How do you turn back the Clock ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Having been in the bunkers at Merion, I believe I pointed out the bathtub nature, but that was not the focus of the discussion, it was on the bunker faces and tops, the wraparound feature, which is remarkably similar to the wraparound features at Merion.

The bunker faces and tops are similar, if not congruent.
One could easily look at the photo of The Berkshire bunker and think it was a photo of a Merion bunker.

[Paul Turner]

"The bunker faces and tops are similar, if not congruent."

Nice one!  

"One could easily look at the photo of The Berkshire bunker and think it was a photo of a Merion bunker."  

Does Merion have purple grass?  I've heard of balls getting lost, buried under those bunker lips at Merion, you couldn't do the same at Berkshire Blue.
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

What time of year ?

How old are the bunkers at The Berkshire ?
How old are the bunkers at Merion ?
As time passes, I wonder if they'll look even more alike, or begin to have their looks diverge from one another ?
Time will tell, but for now, they could pass for twins.

[TEPaul]

"Having been in the bunkers at Merion, I believe I pointed out the bathtub nature, but that was not the focus of the discussion, it was on the bunker faces and tops, the wraparound feature, which is remarkably similar to the wraparound features at Merion."

Patrick:

My God, I whole heartedly agree with your statement. Of course they were similar--as both appear to be Merion! Or did you mean you were in the bunkers at Berkshire? Or Merion? Or perhaps, in your mind you were in the bunkers at Berkshire? Or perhaps you were looking at a photograph of Berkshire? I'm confused, was the unique purple grass at Merion or Berkshire or both?

[Guest]

If a question comparing design philosophies on this website is, as you say, "futile", then so is this very thread (as well as the whole website in general). For none of us can ever "turn back the clock" or put the genie back in the bottle. Nor can any of us, even the best historians, do anything more than speculate about a lot of what went on in the past in terms of motivation and forces at work shaping the golf world. Yes, there is some real historical "data" out there and that is why asking your question is a fine idea. But there is not enough for any conclusions here to be "definitive". The question asked by this thread is "futile". And so, I suggest that you may want to take your own advice and stop posting on this thread. Maybe on just about every thread here.

Alternatively, you could try to be more open-minded and not such a dark cloud and ultimately more consistent in the stance you take regarding the validity of someone's questions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

Don't true or sympathetic restorations turn back the clock ?

Don't you feel that the culture of play at Friar's Head is turning back the clock ?

You post what you want, ANONYMOUSLY,
And, I'll post what I want under my OWN name.

[Guest]

Okay Pat. Sounds good. And while you're at it, why not let kclarke and others post what they want without being such a dark cloud? I am just saying, as you have said so many times before, "you can't have it both ways." Either everything that cannot be answered "definitively" is "futile" or none of it is. I hate to use your words and phrases against you, but you yourself call for consistency and now so do I call for it from you.

[guest2]

Who cares about turning back the clock, will someone just turn off...............the broken record.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

Here's the dilema.

A question was posed which asked for an assessment of the design Philosophies on the courses designed by Tom Doak and Bill Coore.  But, of the 13 courses designed by Bill Coore, they were designed as a team effort with Ben Crenshaw.

Before one can compare the design philosophies as evidenced in the golf courses produced by the parties you first have to determine what part of the philosophy and design done by Coore & Crenshaw is Coore's and Coore's alone.

If you can't establish that definitively, the exercise is futile.

Now, you may not like to hear that, for some reason you feel it's stifling, but it's the reality of the situation and the exercise.

You can't compare Coore to Doak until you can identify what is Coore's.

That's not a dark cloud, its the light of reality.

Sorry you feel otherwise.

Guest 2,

Have you started any interesting thread lately ?

[Guest]

Pat, Fine, it is a futile exercise and so is trying to "turn back the clock." We agree. Both threads end in futility. So now you have held up the light of reason on your own thread and it turns out to be an exercise in futility. On to the next non-futile thread.

[Paul Turner]

Patrick

I don't think the Merion bunker grass would turn purple at any time of the year!  The heather on the Berkshire bunkers is rust brown, when not in bloom.

Bunkers at Berkshire are approx 70 years old, I don't believe they have been redesigned:  the pics we viewed in that thread, showed that the current bunker was very similar to its 1970s appearance other than the depth of the heather.  

English clubs don't spend money unnecessarily.  

I believe the Merion bunkers are brand new.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

For Christ's sake--now you want to know exactly what Bill Coore does and exactly what Ben Crenshaw does. Forgetaboutit--they're the most symbiotic combo YOU'VE ever heard of. Bill Coore spends a good deal more time on site than Ben Crenshaw does obviously. What do you want now---a complete breakdown of everything Coore did at Friar's Head or any other golf course? All you need to know is Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw and Ken Bakst stood on the hill facing in different directions and simulaneously waved their arms and "WHOOSH" this incredible magic happened before them.

You're incorrigible!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
You said,"I think that strategy can be viewed in the absolute,
that it can be isolated from its surroundings."
Ken was not referring to a course's surroundings, he specifically mentioned the look of hazards effecting the pyscology (thought process) of the golfer. Hazards are internal not external.

I think this quote explains a lot about your architectural views: "Psychology is my behavior, and in the context of playing the hole, my strategy, my tactics, my play will be unaltered by form, as opposed to substance, which is at the core of my decision making process.'

How do you seperate form from substance? Don't the scrub filled bunkers of PVGV and the wild bunkers of Royal Melbourne and County Down effect your pyscology (strategy), don't they play an intensified strategic role because of their look, a link between aesthetics and strategy? Not all bunkers are created equally, there is a process of evaluation while golfing which involves looking at hazards and based on past experience make a conscious evaluation based on what you see. Wild-looking naturalistic bunkers like the ones at Friar's Head, Cypress Point and Sand Hills demand your attention for good reason.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Don't ask Pat about that. Pat is the type that compartmentalizes things, psychologic effects of courses from the playing of the game.

Mind you, that's not a bad thing. It's just a different way of approaching the game (and its architecture). Good players tend to compartmentalize the game more than others--and they can do it much better than others. Experienced tournament players are best at it. They do it for obvious reasons--it helps them--it allows them to control better the extraneous, the external, the rugged or scary looking and overcome it in their play.

But it's the job a good architect to challenge and even rattle that compartmentalization on the part of good players. There's all kinds of way they can do that in architecture--less than obvious targets and lines, multiplicity of choices and nuances of same, ruggedness and dangerous looking things to unsettle them. All these things can obviously have an effect on even the strongest mental golfer to some extent although he may not want to recognize that and he will do his best to compartmentalize it from the execution of his game. It looks to me like Friar's Head works on that type of compartmenalization well!

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

Sorry, but the "look" of bunkers has virtually nothing to do with their "strategic intensity" perceived or otherwise.  The very first time you play a hole like, say 4 or 5 at Cypress, there is some visual intimidation from the tee, but once you play either of those holes you realize what pussycats (dare I say "eye candy"?) those bunkers are.  Alternatively, unassuming as it may look from the fairway, and unaestheic as it currently may or may not be (haven't been there in over a year), the back left bunker on 12 at Merion will surely rivet your strategic attention in future rounds once you have found yourself to be there during actual play of the hole.

Perhaps you should re-read your well-dog-eared pyscology (sic) textbooks........

[TEPaul]

"Alternatively, unassuming as it may look from the fairway, and unaestheic as it currently may or may not be (haven't been there in over a year), the back left bunker on 12 at Merion will surely rivet your strategic attention in future rounds once you have found yourself to be there during actual play of the hole.

Perhaps you should re-read your well-dog-eared pyscology (sic) textbooks........"

Rich:

It doesn't surprise me but in my opinion I think you basically contradicted yourself or else you simply aren't aware of the impact on you of pyschologic effects of some very good architecture.

But in the second part of your post you do seem to become aware of it after those times it's influenced your play.

That's sort of the point of well placed, rugged, strategic architecture isn't it?

I was talking to the man of Friar's not long ago about that very thing. Golfers take various risks with very good strategic risk/reward architecture probably coming closer and closer to the fire until they get burned and then starts the process of giving that fire a very wide berth until they have played the hole successfully (or avoided that fire) for enough time that they begin the cycle of playing ever closer to it again until they get burned again and start the reverse cycle all over again.

I'm sure, like me, you've run across holes that you play well for a time and then something bad happens somewhere on it--or many places-- and then you might begin the cycle of playing it badly for a time until you learn to cycle away from things and eventually back to playing it well again for a time until "whoops" again and then the reverse strategic cycling begins again.  

That's all part of the pychology of really good strategic architecture and it can be anywhere and everywhere on any good strategic golf hole just waiting for the time it does its thing to you or any golfer and administers the actual and the cycling psychological effect begins again.

You did get the second part of your post right, though, in my book. But you should delete the first part because one of these days those pussycat bunkers you spoke of will get you and you'll have to look at them in the context of the second part of your post.

It's all pyschology and that works best and most effectively when the time comes when it becomes actual. Real eye candy bunkers are probably those that you may never be in but even those in a course that looks like Friar's do tie the rest of the arrangement in in an overall aesthetic and psychological way.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
No need to apologize. Obviously you are the exception. Your powers of reasoning and intellect are generally conceded as being far being superior to the rest of us. But let me try to express my primitive point of view.

It seems to me you are arguing that the bunkers on #4 and #5 are not in play (eye candy)…..at least for your game. That is a different issue than comparing the strategic merits of bunkers that are located where you might place your shot, for example the driving zone, greenside, etc. How did you approach #5 the second time around?

Do the hazards in these two images register the same psycological message?

[TEPaul]

"Your powers of reasoning and intellect are generally conceded as being far being superior to the rest of us."

Tom MacW:

I can't tell if you're being slightly sardonic there or not, but if you're not you can speak for yourself. I'm not willing to concede that man anything. I wouldn't concede him a six inch putt on logic. He's almost as bizarre as Pat Mucci. There are certain fundamental truths in this universe of golf and architecture (all of them spelled out by Max Behr) and Rich Goodale is not only not able to read them or grasp them he violently and disrespectfully disagrees with them.

That will never do. Whatever intellect he may have is either short circuiting into total contrarianism or it resides in some other self created universe or both.

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

On #5 CPC the first time I played it I pull hooked my drive left of the fairway bunkers into the forest and hit an heroic 9-iron over the trees to in front of the 2nd shot foozle bunkers, from which I hit a lob wedge to about 15-feet.  The second time around I slightly cut a driver and then tried to kill a 3-wood over the foozle bunkers to the green but thankfully topped it to about exactly the same place as I had hit the 9-iron last time around, and then hit my lob wedge even closer.  I played with 6 other good players in those 2 rounds and nobody came close to hitting that green in two.  Next time I play it I'll hit 5-iron, 5-iron, lob wedge and hope that I don't 3-putt his time from 10-15 feet......

[ForkaB]

Tom M

I should comment on your photos/pictures.  A master class on how one can or cannot evaluate some place they haven't (or even have) seen only in two dimenstions.  I'm guessing that #2 is a rendition of a very odd angle of #13-14 (or even 15) Cypress done by someone from the Hunter Thompson or Timothy Leary school of painting.  If it is it has virtually no relation to what the hole(s) actually looks like, to most golfers.  If it is some reasonable depiction of some other reality, it is not a hole that I, for one, would really want to play, from that angle at least--but I might if I saw how that hole really looked.  As for #1, having played many holes on many courses with similar backdrops, I am almost certain that if I were to play that hole it would look very different than what the photographer has managed to convey.  It might even be very "strategic."  Given the severe limitations of photography, I just do not know.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Painting #2 is Michael Miller’s work based on a photo taken shortly after CPC opened, it is the 13th hole. The reason you are unable to recognize it is due to ice plant over taking the exposed sand. It looks like the same hole I played, but that is beside the point, the issue is the dissimilar visual character (aesthetics) of the two types of hazards and the psychological effect/message their 'look' might have on strategy. I didn’t ask you if you wanted to play either hole or which hole you prefered--although that opinion is interesting--I asked if the aesthetics or 'look' of these hazards sends the same psychological message.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I assumed it was Miller and noted properly that it was the 13-14 vista (after a mulligan assuming it was the 15th, which I deleted).

As to Miller's picture, nothing personal, Tom, but if that is an accurate depiction of what #13 CPC looks like to you psycholgically, please book in IMMEDIATELY with Dr. Katz, or at least Butch Harmon or your local optometrist.

As to your question, I just do not think that there is sufficient information to answer it.  Given that Miller's picture of #13 CPC significantly distorts how the hole really looks (IMO), I must assume that the photo in #1 must do the same, so how can I respond to what I think of each image?  Show me #1 in reality and I can compare it to my impressions of #2 (which I have seen in reality), maybe.....

Whether you meant to or not, Tom, this exercise of yours is really only confirming the Muccian view that it is impossible to comment on holes that one has only seen remotely in two dimensions.  IMHO.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

If I'm not mistaken, Miller's painting of the 13th is not meant to depict how the hole looks now, but rather how it looked at course opening.  Tom MacWood points out that many of vast sandy areas have been lost to iceplant and other vegetation.

Miller's paintings are all based on historical photographs.  If that is indeed how CP's 13th looked as Mackenzie envisioned it, what psychological message do you think Mac hoped to send the golfer?  

If the mind's eye does not react to what is seen, then why is pictorial and other visual advertising a multi-billion dollar industry?

[ForkaB]

Mike

I understand what Miller was trying to do, but my question is not with the details but the perspective.

His image shows a long carry to a small fairway, over sand dunes.  Today, you have the same carry, but it is over iceplant, scrub, etc.

In both cases, I would argue, the golfer (at least this golfer) really just looks at the fairway and its relationship to the green, and doesn't really care whether or not he is hitting his 220 or so carry drive over sand, iceplant, a junkyard of buried Buicks or the Pacific Ocean.  Maybe that's why you (and I) negotiated Merion #18 so effortlessly from the new tips.......

Cheers

Rich

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
No matter--you've long held the Muccian view that aesthetics play little are no part in architectural matters. I take it you both married girls with nice personalities.