News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #200 on: February 25, 2003, 07:07:58 AM »
I think everyone can the river in the photo, and no doubt part of the function of that bunker is to prevent balls from going in the water.

But river or no river that bunkers sends an aesthetic message that is clear (and there are numerous other bunkers around that look and play just like it, unfortunately, or fortunately, you won't find them on this site, so I used that one. I'm sorry you found it misleading).

The point was to illustrate the different signals a hazard emmits based on aesthetics and that obviously the aesthetics and play of a bunker are related.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

frank_D

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #201 on: February 25, 2003, 07:08:07 AM »
two words - ECONOMIC DEPRESSION

nothing will create the attitude adjustment required better than when everything goes into the crapper and the real things - the original things - become important again

today not even the potato chip is made from potato anymore but from a chemical with side effects a mile long

someday - if history is any guide - maybe sooner rather than later - well - IMHO - the industry shall change due to economic reality - just look at purses stalled since advertisers and tour sponsors and presenters are reducing budgets as the first sign of things to come - how this filters down i don't have an answer however filter down it will and courses will be filing bankruptcy and resort courses will become "loss leaders" to attract guests and state and local governments to cover budget shortfalls will raise significantly property taxes on golf courses public and private in their juristications squeazing the course managements budgets which only the best run can pass through or absorb - what goes UP can come DOWN - and olde fashion golf environments can eventually come back in some form or another



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #202 on: February 25, 2003, 07:09:15 AM »
Mike Cirba;

Of course some would disagree. They've essentially been saying for years that all that really matters to them is the architecture plays great. What it looks like doesn't seem to matter to them much if at all. Some of them might not even notice the difference if they wanted to.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #203 on: February 25, 2003, 07:10:19 AM »
Mike
I concur.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #204 on: February 25, 2003, 07:27:56 AM »
Tom MacW:

I don't know what you mean by mechanical issues and the Valentine's.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #205 on: February 25, 2003, 07:34:09 AM »
TE
The mechanical issues that you said effected play pre-renovation.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

D. Kilfara

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #206 on: February 25, 2003, 08:01:15 AM »
Sorry for butting in with my periodic and semi-random observations - I'm not sure if I'm getting in the way of someone else's discussion - but to answer Rich...

Quote
Darren K

Your post regarding Carnoustie was very interesting too.  What I think you are saying is that, from a "severity/playabilty" aspect the course is world-class, but that its "look/aethetics" values make the course a "lesser" one in your mind.  This maybe gets to the heart of the disagreement we had as to whether of not Carnoustie was over-rated or under-rated.  What are we really "rating" anyway.  Is it just the "cold" on-the-ground architecture (i.e. the "function" of the course) or do we also care about the "form" too--to use the classical architectural nomenclature?

My personal feeling is that the "function" should be pre-eminent.  Part of the reason I feel this way is that I see golf courses as not only a field of play (95%+ of most of our games) but also one of competition.  This is why I think that Jamie's post is so important.  From him we see how a course like Pine Valley can look so very different when played for fun than it does when played for some sort of prize.  From my much less golf-competent point of view I have seen this many times at my "home" course.  The same hole with a card in my hand and a public scoreboard awaiting me at the clubhouse plays so very differently than the same hole when played with friends and with only a pint or 22 awaiting us at the clubhouse.

I believe form and function to be inextricably linked, but that is just my opinion. When one talks about rating, overrating or underrating, one is usually talking about the full package of form and function together (unless qualifying disclaimers are attached). In the case of Carnoustie, the people who think it is overrated are usually the people who prioritize form at least as much as function; those who think it to be underrated are those whose primary emphasis is upon function. I would suspect that as the main magazine ratings panels are largely comprised of ex-pros and tournament players who are primarily interested in the "function" side of the equation (for the reasons you have elaborated), people like me will always find courses like Carnoustie to be overrated - and quirkier courses like Pennard or Cruden Bay underrated - in such panels.

I must confessed to being surprised that you consider yourself a pure "function" man, given how highly you regard Dornoch - a course where the function is matched by such wonderful form. I guess you must hold its function in VERY high regard indeed! :)

On the competitive side of the equation, I can understand where you and Jamie are coming from. But even then, when I'm playing a competition, my eye and brain do not disassociate form and function. Much of the joy I get from playing competitive golf is related to the sort of course I get to play it on. A few years back, when I still harbored fantasy-illusions of being good enough to qualify for the US Amateur or even the US Open, those fantasies included an element of timing - I'd much rather have been lucky enough to qualify for a US Open at Shinnecock than at Baltusrol! :) Don't get me wrong, I love competition for competition's sake - but I guess I've never been single-minded enough to experience competition in a vacuum.

Cheers,
Darren
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #207 on: February 25, 2003, 08:04:52 AM »

Quote
Tom H. - When I think of so-called "great" golf courses with little or nothing going for them by way of aesthetic appeal, the first name that comes to mind is Carnoustie. Bleak, stark, depressing...whatever you wish to call it, few will find its looks appealing. If you like Carnoustie, I'm inclined to say that you fall on the Rich Goodale side of this equation, at least in some sense. I've never been a fan of Carnoustie; I can identify it as an excellent test of golf with a number of nice strategic elements to it, but it doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. (There are other factors at play than the sheer architecture vs. aesthetics, of course - its terrific difficulty being among them - but I'm highlighting this particular contrast to make a point.) So perhaps that's a better example than the Road Hole...

Cheers,
Darren

Darren - not that it matters much now, but I just don't like to leave misconceptions.  You have me wrong re this - I don't fall on the Rich Goodale side of this equation AT ALL - hell, I was weak at the knees standing on 16 tee at Cypress!  I was just trying to understand his way of thinking, which I do find very logical, and strong in a competitive sense - thus I admire it.  But hell no, I notice everything and a lot of the joy of golf for me is the aesthetics.  Thus you likely won't be surprised that I've also never been a big fan of Carnoustie... for me it wasn't the starkness, it was really the overkill severity coupled with the appearance of some trees/bushes there that looked like they had been uprooted from my yard in San Jose, CA and thus seemed very out of place.  I'm never going to say it's a bad golf course - hell, it is one fantastic test of golf - it's just not my cup of tea.

I also don't look at this as completely black and white... I absolutely loved Royal Birkdale, for example, and I didn't find much aesthetic beauty there... so maybe a hole from there, like #6, would be a better example in the "lacking aesthetics but great hole anyway" category.  Of course I fully expect also that someone will find aesthetic beauty on that hole that I missed!

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyChilds

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #208 on: February 25, 2003, 08:07:35 AM »
Jamie-

Great post- that was just what I was trying to say to Mike on the previous page.  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #209 on: February 25, 2003, 08:16:58 AM »
Darren
I agree they are linked, the numerous aspects of great golf architecture and there linkage is why IMO golf design is so interesting . Afterall it is called golf architecture.  Architecture is an art form where aesthetics plays a primary role, obviously along with function and other important considerations.

There is a reason the early practioners of the art didn't call themselves golf engineers.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #210 on: February 25, 2003, 09:15:10 AM »
Tom MacWood,

I think TEPaul answered your question to me regarding Merion's bunkers.  Prior to the restoration there were maintenance as well as playbility issues that the club wanted to address.  Only time will tell how the bunkers will evolve aesthetically.  The playablity and the difficulty of the newer bunkers has definitely improved.
____________________________________________________
You posted what I had said... "but when my score really counts, I could care less about what a bunker looks like, I care how severe it is and how it can effect my score"  Your reply was "It doesn't sound like you would be in the optimum state of mind to judge the complete architectural merits of a golf course."
____________________________________________________
Your statement is correct.  Although I didn't say I was judging the architectural merits. During a tournament round I really don't care about architectural merits and how good I think a certain feature looks, but I do care about how the general architecture and design and how it lends itself to strategy and most importantly scoring.  I can fully appreciate and evaluate architectural merits and aesthetics during social rounds and even during practice rounds, but that "stuff" doesn't matter as much when a score needs to be posted.

____________________________________________________
You stated: "Obviously you have to see the severity of the hazard to the left of the 13th green at Pine Valley- you just don't care"
____________________________________________________

That statement is NOT correct.  Of course I would care, and I would try my best to avoid that area. Again, there are two separate distinctions, aesthetics and the severity of a hazard.  I sure don't aim farther right than I'd like to on the 13th at PV because of the aesthetics, I'm cautious because regardless of the LOOK...it's HELL down there!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Ken Bakst

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #211 on: February 25, 2003, 09:58:48 AM »
If I may, I would like to just make 2 points that may help to bring these different perspectives together, although something tells me that’s just not possible!  :)

Look/Aesthetics v. Playability/Strategy

In my opinion, “look” and “aesthetics” are not mutually independent from “playability and strategy” because there is a definite overlap between the two.  They are inextricably linked.  Hazards that appeal to your senses do not just hang as pictures framed on the wall, they are an integral part of the golf course that must be played from when you find yourself in them, which you will from time to time no matter how hard you try to avoid them.  So when you “look” at those rough and rugged bunkers, you don’t just see a pretty picture on the wall, you see a hazard that is more likely to produce inconsistent lies and positions than those in the cleaner, perfectly maintained, perfectly edged, flat floored looking bunker.  These hazards don’t just “look” different, they are likely to play different as well.  They “look” different because they are made different and, therefore, will play different and, alternatively, they “play” different because they are made different and, therefore, “look” different.  [Note:  You can substitute another description for “rough and rugged” as that was only one example.  By way of example, think of two similarly situated greenside bunkers with the same depth, but one is a pot where you can’t see the bunker floor and the other is open so you can see the flat floor of the bunker.  Same basic strategy?  Yes.  Same visuals?  No.]

It is difficult for me to understand how the same people who advocate the return of more irregular and un-maintained bunkers can argue that there is no difference in playability/strategy between these different bunker forms.  Yes, "the bunker must be avoided, irrespective of its form," but I think you have to ask yourself to what degree.  When bunkers are perfectly edged and the sand is perfectly consistent and perfectly maintained, the degree to which you are trying to avoid that hazard might be less than the degree to which you are trying to avoid the rough and rugged looking bunker which is more likely to play rough and rugged.  So all other things being equal, those pictures that Tom MacWood posted are quite illustrative, at least for me, because that BWR bunker (‘I’m looking at it as a general example, not as it relates to that hole in particular) is just not going to send the same visual signals, and not just because it “looks” cleaner and more uniform but, perhaps more important, because it “looks” like it will “play” more consistent and uniform and that I will be less likely to get screwed!  Consequently, is it really true that "the look of the bunker has absolutely nothing to do with the decision making process, shot and club selection?"

Psychology

Pre-shot psychology:  If it looks different but will not play different, then the “look” obviously has little to do with pre-shot strategy.  But if it looks different and will play different, then the “look” definitely has far more to do with pre-shot strategy.

In-shot psychology:  Even if it “looks” different but will “play” the same, there can be different visual signals that might distract you to a greater degree and prevent you from staying committed to your pre-shot strategy.  Just think about why it is that golfers find themselves deviating from their pre-shot strategy once the club starts moving.  Anything that affects your ability to remain focused on the target and brings doubt and fear into the equation by distracting your attention from that target, thereby affecting the shot/result, is definitely part of the architecture as far as I am concerned.

By the way, Bobby Jones was absolutely correct when he stated that "there is golf and then there is tournament golf and they are definitely not the same."  What else could explain club players with 0-5 handicaps regularly shooting 85-95 in the medal play portion of their club championships!   ;D
However, the “architecture” doesn’t change between golf and tournament golf, just the golfer’s state of mind and the degree to which he/she cares about his/her performance and results.  So to say that one doesn’t see or isn’t affected by the Pacific Ocean on the 16th at Cypress Point during even a casual round seems a little far-fetched.  The only place any golfer is truly unaffected by architecture and the surrounds is at the driving range, where there is no responsibility to find your shot and hit it again.  Almost every golfer I know, even in the most casual of rounds, wants to hit quality golf shots.  The challenge is always present, and the architecture is fundamental to that challenge.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #212 on: February 25, 2003, 10:24:16 AM »
Ken

Very well put.  Couldn't agree more.  Since when did the psychological factor become unimportant?  

Long live rugged, irregular shaped bunkers....those that truly are to be avoided.

Down with cookie-cutter crap....even if they are located in a strategic spot.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #213 on: February 25, 2003, 11:22:22 AM »
How come it is so difficult to put into words what I'm actually trying to say?

Maybe it's just this...that "look/aesthetics"and "playability/ strategy" are different factors that are all part of the entire puzzle, whether it be a bunker complex, a green complex, etc.

mdugger,

I don't think anyone is really saying that the psychological factor is not important, because it is.  For the most part, if a rugged, well designed bunker looks difficult, it usually is.  I was trying to say that under certain circumstances I'm less apt to be concerned with how it looks and more concerned with how it plays. That is the type of separation I was referring to.

For my own taste, I don't like the perfectly manicured, cookie cutter designs.  The best bunker work I have seen lately is at C&C's-Hidden Creek, and Hanse's-Applebrook.  The hazards at these courses are both visually intimidating, visually appealing and have a great variety of difficulty.  It sure looks from the pictures on this site as if you'll find the same outstanding work at Friar's Head.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #214 on: February 25, 2003, 11:41:15 AM »
Ken;

Thanks for very eloquently stating some points I've been somewhat frustrated in trying to make in my earlier posts on this thread.

I have a tough time buying the logic that a bunker is a bunker is a bunker as some here have contended, whether they are able to "focus" on the target or not.  I asked Patrick similar questions a few pages back and he seems to have avoided responding.   Perhaps he just missed my queries on this lengthy thread, so I'll repeat it below because I think it's the unavoidable crux of the matter here;  Rich and other dissenters are welcome to respond, as well.  ;)

Patrick;

I find your comments interesting.  

Let me ask a followup, if I might.  Let's use your example of the front right bunker and consider two scenarios to a pin tucked front right.

A) A relatively flat, shallow bunker with consistent, low cropped surrounds, proceeding uphill along the greens surface from the bunker.  It appears to be relatively benign, and in fact plays that way.

B) A deep, irregularly shaped pit with a steep face, and inconsistent surrounds where you might have a tight lie against packed sand or be in high fescue.  From the bunker surrounds, the green sweeps away from the golfer to the pin.  The bunker looks intimidating, and there is generally good reason for that fear in terms of playability.

Are you saying that those differences would play absolutely no consideration in your determination to fire at the pin or to the middle of the green?  

Isn't potential for recovery (low risk vs high risk) part of the assessment you make in determining how much you're willing to "take on" any particular hazard?  

Thanks for your answer.  


  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #215 on: February 25, 2003, 02:05:07 PM »
Mike

My problem with your (and others) point of view on this thread is that you assume that a bunker (for example) must look gnarly to play gnarly.  Most of the gnarly looking MacKenzie bunkers that I know are in fact pussycats, whilst some of the gnarliest bunkers (playability wise) that you would ever want to know look like pussycats (particularly if you are looking at photographs of them and have never walked that particular piece of ground).  You just do not know what gnarly is until you have played it, and played it many times, IMO.  The visual clues you get from your first image or from photgraphs are just Platonic imitations of reality.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #216 on: February 25, 2003, 02:11:40 PM »
I must say this whole discussion has been throwing me. I think most people are just using some misleading words and misunderstanding each other--particularly a word like aesthetic.

Aesthetic connotes to me beauty. But what does an aesthetic and beautiful bunker mean to me? Basically it means the type of bunker I see in all those photos of Friar's Head (I like other types too but Friar's is a good example of a aesthetic bunkering to me) because I think that rugged probably iffy type bunkering to play from is beautiful, it's natural, it's aesthetically pleasing. But it also happens to be much more rugged and consequently hard to get out of successfully.

But maybe when you say aesthetic bunkering to Rich of Pat they don't think of a bunker like Friar's, maybe they think of something like ANGC which looks super clean, extremely consistent and basically the type bunkering that doesn't look too hard to escape from so not so much of a psychological concern.

So is Pat and Rich thinking of rugged probably iffy bunkering like Friar's? And if they are and they still say there's no psychologicaly difference to them between ANGC's and Friar's bunkering, I've got to really question that remark and opinion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #217 on: February 25, 2003, 02:21:33 PM »
Tom P

When I say "aesthetic" I do exactly mean Friar's Head, or Barona or Pacific Dunes or Applebrook or Cypress Point, etc. etc.  Or, maybe, Merion, pre-Macdonald Bros....  I am contrasting that not with ANGC (which I do not know) but with Muirfield, Lytham, Dornoch, all of which have a much less gnarly ("aesthetic?") look.

Please tell me, Sir, where the most troublesome bunkers you have seen over the past 5 years have been?  Any of those courses mentioned in the first sentence above?  How about those unaesthetic, simplistic beauties that Colt put in at Muirfield?  I'd bet that C&C would give their right nuts to learn (as they will, or won't over time-nobody knows now for sure) that some of their bunkers at Friar's Head play as well as some of those ugly little pots at Muirfield.......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #218 on: February 25, 2003, 02:42:39 PM »
Rich:

Great question. As I said in the last post I think different types of bunkering can be aesthetic for various reasons, not only the type such as Friar's Head, although I must admit that type is my absolute favorite, no question. As for a type like the Scottish courses you just mentioned, as you know I've never been there but I have lots of books here so let me go check them out. But if there are some little interesting pots and some greenside bunkering that's pretty severe (architecturally) one way or another I like that too and think it can be aesthetic too--even if it is clean or revetted perhaps.

I'll get back to you. And when I give you an answer and explanation I'll even refer to some I think are not aesthetic and also mundane in strategy creation and tell you why.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #219 on: February 25, 2003, 02:59:17 PM »
Rich
Can you give an example of a gnarly MacKenzie bunker that played like pussy cat? Are there any gnarly MacKenzie bunkers remaining in California?



This an example of a gnarly MacKenzie bunker, unfortunately it is no more. (Melbourne has a number of fine examples the retain plenty of gnarl.) Are there shots out of this bunker that might be relatively simple--sure. Are there shots out of this bunker that might be hard as hell--affirmative. This bunker demands your attention from an aesthetic and golfing point of view. An it blends beautifully into its natural evironment. A homerun in my eyes when judging great architecture, some may not judge it the same, perhaps you have tunnel vision or you're tone deaf.....

 The Colt bunkers at Muirfield had a different appearance in the 20's than what you see today. Deep yes; simplistic and unaesthetic no.

 At some point, it seems like every links course in Britain decided that bunkers should be rivetted. Anyone know when this happened and why? I do not believe it was positive development.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #220 on: February 25, 2003, 03:30:16 PM »
Tom MacW

That bunker you show (16 Pasa n'est-ce pas?) is so much more a pussycat than the front of that green (with the normal back pin) it is not silly.  Of course, because that bunker was completely unmaintanable in that lacy frilly Victoria's Secret style of architecture, it not longer exists in that form.  Not a serious detriment to the stategic interest of that hole or that course, of course.  I can't think of a single bunker on Pasa which was particulary noteworrthy in terms of strategy nor any at Pitreavie nor Lahinch nor Macrihanish nor CPC nor any other MacKenzie course I have played (they blur into one in my mind....), but with my tunnel vision, that should be of no surprise to you..........
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #221 on: February 25, 2003, 03:35:34 PM »
Tom M

"Rivetting" bunkers would be costly both in terms of labour and liability insurance--just think of what might happen if you hit a rivet trying to extricate yourself from one of those!.  What they do is "revetting" which started in earnest only in the last 20-25 years (I was there) and serves the very real purpose of creating bunkers that can be maintained.  They are great, regardless what you might infer from their photographs.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #222 on: February 25, 2003, 03:38:40 PM »
For this discussion, here's another example of "visual look" vs. "strategy/playablity" ...how about the newly restored bunkers at Aronimink.  Ron Pritchard restored these bunkers to original plans of Donald Ross. For those that have seen the finished product, I hope you understand my point.

Their construction from a visual standpoint is "clean lined" compared to bunkers done by C&C or Hanse, but from a strategic point of view, they are extremely difficult. As a result, at first they don't look all that difficult, but after a couple errant shots into them, you quickly learn to avoid them at all costs.

Maybe we have started a new Theorem:
"Aesthetically Mild/ Strategically Severe"  Imagine the possibilities with vice versas, anti-theorems, etc ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

ForkaB

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #223 on: February 25, 2003, 03:48:55 PM »
Well said, yet again, Jamie.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: How do you turn back the Clock ?
« Reply #224 on: February 25, 2003, 04:00:16 PM »
"...because that bunker was completely unmaintanable in that lacy frilly Victoria's Secret style of architecture."

I don't know what would be more interesting, your guessing why the bunker is no more or your personal undergarment preferences. Lets start with your guess.  

MacKenzie designed Machrahanish?

If you can't think of a single gnarly MacKenzie you've played, your previous statement about the his graly bunkers being pussycats seems pretty meaningless.

Last 20 to 25 years you say. What was wrong with the maintenance practices of the previous 100 years? Would Royal County Down be better off with rivetting?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »