[TEPaul]

It's been touched on a bit from time to time but the one thing I see so much of in European golf and it's architecture is architectural features completely inside fairway lines. Mostly the design features of the European architecture is smallish bunkering inside the lines!

We're starting to see some of that here but it seems to be almost exclusively on the short (sometimes driveable) par 4s and occassionally the par 5. Hanse & Co seems to be doing that on most of their new short par 4s but I can count on one hand holes that have this kind of concept that are on the longer par 4s!

The one that comes first and most often to mind is NGLA's "Bottle hole". It's multi optional "in your face" centerline bunker scheme for the tee shot is fantastic but that kind of concept seems so rare (in new construction)!

Getting design features totally inside fairway lines is most of Max Behr's "lines of charm" principle which I feel is such a natural and interesting principle for creating multi-optionalism and interest.

I'm not even talking about features and concepts like PVGC's prevalent "cross hazards" that have the effect of limiting the tee ball distance today.

Architects will probably respond that getting design features totally inside fairway lines requires more width and gets expensive in real estate, construction and maintenance.

Maybe it does but nevertheless doing it the way Behr recommended is without question far more interesting architecturally and from a playing standpoint.

Frankly, I'd rather see holes that offer a maximum of FOUR tee shot options--in front of--to either side--or over!!

And I'd love to see it on some of the longer par 4s and 5s too.

It doesn't have to be big features either that are inside the lines--if they're well conceived and well placed it becomes even more interesting in both playability and evidence of conceptual architectural talent to produce interesting strategies.

To me #13 Rustic Canyon has already proved that in spades.

Behr's "lines of charm" principles is such a simple and basic concept in creating instant and interesting options and strategies!

Why isn't more of it being done? Has American golf become that dictating architecturally towards basic "center directing"?

It's always good to look back from time to time and maybe it's time again to look all the way back to that controversial bunker in the center of Woking's fairway. It created a stir then and got things going in that direction--maybe it can again!

[A_Clay_Man]

TePaul- You have an open invitation to be my guest here at Pinon Hills, where The multi-tee option is alive and well.

 I played the tips this week and was blown away at how wonderful the looks from some of those tees differed from the shorter ones. Especially After our trip to Shadow Creek I started to feel that my course needed more in-line hazards, but after really seeing the whole course, it became obvious to me that the love Ken Dye put into this place is appreciated by golfers of all ability levels.

 And I would bet you too.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I'm so glad to hear that. I know nothing of Ken Dye but on the strength of that alone he goes way up in my opinion.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, I couldn't agree more.  In general, I don't care for a large bunker far afield in the rough and totally surrounded by rough.  Of course to every situation there are some exceptions.  But in general, I tend to look at the bunker surrounded by rough as a double jeopardy hazard.  

I do find what I've seen on TV of classic Australian course design and maintenance meld interesting, where there are bunkers partially within the fairways encroaching the lines of play and charm and trimmed as fairway right up to the bunker, and with their backsides maintained as rough well into the rough areas.  But, bottle holes, cross diagonal bunkers, random pots or pits, and mid-fairway clusters make the game much more enjoyable in my view.  

I believe water when naturally present in streams/creeks or lakes should be used sparingly as laterals, diagonal fairway bisectors, and very rarely as forced carries.  The same holds true for required irrigation ponds, I think.

But what I really dislike is the contrived or considered use of rocks, artificial rocks, or stone or brick walls within the fairway and worse within the surrounds of greensites.  Only when incorporating such rock-stone features that are native to the land, and can't be efficiently dealt with any other way, do I accept them as barely tolerable when they are within fairway lines.  

[TEPaul]

RJ:

To me the potential trick with American architecture if they can possibly sell the golfing public on the beauties and interest of penal features within the fairway lines would be  interesting but necessarily quite SMALL little bunkers or bunkering!

Why small? A couple of reasons.

First, it wouldn't take up much space and that could be a good compromise for these designers that say clients don't want to pay for the added cost that WIDTH demands!

Second, something small would probably be a bit more palatable to American golfers who don't like anything in the middle anyway except fairway! If they get in something small in the middle the rationale is it really shouldn't have been that hard to miss (since it's small).

But the main reason for getting it inside the fairway lines is to hopefully get the little penal feature right in what was the net basis of Behr's principle in the first place. And that was the way to create the necessary "lines of charm" is to take away that exact spot where the golfer really wants to go. Behr called that the "line of instinct" and felt if an architect took that instinctual spot away from the golfer it forced him to pay attention and analyze the alternative "lines of charm" which were anywhere other than that "line of instinct".

[A_Clay_Man]

RJ-I totally agree that small pot bunkers would be better than nothing. I believe Shivas has been proclaiming thier virtues for quite awhile now.

And,

 The Irony being the average schmoe who doesn't want/like it, can't hit it, especially when it's in the middle.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Sadly, perhaps due to the type of equipment being used, in an effort to save time and money, many courses have lost those features, GCGC amongst them.

Old photos clearly reveal bunkers within the fairway lines.

But, those who know this and should clearly champion a return to bunkers within the fairway lines are resisting and even disputing same, despite the photographic evidence.

Egos and politics sometimes complicate, delay and even prevent prudent restorations.

Gib Papazian witnessed and commented on this topic last tuesday after he had played GCGC.   Perhaps, when Gib has some time, he will comment on this subject and his experience at GCGC.

Why can it be so obvious to an outsider, but resisted by internal and external forces at a club.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()