Stop calling it "easy"; start calling it "fun"

[mike_malone]

 Cabell,

     There are two drainage swales at 50 and 30 yards. I think the last two evergreens are just about at these distances. The recommendation was at 50. I think Wayne prefers 30.


   There is some concern about whether a ball will go over a proposed bunker and end up in the left bunker. There is also concern whether at 30 yards the downslope just after it would be too steep and close to the green to allow carrying it and staying on the green.


   Because of the intricacies of the slope , I think building a good bunker is difficult. The width. depth, length, relation to the center of the green all seem to point to the original design as the best alternative.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

  Do you think it is a statistical classification that misleads one to think that the easier hole by this calculation is a lesser hole? I am suggesting that using a method that includes the scoring spectrum is more valuable.  Usually these dispersed scores are not enough to change the average on the hole but reveal something about choices made and their success or failure.

[Brent Hutto]

Speaking as a statistician, I'll say as a general rule averages are boring and the interest/fun all lies in patterns of variation. Telling me that #13 is the easiest hole and averaged 4.7826359 strokes this year and 4.8291345 last year doesn't entertain me in the least.

Now if you tell me that on #13 this year laying up resulted in half as many birdies but just as many bogies as going for it in two I'd find that fascinating. Or if you told me that every player under par for the final round birdied #13 but only 2/3 of them birdied #15 that would be something to think about. Heck, if you want to keep it simple just tell me which holes had the least pars over the last two round (lots of variation in scores) versus which holes had the most pars (probably #11).

[wsmorrison]

"There are two drainage swales at 50 and 30 yards. I think the last two evergreens are just about at these distances. The recommendation was at 50. I think Wayne prefers 30."

In fact I prefer the placement in the earlier natural swale.  The bunker at Merion's 5th is 32 or so yards short of the start of the green.  If you look at the second to last photograph that is posted, the second tree shadow short of the green is where I would put a bunker within the fairway lines, just over 50 yards short of the green.  That leaves plenty of room to fly the bunker and feed onto the green.  Taking the safe route to the right of the bunker leaves a testing shot to the green falling away from you.  Playing the second shot as a layup on the left side of the fairway leaves ground or aerial options.

"There is some concern about whether a ball will go over a proposed bunker and end up in the left bunker. There is also concern whether at 30 yards the downslope just after it would be too steep and close to the green to allow carrying it and staying on the green."

These are uniformed concerns.  Who has these alledged concerns?  The bunker I proposed was not 30 yards from the green.


"Because of the intricacies of the slope , I think building a good bunker is difficult."

Are you building the bunker?  You really think that a good construction team could not build a good bunker there?  You don't know what you're talking about; not that that ever stopped you before  By the way, how much experience do you have designing and building bunkers?

"The width. depth, length, relation to the center of the green all seem to point to the original design as the best alternative."

What does that mean?  There is nothing of any substance in such a statement.  Explain why.  You make conclusive statements without any support at all and that contradicts expert restoration architects and just about everyone I've discussed this issue with.  

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

   Now that's better. I prefer you calling me an idiot to not saying anything. After all this is a discussion group. Even if you think my point of view is amateurish I will continue to work it out until I am convinced that the Flynn original does not work anymore. Is the bunker such an improvement that it overcomes the placement problems ? I think not. THE LAND IS MARVELOUS ;NOTHING ELSE IS NECESSARY!


  My memory was that your distance was different from the Forse recommendation.


     As a person with an interest in architecture I think I have analyzed that area more than any living person. The concerns I have are questions that I want answers to. I think that as the consultants and those interested at the club begin to work toward these answers I expect them to get frustrated by the idea of a bunker and move to a postion that the original seems like the most reasonable option. And just coincidentally that is how it was built and kept for 40 years.

    As I look at the decision making process on this bunker idea I see it as lacking the kind of critical analysis that I have given it.  That does not mean I am better or even right, but so far I think I have been more rigorous. This makes me nervous. I have seen too many things happen in  life that were decent ideas that were fraught with practical implementation problems that the proponents brushed aside to just get it done.

[mike_malone]

 Brent,

   That's what I'm talking about. I like your idea that the least number of pars could be a good shorthand.

[wsmorrison]

"Is the bunker such an improvement that it overcomes the placement problems ?"

The only one who thinks there is a placement problem is you.  You'll have to defend your position better than that.

"As a person with an interest in architecture I think I have analyzed that area more than any living person. The concerns I have are questions that I want answers to."

How about you answer one question.  Do you think Ron and Jim would recommend a bunker 50 yards short of 7 green if it could not be built, would compromise balls staying on the green or any of your other concerns?  Don't you think that guys with their experience and talent have already thought this through?  Your concerns seem artificially in place merely to support your anti-bunker stance.  I suppose you are trying to sway others with your mis-placed concerns.  If so, that is depressing.

You may have stood on that parcel of ground more than most, but that doesn't mean you understand it better than most architects.  Your defense sounds awfully Matt Wardian.

"As I look at the decision making process on this bunker idea I see it as lacking the kind of critical analysis that I have given it.  That does not mean I am better or even right, but so far I think I have been more rigorous. "

I don't know why you think there is a lack of critical analysis--seemingly it must be because it differs from your own conclusions.  Then you continue to insult the participants that differ from you by saying that they (we) have not conducted a rigorous process.  I'd rather not try to deal with you on this issue at all given your approach to the subject.

[mike_malone]

 I am not judging Ron or Jim. I am saying that no specific plan has been drawn up for this proposed bunker and when it is I expect them to encounter problems. I think they will look at this in a different light when the trees are completely gone.


  In my mind this is what professionals do. They take into account new information and are willing to adjust. This is the impression I have of Forse Design. I think that view is complimentary not critical. I don't think they have finished their analysis of how the contours and playability will affect the depth, length , and distance from the center of the fairway for this bunker. They haven't been paid for a specific plan!

   If anyone analyzing this hole doesn't think there are placement problems I would doubt their abilities.


    I still say that it appears that Flynn never intended a bunker short and right of this hole. I don't think he made a mistake. I think he wanted to create a shot available only on this hole--a downhill chip to a green that runs away from you.

    The hole without that bunker is distinctive, fun , random , challenging ,quirky , uncertain. A bunker makes it less distinctive , less random, less quizzical.

       I am not trying to annoy you with this discussion. I am hoping you say something to change my mind.

[wsmorrison]

"I am not judging Ron or Jim. I am saying that no specific plan has been drawn up for this proposed bunker and when it is I expect them to encounter problems. I think they will look at this in a different light when the trees are completely gone."

With a statement like this you certainly are judging Ron or Jim.  What makes you think they can't appreciate the hole with the trees gone?  That is a stupid statement.  These are guys that can design a golf course on raw land and you don't think they know how to envision an existing hole with 4 trees cut down?  Ridiculous!

"I am not trying to annoy you with this discussion. I am hoping you say something to change my mind."

I am glad to know that you are not trying to annoy me but I am in any case.  I'm not trying to get you to change your mind but rather show you my thought process and pointing out the weaknesses in your argument.  I'm not disturbed that you feel a bunker is not necessary.  Others might agree with that but I doubt they would come to the conclusion along the same path you take to get there  

[ChasLawler]

Wayne and Mayday,
I’m not ready to pick sides here - especially since I've never even seen the hole in person - but how would this proposed bunker affect various types of players?

If I understand the hole correctly, this new bunker will not even be in play for the long hitter, as he'll still be able to fly the ball to the green.

Meanwhile the shorter hitter will have to contend with this new bunker in his effort to run the ball up onto the putting surface. It sounds as if the placement of this proposed bunker is in the ideal location for someone to aim a low running draw in an effort to reach the green. With the addition of the bunker, anything hit left of it will funnel towards the greenside bunker...anything hit right is likely too high to catch the slope and come down toward the green...so the only choice is to try to carry the bunker?

Do I understand that right?

[mike_malone]

 Cabell,

     In my opinion a bunker that requires the average player to carry it FROM THE FAIRWAY to get to the green would be a radical change to the hole. I think your statement is close to the mark. There was discussion that a good player would need to deal with the bunker after a short or offline to the left tee shot.

    We have not heard the professionals' view of this as it relates to the center of the fairway.


     I think that not only should  the possibility of  rolling onto the green  be preserved but also some possibility of MISSING the green to the right without ending up in a bunker.

   I can only see the bunker as something off the line of play to the right. And if that happens I think it will aid the player by giving them something to aim at. So, I can't see the value in that case.

    The idea that significant rough should be off to the right makes sense to me because it won't give a visual clue and it will catch almost all attempts to come in from the right that go too far offline.

[wsmorrison]

Cabell,

I don't think Mike has any real grasp on the concept.  I beg to differ with you (at least you've never seen the hole).  

Short hitters and average golfers are not reaching the green in two.  They are usually well short of the bunker for their third shot to the green; about half way between the crossing creek and the bunker for the majority of players.  Their approaches are only 135 yards or so.  A bunker requires that the second shot be placed correctly and/or a more precise shot is required for the third.  Rather than the approach having little interest, it is raised dramatically.  Why shouldn't a mid to high-handicapper not be challenged with a short approach shot on a short par 5 and a placement demand on their second shot?  

The long hitter and low handicapper are challenged by the second shot so that placement off the tee is more important than with the short hitter.  The bunker gives a more go no go situation for these players' shots from the right rough.  For most shots from the left side of the first fairway it is not in play, the natural topography is the challenge.

I think the beauty of the bunker is that it is of interest to all levels of golfers.  It creates more interest and challenge.  I think it part of Flynn's enjoyable difficulty design propensity.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,
    The vast majority of 8 to 15 handicappers at Rolling Green stand on that #7 with the thought that they are going to get home in two. If they execute their drive properly they are going for it. And they need that roll to make it.  I would imagine the best players in 1926 needed that roll to get home in two. I think it is great that a hole designed for the best in 1926 works for the average person now.

   I play with many members and speak from my personal experience.


   For some very short hitters they are laying up short of the creek on their second shot and need that roll to get on in three.

    That is a large cross section of the club.


         We don't need another bunker that is just like what everybody else has.

    I know this gets tedious and boring but I'll take the original.

[ChasLawler]

Wayne,
 I guess I just don’t see how this creates any interest for the shorter hitter. Won’t this bunker just reinforce the notion of laying up short, and at 50 yards out, is it really in play for anyone’s third shot at the green (from 135 in)?

At 500 yards with a 60’ drop of the tee, I’m surprised more players can’t take a go at this green and are laying up to 135. It sounds like an ideal par 4.5.

As the hole plays now (or without the trees which are scheduled to be removed), is their any risk to playing the low running draw and failing to execute?

[George Pazin]

This strikes me as something you'd really have to see in person to understand.

It would strike me as kind of a bummer if I were the type of player that could only have a go once in a blue moon, but just had that one time go by the wayside with a new bunker. It's not like hitting from a sidehill lie to a green sloping away from you is such an easy shot that you'd automatically bailout there.

Add that to its placement amongst 4 tough holes and it seems a little like overkill.

I'd have to play it to make the decision....

[mike_malone]

 Cabell.

   The risks now to a poorly attempted runup from the right are (assuming no trees).
   1) hitting it right or straight and remaining up on the hill with a chip shot  down to a green that slopes away from you .This is the only place this shot exists on the course. In fact, we are famous for the number of uphill shots to the green.
  2) Drawing it into the front left bunker or short of the bunker in the rough. Forse Design recommends pulling the bunker further down the fairway to catch more balls. This seems like an excellent way to deal with the increased number going for the green today. You also can end up in a sloping fairway with a multiple choice test . There is a difficult to figure break from right to left.
  3) The recommendation to extend the fairway up to where the cart path is now and around the green will make the running shot execution even more of a challenge.

  I have been told that many guests find this to be the most exciting shot of their round.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you think it is a statistical classification that misleads one to think that the easier hole by this calculation is a lesser hole?

I think you have to look at hole rankings solely in the context of scoring, in the spectrum of easiest to hardest.

I haven't heard anyone make the quantum leap that an easy hole has no merit.

Most view the ranking solely in the context of ordering difficulty.

Could you provide some examples where someone interpolated lack of resistance to scoring into architectural inadequacy ?

I am suggesting that using a method that includes the scoring spectrum is more valuable.  Usually these dispersed scores are not enough to change the average on the hole but reveal something about choices made and their success or failure.

I don't know that you can draw any conclusions on an uncontrolled study, especially ones where conditions vary with each sampling.

Some studies throw out the extremes on both ends, anomalies that might otherwise distort the results.

Statistical anaylsis only equates to scoring averages, which when taken as a set of 18, creates an order of difficulty or ease.  

I don't see how any relationship can be established which directly links difficulty or ease in scoring with architectural merit.

But, while TEPaul is always wrong, I might be wrong on this.

[Tim MacEachern]

I think the important thing is that Augusta National has a lot of 3½ and 4½ par holes for the pros.  Unfortunately, a ½-par hole for the pros (and for these particular, accomplished pros even more) can't be a ½-par hole for the rest of us.

[Tags:]

Tags: