The real deal in natural looking bunkering

« **Reply #25 on:** November 11, 2002, 01:00:30 PM »

I'm watching, my little leipshuns! I'm always watching.

Giggling is good!

Stupefaction?! Mmmmnope, not good at all!

All stupefactionists should be in contact with my office as soon as possible!

« **Reply #26 on:** November 11, 2002, 01:05:08 PM »

Jeesus Katz, you, you, you Quack!

My advice to you would be to call Bill Kittleman's office! He could tell you a thing or two about the realities of confusion!

« **Reply #27 on:** November 11, 2002, 03:20:50 PM »

Eric Pevoto:

I don't know if the hole "scared me", but it sure seemed like you've got to hit a couple damn good shots......and then some.

How long is that hole?

« **Reply #28 on:** November 11, 2002, 03:39:23 PM »

from the tee

bunker complex on left approach

Tim,

The 13th is about 460 from the back, maybe 435 from the middle. That line of gronkle or brush you see before the fairway covers a berm and is temporary sediment control. It's recently been taken out. The corner is about 250 from the back tee.

IMO, the huge scale of holes 12, 13 contrasts nicely with the next which is one of only 2 holes that's cut out of trees. If you come out, which you're more than welcome to, you'll see that the scale of many holes is pretty impressive.

« **Reply #29 on:** November 12, 2002, 07:53:02 AM »

Bringing this one back up. It only took me about 24 hours to figure out how to post a picture!

« **Reply #30 on:** November 12, 2002, 07:57:43 AM »

Eric:

In my opinion, what stands out about #13 is not the bunkers. Rather, it is the scale of the hole. You might want to take a picture from across the street and take a wider shot.

I'm no photography genius, but I think this would better capture what the hole is all about.

« **Reply #31 on:** November 12, 2002, 08:06:08 AM »

Tim,

I'm obviously no photography genius either!

That is a good point and I agree with you re: the scale of the hole. It does something to perception of distances. People swear these holes are longer or shots look longer than they really are and I'm at a loss as to why.

« **Reply #32 on:** November 12, 2002, 08:38:00 AM »

I can certainly testify to the fact that both #12 and particularly #13 are massive looking in scale when viewed from the road and probably the tees too.

« **Reply #33 on:** November 12, 2002, 09:06:46 AM »

Eric:

I believe that people associated with a project sometimes lose sight of how things look when first viewed. For example, the guys working on Stonewall2 were a bit surprised by my reaction to the depth perception issue. I felt I had never seen so many examples on one course. By contrast, this issue just didn't seem to stand out for them much at all.

As for French Creek #13, I believe almost all first time visitors will be struck by the apparent scale of the hole. Whether most regular players will eventually settle down, I don't know.
#1 at Spyglass always struck me as a "big hole" no matter how many times I played it.

« **Reply #34 on:** November 12, 2002, 09:13:05 AM »

TE Paul,

Please illuminate us on what the following means (from your initial post), particularly the "chunking" method: "...best grassing and grass lines (French Creek only because it's done now with the "chunking" method mostly)!

Thanks!

All The Best,

« **Reply #35 on:** November 12, 2002, 09:15:24 AM »

Tim/Tom/Eric;

I think that "huge scale" perception is due to the overall width of the hole, the uphill incine of the approach, and the overall size of the acreage that the hole occupies, including the roughs.

Just look at it again from side to side and imagine what the width must be from the leftmost point of the hole to the rightmost. Pretty bold!!

« **Reply #36 on:** November 12, 2002, 09:18:48 AM »

Tim,

After 6 months on site, I'm still struck by the scale of these holes. I can't wait to play it, it's a place where you feel like you can swing your arms, if you know what I mean.

Do all the holes have this quality? Thankfully, no. I'd rather avoid comparison with Stonewall2, but as you touched upon concerning Stonewall2, I think Gil and the guys have done a great job in setting moods throughout the round.

Again, you should have come over to take a look around. You (and anyone else on GCA) are more than welcome.

I'm off to Virginia until Friday.

« **Reply #37 on:** November 12, 2002, 09:22:03 AM »

Quickly, I'd say at it's widest point at the corner the fairway is approximately 60 yards wide. We have a couple of others (2, 6, and 9) that are at least that wide. Bold is a good word for it. It is a very muscular looking golf course. Will it play that way? Don't know yet

« **Reply #38 on:** November 12, 2002, 09:26:14 AM »

Eric;

Rather than focus on "fairway width" at any specific parallel area of the hole, I'm talking about taking what is the far leftmost side of the hole at any point and then contrasting it with the far rightmost side point is, and then seeing what the "HOLE width" is.

EXPANSIVE sounds like a good description.

« **Reply #39 on:** November 12, 2002, 09:40:20 AM »

The look of this hole and bunker styles in the pictures is exciting. Just curious however, when the siltation fences come out and the turf-rough is fully grown-in, have you put in enough capacity drainage to handle what seems like could potentially be torrents of surface runoff and sideways below ground seepage from pouring into the bunkers?

« **Reply #40 on:** November 12, 2002, 11:31:42 AM »

Doug Wright:

As to the "chunking" method of bunker surround creation and construction I'd let Eric say more but as far as I could see it's a method whereby "chunks" of sod are cutout elsewhere and hauled to the bunker being done on a frontend loader and massaged into place in various ways to create both a rugged and natural look complete with the various mature grasses of which the chunks are made up.

You can see from the few bunker photos on here of French Creek that the bunkers look like they've been there for a very long time and appear very natural and mature! The "chunking" method is obviously why! On one bunker Hanse & Co even stacked "chunks" on top of each other!

Where, on the other side of the road, the Stonewall2 bunkering has been intricately shaped into rugged "lines" but the grass was probably seeded onto the surrounds where it will growout over time.

Two very different methods and it will be interesting to see how they compare 5-10 years from now!

« **Reply #41 on:** November 12, 2002, 11:45:43 AM »

TE Paul,

Yes I see what you're getting at and it looks quite good and natural. This also seems quite unique--have you seen this "chunking" method used on newer courses elsewhere?

All The Best,

« **Reply #42 on:** November 12, 2002, 01:47:08 PM »

Doug:

Others may do it but so far I've only seen Hanse & Co do it. The stacked chunks though I think they just invented! Apparently only the little par 3 9th hole bunker was done that way, but again Eric Pevito would know better.

As for how Bill Kittleman did the bunkering on his hole--#17, the "Abruptment", noone knows and Bill isn't saying! I don't know why he isn't saying either--maybe he just thinks it will add to the overall aura of golfer "confusion" on that particular hole!

On #17 for all first time players who arrive at that hole Hanse & Co is expecting more "What the.......is this(es)?", and on departing the hole for the first time more "What.....was that(s)?", than any other hole in the history of golf architecture!

« **Reply #43 on:** November 12, 2002, 02:12:15 PM »

I looked at the website for French Creek but couldn't get a good fix on #17. From the description it sounds like a Redan-type green complex where a shot will funnel from the right hillside onto the green. Dunno. More photos please!

All The Best,

« **Reply #44 on:** November 12, 2002, 08:36:48 PM »

The ball will definitely not filter off any hillside from the right! If you try to bring the ball in too much from the right you might run the risk of getting it caught up in something like the walkout basement along the "abruptment". And if you try to bring the ball in a little bit from the right side just in front of the right portion of the green approach you'll smack the ball right into an abrupt upslope. It looks to me like a better way would be to bring the ball in on the left side of the green. I could see Tiger maybe hitting a straight moonshot 3 iron on this hole! For me probably some kind of choked down low driver!

« **Reply #45 on:** November 13, 2002, 10:32:40 AM »

TEPaul,

Maybe they need to change their website description of the hole

: "The key feature on the hole will be the slope feeding onto the green from the right which will allow a running shot to access the green."

Can't wait for the pix. This "abruptment," "basement" stuff sounds intriguing....

All The Best,

« **Reply #46 on:** November 13, 2002, 04:36:04 PM »

Doug:

Maybe there is something on the right side of the hole that would filter the ball back onto the green! Whatever it is I guess I must have missed it when I walked straight up the hole the other day! Whatever it is maybe it just falls subtely into that "confusion aura" that pervades everything and everybody that comes near the #17 (the "abruptment").

I got it! You can probably bounce the ball off the "abruptment" itself! That might be a bit tricky though! It would be sort of like bouncing a ball off a grass wall! You could do it, I guess, but you could also catch the walkout basement or some other protruberance and go "who knows where?"

All this chatter about #17 is good natured, of course! Everyone loves and respects Bill Kittleman and his "retro revolutionary" ideas and creations.

A couple of months ago when we first stepped to the tee area Rodney Hine said; "This hole here has got more damn stuff going on with it than any hole anyone has ever heard about and as of now none of us have the slightest idea what any of it means (except Bill, of course)!"

« **Reply #47 on:** November 13, 2002, 04:41:29 PM »

Can you imagine, though, if some serious golfer who had played the hole a bunch of times asked Bill Kittleman what the Hell the hole was all about and BillK also said; "I have no earthly idea either."

I'd love to see him say that to somebody who seriously asked him!

« **Reply #48 on:** November 14, 2002, 09:23:25 AM »

T.E. Paul
Knowing Dr. K as I do, I am confident that he has a very good idea of what he is presenting, and after you play it it will come to you like a lightning bolt. Then you will really have a good laugh because it won't even be remotely close to your first idea.

« **Reply #49 on:** November 14, 2002, 09:29:28 AM »

TE Paul,

One of the most fun and unique golfing experiences I had this year was playing The Mad Russian Golf Club north of Denver (with Slag Bandoon no less!). "Designed" by a non-golfing Russian immigrant farmer who wanted to use his land for something else, this course has all sorts of weird things going on, not as totally bizarre as Painswick but what is?

In many cases, I'm sure if we were to ask the "Mad Russian, GCA" what he was thinking in designing this or that hole, his answer would be "I have no earthly idea!!" And you know what, in some cases where he had no earthly idea the outcome is actually quite good!

Slag, if you're out there drop me a line so we can show those photos you took and demonstrate this point.

All The Best,

News:

Dr._Katz

TEPaul

Tim Weiman

Eric Pevoto

Eric Pevoto

Tim Weiman

Eric Pevoto

TEPaul

Tim Weiman

Doug Wright

Mike_Cirba

Eric Pevoto

Eric Pevoto

Mike_Cirba

RJ_Daley

TEPaul

Doug Wright

TEPaul

Doug Wright

TEPaul

Doug Wright

TEPaul

TEPaul

Bill_Spellman

Doug Wright

An Error Has Occurred!