pass it on to you accurately.

But regarding your post #28 and;

"Since we're being a stickler for detail, you wrote "they're a bit concerned that the golf course will be as well understood by general players and members as they want it to be and hope it can be".  This is the aspect where I believe the members "get it".  Do you get it now?"

I don't know what I'm supposed to "get" SS1, except that you have an attitude like some other occasional posters (like rpurd did) on here sometime. Sorry to upset you or piss you off over some distinction but maybe it would be best for us not to discuss things in the future or perhaps it'd be better for you to find another website where there are no "anal distinctions" to upset you.

[Mike Worth]

Well, fine.  Thanks for your attempts to clarify.  Just for your future reference, I"m smart enough to read, analyze, interpret, and write without assistance.  However, if you want to debate, discuss, etc, as an adult fine, but you come across as a condescending so-and-so.

There probably shouldn't be any suggestions about anything I do regarding this board because such adivce is best taken when coming from the owner of the forum.  I"m not sure how you made the leap in logic that got you from my point about you being anal and my potential particiaption in the discussion group.  

[TEPaul]

SS1:

Again, sorry to upset you, that certainly wasn't my intention or to be condescending. But I'm going to be honest with you SS1--it appears you've made four post now on this website, two to me, and from your attitude on both those posts to me there's not much reason that I can see for me to have a discussion or conversation with you on here in the future about anything. I'm sorry you had to begin on here that way.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

SS1 & TEPaul,

I feel uncomfortable in the role of referee.  

SS1, I don't think TE was trying to talk down to anyone.
I think he was just trying to relate his discussions with one of the architects who created the golf course, and provide us with some insight relative to concepts and design.

I believe that he's a big fan of the golf course, but that doesn't mean that he can't offer constructive criticisms or his opinion, relative to a feature or hole.

I'm sure, if you two met and played together, you'd enjoy each others company, playing golf and discussing architecture.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Mike Worth]

Pat.

Thanks for helping, appreciated.  But looking at the number of posts I've made (single digits), and getting a response like the one I received makes one wonder.  Clearly, TE Paul wasn't trying to help the newbie alone :-), at least in his tone.


Maybe if he's nice :-), we can play HC together.  We just aerated on Monday and Tuesday, so he can go out tomorrow if he wants (lol)

[Mike_Sweeney]

SS1,

Having met many on this board this past winter, it is actually quite amusing to see that they (we?) are actually quite sane and very enjoyable to be with. But on here .....

Since I actually started some of this discussion, I will go back to one of Mike Cirba "critiques" about 13-18. In general, I disagree, but it would have also been nice if C&C had put in one of their Par 3.5 holes in that stretch. Your # 8 and Sand Hills # 8 and 9 (also Par 3.5's) are my "C&C signature" holes. I love the strategy of safe versus going for green. I still am waiting to see a modern course with that type of # 18 finishing hole.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Thanks for offering to be a referee but I can't imagine why that would be necessary. I just looked back through the posts on this thread as to why SS1 said I was making anal distinctions and being condescending. Frankly I can't see an iota of why he or anyone would say such things. If SS1 manages to get upset over the remarks on this thread the poor guy is going to have a helluva time on this website. What's he going to do in one of our weekly free-for-alls on here and what's he going to do when he starts tangling with you, for instance. You're an absolute maniac but maybe he hasn't been on here long enough to understand that obvious fact yet.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  Sorry to say but that tree in the bunker on #8 at Pacific Dunes blew down in a windstorm almost a year ago.  They propped it back up and cabled it, but it just blew down again later.  You can, however, still get stymied by a dead tree stump in one corner of the bunker in #2 fairway!

I do not mind the occasional "double hazard" on a golf course.  I know most good players don't agree, but I would remind them there shouldn't be any ABSOLUTE rules of golf design.  On the former tree in the bunker at Pacific Dunes, first of all the golfer should have been wary of not going back there, and if he did get there he had the choice between trying to play a very tricky bunker shot under the tree limb, or playing safely to the left side of the green and trying to two-putt from there.  (It's a hard choice, but a choice.)

I haven't seen Hidden Creek, but my first reaction to the bunker Mike dislikes is that maybe it was put there to STOP players from unwittingly hitting it behind the trees.  If it wasn't there, it would be difficult to tell from the tee that you could hit it through the fairway and be in trouble.  Putting a bunker there would be telling the golfer not to go there.  

If they'd put the bunker any shorter, players might be lured to hit over it, only to find out that wasn't the way to go.

I don't know the hole, so I'm not sure what reason they had for putting the bunker there; but I assure you there aren't very many details on one of Bill's courses that he didn't think about.

[TEPaul]

TomD;

Basically I couldn't agree more with everything you said in post #38. And I'm very sorry to hear that tree near the bunker on #8 at Pac Dunes blew down. I think every possible means should be used to exactly RESTORE that tree and that should continue every time the wind or whatever messes with it.

The "formulaic" mentality of these tree haters is getting every bit as manical as their opposite numbers--the tree huggers.

You've got great imagination--can you concieve of any possible architectural application for the occasional homicidal child--either inside or outside a bunker? I can, and I hope I run into one as an obstacle soon. I even know my choice of shot already. Even faced with the most delicate shot to a close pin from a bunker complicated by a homicidal child would force me to choose my most powerful swing with a 1 iron. I call it the W.C Fields shot.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul/Tom Doak;

One of the great things about C&C as architects is exactly what you both described.  They aren't afraid to break rules, ignore convention, and try different things.

That's great...I love it and as a student of architecture, I hope they keep testing the limits and bending the rules.

However, not everyone of those attempts yields a home run.  Despite their very high batting average, sometimes they swing and miss too.  

All of that being said, Hidden Creek is a very good golf course.  The members must have a lot of fun out there, and there are any number of holes that one could play over and over, and a handful that would qualify as "great".  

If anything, I think they might suffer from the exceptionally high expectations we all have of them.  They are so good and talented that it's tough not to compare everything they do against their very best work, which in my opinion is as good as anything ever built.

p.s...as far as "Max Baer", I used to study boxing history with almost the same passion as I now study golf architecture.  I think that this Baer might have been more inclined to see bunkers as solely punitive.  

[ForkaB]

Sometimes I wonder if Tom Paul isn't really reading Max Baer, Jr.'s writings (e.g. "Donna Douglas and the Theory of Containment Mounding") when he is not re-reading Donald Rumsfeld's "How to Win Friends and Influence People That You Refer to as Idiots."

I thank Jimmy VA, Mike S, Mike C, redanman, Tom D and SS 1 and others for their articulate conributions to this thread, which mostly actually deals with architecture, refeshingly.....

[TEPaul]

"Sometimes I wonder if Tom Paul isn't really reading Max Baer, Jr.'s writings (e.g. "Donna Douglas and the Theory of Containment Mounding")......."

Rich:

Judging from the things you've said about Max Behr (after continually refusing to read what he wrote) that doesn't surprise me. It's clearer to me now why you said the things you did about him--apparently you thought he was just a Beverly Hills Hillbilly. That could explain why you wondered what he knew about golf architecture. I wonder who you think Robert Hunter really was.  

[ForkaB]

Tom

Robert Hunter was an influential and highly articulate writer about labor economics--which writings I would very much recommend to you.  I thank Tommy Naccarato for recommending these writings to me.

Let me know if you need more help in your quest for enlightenment.

rich(ard)

[TEPaul]

"....when he is not re-reading Donald Rumsfeld's "How to Win Friends and Influence People That You Refer to as Idiots.""

Rich:

Are you one of those people (like my mother) who thinks that Donald Rumsfeld's arrogance is worse than 9/11 and Saddam Hussein's regime combined?

I'm not sure what to make of Donald Rumsfeld but I must say I do enjoy watching his press conferences and news briefings. Does he treat some people like "idiots"? Yes, I suppose he does, particularly some newspeople when they ask him the same silly questions over and over again when they must know (if they have ears) he's not going to answer the way they hope he will. They've even told him they have a professional responsibiliy to ask those same silly questions over and over again apparently expecting him to say; "Oh well that's different then."

But to be honest I really do enjoy watching the man. To me he's about the opposite of the ultra politically correct "say nothing" politicians of today and that I find really refreshing.

Did he insult some of our old allies such as France and Germany? Yes, I guess he did--thank God. Somebody with a high US profile needs to insult some of those people every now and then for the things they say and do. The French are so nationally and culturally arrogant they probably actually think insulting the US should be a one way street.

But again, are you like my mother and think that Donald Rumsfeld's arrogance is worse than 9/11 and Saddam Hussein's regime combined. Actually my mother may even secretly throw Al Queda in there too.

I haven't relegated her to the attic yet but I'm having her watched very very closely!  But I haven't quite figured out yet what she's planning on doing to me.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Please don't send your mother to the attic (or the basement).  I'm old enough to remember "Psycho."

[TEPaul]

"Robert Hunter was an influential and highly articulate writer about labor economics--which writings I would very much recommend to you."

Rich:

I realize that, and congratulations to you for finally realizing that. Thanks for recommending what he wrote to me too although I sort of recall mentioning that to you about two years ago after you called him something like an effete armchair liberal who married some rich heiress when you apparently knew nothing much about the man.  

But I'm impressed--you seem to be finally taking our advice and reading people like Behr and Hunter. But recommending him to me? That's a bit worrisome. You seem to have a very short memory.

[TEPaul]

And Rich,

From another thread;

I really don't mind at all that you don't want me to know that you've started reading Max Behr and that you do enjoy what he wrote. I've realized for quite some time how hard it is for you to admit certain things and why. But the important thing is that you read what he wrote instead of criticizing him without knowing much of anything about him.

As for ArnoldH; I'm very fascinated by his mention of space in an architectural context. I'd like to read more of what he may have written on that subject alone and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Behr picked up that thread from him. It just seems to me that Max Behr took that fascinating idea much farther and to some very interesting and original conclusions.

[ForkaB]

Tom

If you want to claim credit for pointing me to Hunter's non-golf writings, go ahead, but I'm sure it was Tommy N who did so.

It is also admirable that you want to read more Haultain, but his collected writings can be read in a long night, and if you haven't done so already, I quesiton your commitment to the task.

Finally, I really do think you should go out and play more golf rather tell us what other people who may or may not have played golf on various courses might have said.  According to your beloved USGA/GHIN records you were only able to play 5 rounds last year (2002) and none yet this year (2003).  You are far too good a golfer to let your game atrophy as it must have done with such minimal play.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I just didn't play very much golf last year or even the year before but I probably do have about 8-10 rounds I can now put into the GHIN system since it closed down last fall (it opened again about a month ago but I haven't really been here).

I can't make myself play more golf if I'm not really motivated and so I see no real reason to do so. But I hope I will be motivated. I see no reason either not to tell whatever stories I do through what I see others say and do. I do know golf--that's not something I've forgotten and we all have different ways of presenting what we say on here and how we come by our own feeling on things to do with golf and architecture.

Playing golf is certainly one good way to form opinions on golf and architecture--it certainly is a most important context--but not one, in my opinion, that's the ONLY way as some of you seem to suggest. I certainly have my own way of looking at architecture and analyzing it and you obviously have your own way that works for you. They may be very different but that shouldn't matter. If your way was the only way that worked for me than that's the way I'd do it but that just isn't the case.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()