[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

For the most part I agree...for this specific hole I would just hope that the grade of the approach was enough to actually draw the ball away from the green a decent amount...I don't know the hole so I can't say for sure.

Very much does, in fact, it can lead to balls rolling back down behind the approach bunker.

[JESII]

Tom,

For the most part I agree...for this specific hole I would just hope that the grade of the approach was enough to actually draw the ball away from the green a decent amount...I don't know the hole so I can't say for sure.

Very much does, in fact, it can lead to balls rolling back down behind the approach bunker.

Really!?

Awesome!

[TEPaul]

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #34 on: Yesterday at 03:07:00pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TEPaul,
There's NOTHING constructed about the land between the tee and the greater foot pad of the green.
And, there's nothing constructed within a number of yards behind, in front or to the left and right of the green."


Patrick:

Perhaps you don't even know the difference between a cut and a fill.  

In your remarks above it would appear you missed a ton of earthmoving that was done on that hole and where.

Let me ask you something, Patrick. Are you even aware if an architect needs X amount of fill for something he basically gets X amount of fill from somewhere else? Are you aware of that Patrick?  

And generally those guys back in that day got it from very close by. Next time you play Piping Rock take a look at what the land looks like to the right of that redan. It's actually quite a bit more obvious than where the fill came from to create the Bottle Hole green so on Piping's Redan you might actually notice.Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #34 on: Yesterday at 03:07:00pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TEPaul,
There's NOTHING constructed about the land between the tee and the greater foot pad of the green.
And, there's nothing constructed within a number of yards behind, in front or to the left and right of the green."


Patrick:

Perhaps you don't even know the difference between a cut and a fill.  

In your remarks above it would appear you missed a ton of earthmoving that was done on that hole and where.

Let me ask you something, Patrick. Are you even aware if an architect needs X amount of fill for something he basically gets X amount of fill from somewhere else? Are you aware of that Patrick?  

And generally those guys back in that day got it from very close by. Next time you play Piping Rock take a look at what the land looks like to the right of that redan.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Any chance this will turn into a normal conversation today?

Is the bunkerless image in any way better than the real image?"


Sully:

The bunkerless version looks much more natural to me and I like that and I believe that grass grade falloff instead of the bunker there probably would make the green and its approach and recovery playability even better than the present hole.

How so, the green would be defenseless with a huge safety net in the form of the backdrop/stop[/color]

I've been there, and I've played that hole enough. I remember the way the green played before Silva's project and I know how it plays now.

I'm not suggesting they actually redesign the hole to look like Wayne Photoshop image. Raynor architecture is what it is and I like it.

But I think the hole that Wayne did would be really good and again, the whole thing looks more natural to me too.

Look good, Play BAD.

The moment you eliminate the bunkers you eliminate almost all of the tactical elements that make the hole so good.

It becomes a bland, defenseless hole, a plain Jane that you'd be hard pressed to remember.

Raynor knew what he was doing, you and Wayno don't.[/color]

One of the things I really like about Wayne's image is it just doesn't have the blatant and obvious visual features that a golfer can easily visually key into and I really like holes that don't.

I think they make golfers concentrate a whole lot more on what's really going on in front of them and on what they have to do.

Top shots or low liners would either find the green or the approach just short.  It would become a toothless hole, bland and requiring very little in the way of thought.  Any old shot would probably suffice, whereas today, the hole presents a formidable challenge requiring thought, planning and execution.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #34 on: Yesterday at 03:07:00pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TEPaul,
There's NOTHING constructed about the land between the tee and the greater foot pad of the green.
And, there's nothing constructed within a number of yards behind, in front or to the left and right of the green."


Patrick:

Perhaps you don't even know the difference between a cut and a fill.  

In your remarks above it would appear you missed a ton of earthmoving that was done on that hole and where.

Let me ask you something, Patrick. Are you even aware if an architect needs X amount of fill for something he basically gets X amount of fill from somewhere else? Are you aware of that Patrick?  

And generally those guys back in that day got it from very close by. Next time you play Piping Rock take a look at what the land looks like to the right of that redan. It's actually quite a bit more obvious than where the fill came from to create the Bottle Hole green so on Piping's Redan you might actually notice.Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #34 on: Yesterday at 03:07:00pm »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TEPaul,
There's NOTHING constructed about the land between the tee and the greater foot pad of the green.
And, there's nothing constructed within a number of yards behind, in front or to the left and right of the green."


Patrick:

Perhaps you don't even know the difference between a cut and a fill.  

In your remarks above it would appear you missed a ton of earthmoving that was done on that hole and where.

Let me ask you something, Patrick. Are you even aware if an architect needs X amount of fill for something he basically gets X amount of fill from somewhere else? Are you aware of that Patrick?  

And generally those guys back in that day got it from very close by. Next time you play Piping Rock take a look at what the land looks like to the right of that redan.

TEPaul,

You're repeating yourself.

One of the attributes of the ODG's was their ability to be efficient and frugal.

Do you think that high wall, seperating the front bunker from the green, was there naturally, or is it more likely that excavation work was done immediately in front of the green with the fill used for the green and immediate surrounds ?

As to "cut and fill" are you sure you're not confusing the expression with "cut and run" which someone else did recently when discussing ML ? [/color]

[TEPaul]

"Do you think that high wall, seperating the front bunker from the green, was there naturally, or is it more likely that excavation work was done immediately in front of the green with the fill used for the green and immediate surrounds?"

Do I think the high wall separating the front bunker from the green was there naturally?? Do you mean the face of that bunker?

Of course not.

That was probably dropped down a good 6-7 feet to where the sand surface now is. If you look at the photo in reply #43 that shows the large pit that goes all the way out to the left of the green and over to the walkway up #12 and around to the front left and well to the front left of the green (also refer to the photo looking back to the tee on reply #39) I think that's where the fill was generated from that was used which probably includes building up the ridge that starts way short and right of the green and ties in to the high right kicker. The periphery around that cut area might have covered an area of well over 20,000 sf or more. I think dirt was taken out of that area to create all the fill needed on that entire hole maybe even including fill to level out tees and perhaps even bring up the walkway on #12 some.

[TEPaul]

"The moment you eliminate the bunkers you eliminate almost all of the tactical elements that make the hole so good.
It becomes a bland, defenseless hole, a plain Jane that you'd be hard pressed to remember."

God only knows what you're thinking about. In Wayne's version if the ball was hit anywhere to the left of the present left of the green the ball would filter way down into that pit that begins to the front and runs all the way to the back left of the of the green near those trees off the back left of the green. The ball would probably end up twenty yards to the left of the green too and well below it and from there you'd be looking up a real slope back up to the green.

Could someone hang Wayne's photoshop of the 11th green on this thread? If it doesn't finally stress and confirm why most Macdonald/Raynor architecture seems engineered and artificial in look to some people I can't imagine what could.

[wsmorrison]

[Ryan Farrow]

I don't know which is worse, Kyle's use of MS Paint or Wayne's use of Photoshop, or Tom's praise of Waynes use of Photoshop. This is getting confusing. If my illegal copy did figure itself out a few days ago I could have shown you what the hole really would look like w/o bunkers.

[Kyle Harris]

I don't know which is worse, Kyle's use of MS Paint or Wayne's use of Photoshop, or Tom's praise of Waynes use of Photoshop. This is getting confusing. If my illegal copy did figure itself out a few days ago I could have shown you what the hole really would look like w/o bunkers.

Ryan,

It must become incredibly difficult to walk around the ivory tower with a head that big.

[wsmorrison]

Hey, Ryan.  Stick it up your bunker.  

[TEPaul]

"I don't know which is worse, Kyle's use of MS Paint or Wayne's use of Photoshop, or Tom's praise of Waynes use of Photoshop. This is getting confusing."


What??

This is supposed to be a learning exercise on a website with photography to figure out how and why some people might think Raynor architecture looks engineered and what it might take for it not to look that way. Nobody is recommending that Mountain Lake be redesigned because of a photographic photoshop exercise.

Wayne, I think this kind of thing is very interesting if for nothing else but to get a better sense of just how much some Raynor features seem to do aesthetically but it's probably not even worth it with how some of these people on here keep thinking all you're trying to do is criticize or crucify Raynor and his architecture.

furgetaboutit---you can tell 'em but you can't tell them much.

[JESII]

Other than the left bunker appearing about double the size it needs to be, I can't imagine what you guys see about the bunkerless hole that is better than the actual...and, as I've said before...I love the idea of bunkerless holes...


Another thing that has bothered me about this hole...just from the pictures is why would anyone aim anywhere other than pretty close to the center of the green? There seems, if anything, a disincentive to flirt with the edges of the green...am I wrong?

[Ryan Farrow]

Mission Accomplished. And to top it off replies in successive order.

[JESII]

Looking at those pictures again, it struck me...if the ball will really work its way 20 yards or so away from the green on the front left...if I were to remove one bunker from the hole it would be the greenside bunker...I'd leave the approach bunker...am I nuts?

[Ryan Farrow]

Not really, if you maintain the area as short, short grass. Which would probably be pretty difficult. Kyle?

[JESII]

Tom,

For the most part I agree...for this specific hole I would just hope that the grade of the approach was enough to actually draw the ball away from the green a decent amount...I don't know the hole so I can't say for sure.

Very much does, in fact, it can lead to balls rolling back down behind the approach bunker.

Ryan,

Kyle hinted yesterday that the slope is steep enough in front to take balls back to that approach bunker...I assume the left could be as steep as they want...

[TEPaul]

"Another thing that has bothered me about this hole...just from the pictures is why would anyone aim anywhere other than pretty close to the center of the green? There seems, if anything, a disincentive to flirt with the edges of the green...am I wrong?"


Sully:

No, because of the kant of most of the right side there's much more space to aim at than just the center of the green. Visualize some of the shot values on PV's 3rd. You can hit it to the center of the green most of the way from front to back but you can also hit it to the right side or even the extreme right side basically all the way along and your ball will basically arrive at much the same place. That's sort of the way ML's redan plays now. When some of the members experienced that with the recent project they didn't like it so much thinking it was easier than the way the green used to be which was without that much right side bank effect or kant.

With no bunker on the left and just a falloff the point is if the ball lands in the same place with or without that bunker the ball will get off the green. The only difference would be you'd either be in a sand bunker below the green or in a grass swale beneath the green and obviously farther from the green.

[JESII]

Thanks Tom.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I probably shouldn't have even mentioned anything about strategic differences on that hole with bunkers or without them.

That was not Wayne's purpose at all when he removed the bunkering with Photoshop. All he was trying to do is see if the hole looked more natural if the thing that makes it look "engineered"----eg those fairly right angled geometric shaped bunkers----were removed from the hole.

[JESII]

I'm not so sure I am too into this natural appearance stuff you two are smoking around here...for two reasons...first is, if I know it was built, why do I need to think it is natural...and the second is...#7 green site at Shinnecock.

#7 at Shinnecock may be my favorite looking par 3. According to REDANMAN it is an abomination because it is so clearly manufactured and unnatural...

So who really needs natural anyway?

Even Tom Doak says that minimalism, in his definition, is just the appearance of minimal earth movement...

[tlavin]

Sully:

I probably shouldn't have even mentioned anything about strategic differences on that hole with bunkers or without them.

That was not Wayne's purpose at all when he removed the bunkering with Photoshop. All he was trying to do is see if the hole looked more natural if the thing that makes it look "engineered"----eg those fairly right angled geometric shaped bunkers----were removed from the hole.

That's what I took from the exercise.  For those of us who struggle with the "vision thing", Photoshop is an amazing tool.

[TEPaul]

"...if I were to remove one bunker from the hole it would be the greenside bunker...I'd leave the approach bunker...am I nuts?"

No you're not nuts. It's just a choice. If you left the bunker there all you're really doing is forcing a player who may want to get the ball on the ground quicker and shorter and run it through that area to hit it farther into the approach to run it on.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sully:

I probably shouldn't have even mentioned anything about strategic differences on that hole with bunkers or without them.

That was not Wayne's purpose at all when he removed the bunkering with Photoshop. All he was trying to do is see if the hole looked more natural if the thing that makes it look "engineered"----eg those fairly right angled geometric shaped bunkers----were removed from the hole.

For the Nth time, Wayno wasn't trying to do that, I WAS.

I was the ONE who asked that the bunkers be eliminated from the picture to show YOU how natural looking the greensite was.

I'm glad you now agree that it's the bunkers that are causing your untrained eye to claim that the greensite isn't natural looking.

I'm putting in for an increase in my custodial fees, this is too much work[/color]

JES II,

Wayno & his cohort/co-author only object to man made or engineered work when it's not done by Flynn

[Kyle Harris]

I thought of Wayne's idea all day, and the need to "chase contour" to fit in the non-bunker surrounds got me thinking of the area around the 11th hole, when I realized that pretty much the entire hole is probably built on a berm meant to tie in the berm the road behind the green is upon and the natural slope that existed before.

Note this is all a hunch, but those intimately familiar with the site behind the 11th green could see my point. The black arrow represents the original flow of the valley. The red line an arbitrary "shape" of the valley edges and the small black lines denote the approximate location of the berm for the road. Note how the hole is wedged between the natural grade, the berm for the road and the rest of the golf course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()