[Philippe Binette]

A new chapter in my blog,
http://www.binettegolfarchitecture.blogspot.ca/2015/07/reflexions-on-chambers-bay.html?m=1

[Brent Hutto]

Interesting take on that particular style of golf.


I think one thought which does not occur to designers of "Titanic" courses is the relatively less need for hazards when contours and slopes get bold enough. Given sufficient short grass so that errant shots are not soon stopped by rough, there's not necessarily a need for multiple bunkers per hole to separate out good shots from bad and there really isn't need for water hazards at all.

[jeffwarne]

The scale of nearly all modern courses is what I like least.
The courses, the property, the expectations,the bunkering, the grass and grasslines, the framing



Of course it is hard not to design on a large scale when designing for all people as well as the 400 yard drive future

[John Kavanaugh]

If I were ever to go on a cruise I fear that I would pray to hit an iceberg. In a similar vein I prefer balls to the walls over stimulation architecture. Sadly, I am far from alone. The argument that a course is too much fun to play everyday is lost on me.

[Philippe Binette]

About scale:


on a site Sagebrush, there was no choice but to go large scale... there is 125 meters(400 feet) of elevation change on the course on a completely open setting with huge panoramic vistas.


the number and size of bunkers is important but some are there to prevent ball to run into the native and get lost...


building small on that site would have look weird.... that said, I see a lot of new course on flattish and fairly enclosed sites with big useless big bunkers and mounds and ponds that expand the size of the course on a site that doesn't propose naturally a large scale.


it's all about understanding the scale first... don't build royal melbourne at kingston heath... it won't work

[Jason Thurman]

Philippe, there were a number of points that made me scratch my head in confusion, but none more than this passage:


”- the contours could be your best friend or enemy... aiming at the flag is not necessarily the best road to it... So ball striking means little”


Ballstriking means little because you might have to use contours to get the ball close to your target? So would you also argue that ballstriking means little on the British and Irish links? At Augusta National? At virtually every great course where players who USE THE ARCHITECTURE to successfully feed their ball toward the hole are rewarded over the ones who try to play drop-and-stop golf? If you believe that ballstriking means little on courses where a player can’t blindly aim at the flag, then I have to conclude that we disagree completely about architecture’s role in challenging the player, as I firmly believe that the BEST way to test ballstriking while also testing a player’s intelligence is to build holes where taking direct aim isn’t always prudent, but where hitting a shot with a controlled trajectory into a slope is the best way to get close to many potential hole locations.

[Brent Hutto]

I keep having visions of The Old Course when we talk about having to aim away from flags. I agree with Jason that requiring the ability to hit a target (which may or may not be near the flag) AND control trajectory is a greater emphasis on ballstriking than just requiring the player to hit a shot a prescribed distance while aiming directly at the flag.


Of course as always conditioning trumps all. If a "Titanic" course is not playing firm and fast then any player with a decent swing and plenty of clubhead speed is going to aim at the flag no matter what.


P.S. Off-topic from this particular thread but the more time I spend on this site the more I realize that any course beyond the most rudimentary cow pasture (and also excepting totally f---ed up designs that are horrible) will be fun to play when it's dry, firm and the ball is bouncing and running while even the "greatest" or most "Titanic" course can be unexciting when every shot stops where it hits the ground.

[Philippe Binette]

By ball striking, i mean the ability to produce over and over the same ball flight with the same swing...

Playing while using the architecture is more about shot making... Uneven stance.. Variety of ball flights, 3/4 swings etc...

There are dozens of ball striker that would beat tour pros on a flat range with no wind... But they can't see and produce the shots, the right one at the right time....

It s jordan spieth main ability... Efficient shots more than pure technical shots

[Philippe Binette]

Firm ground, some contours and a bit of wind = fun golf

[Brent Hutto]

If you can't produce the same ballflight with the same swing from a flat stance in no wind, you will not have a chance in hell of executing a one-off shot from an uneven stance and lie on a windy day.


The ability to improvise that you're talking about is a superset of "technical" ball-striking. There's no such thing as a guy who is incapable of hitting two shots in a row at the 150 flag on the driving range but can reach waaaaay up his backside and produce a high cut 5-iron to hold the ball into a 20mph crosswind while hitting off an upslope. That's a mythical creature.

[Jason Thurman]

By ball striking, i mean the ability to produce over and over the same ball flight with the same swing...

Playing while using the architecture is more about shot making... Uneven stance.. Variety of ball flights, 3/4 swings etc...

So, by your definition Kenny Perry was a better ballstriker than Ben Hogan? That's certainly... original.


On a different note, what was your involvement in the work at Sagebrush?

[Philippe Binette]

what I'm saying is that
some players have great technical ball strking ability but a limited range of potential shot patterns, they can produce only one shot (don't take this too litterally), awesome to watch on a range but end up with 72
some players have great technical ball strking ability but a limited range of potential shot patterns, they can produce only one shot, but are able to bring it to the course and play smart with their shot, great to watch on the range and shoot 70
others have the ability to properly put the clubface on the ball with a variety of setups and swings and manoeuver their way around and create the right shot for the right time (think Bubba Watson, Seve, Arnie)... great SHOW on the range and on the course and shoot 68
some have great technical ball-striking and also adapt the shot to the moment, so a combination of ball-striking and shot-making , (Tiger at his best, example with the stinger, Nick Faldo, Jose Maria Olazabal especially with the irons )  shoot 66
some have limited technical ball striking ability, (you watch them on the range, really not impressive), but they have this ability to somehow produce the shots and get around the golf course in 70 shots.. and I've seen tour pros, even major champions able to do so..
 
 

[Philippe Binette]

Implication at Sagebrush:
I was part of the design / construction team for 2 summers. Basically, I was in charge of finishing the bunkers and the surroundings surfaces and shaping some tees and bunkers... among other stuff because everybody got involved in almost everything.
There are some impressive shots to be played out there and stopping the ball on such a slopy windy site might be the biggest challenge out there.
 

[Paul Gray]

I'm not sure that I'm all together happy with this 'titanic course' categorisation but much of what you mention in your blog piece is actually what many on this site have been saying about links golf for ever and a day. It's not a criticism, Philippe, simply an observation that this is nothing knew....


Aim 50 yards wide and 50 yards short: links golf
Par is of little relevance: links golf
Missing the green can be better than hitting it in: links golf
Bump and run shots can be roller coaster rides: links golf.Never mind bump and run, I actually regularly putt my approach at this time of year on the 13th at Hayling from 100 yards out. Roller coaster, I can promise you).
Greens in regulation can be of little relevance: links golf.
Wind can make a 460 yard hole less daunting than a 400 yard hole: links golf.


I could go on.


My personal take on Chambers Bay was that it was simply overcooked. The pursuit of firm and fast was admirable but, in the end, those responsible just couldn't adapt their mindset sufficiently to really embrace the concept that less tampering really is more. If you can shave the grass one millimetre more, if the stimp meter really can go one louder, you can guarantee someone will push for it.

[Lester George]

Philippe,

I hope you get to visit Ballyhack Golf Club.  It fits your description of Titanic.  Check it out.

Lester

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()