Aren't doing things like this one of the real downsides to disgifugring golf courses?
"Even though we added 600 yards to the length of the course, we kept the forward tees the same for the public players who enjoy this course all the other days of the year. We pushed the location of the bunkers farther down the fairway; now the good player might be penalized, but the bunkers are out of play for most of the shorter hitters".
As if shorter hitters aka the vast majority of public players don't want to interface with bunkering and be made to think and make decisions off the tee?
Kalen,
That's really a universal problem, a universal dilema.
How can you design a golf course that will present every level of golfer, from the PGA Tour Pro to the beginer with a challenge commensurate with their respective abilities ? Especially as the beginer transitions from a novice to an accomplished player ?
Can a single, non-greenside bunker be interfaced with by all players ?
Do you stagger the fairway bunkers from 100 yards off the tee all the way to the green ?
The dilema has been exacerbated by the "distance" problem brought about by hi-tech.
Years ago there was a "compression" of sorts. PGA Tour players didn't hit the ball that much further than decent amateurs.
Today, the gap is staggering.
So, how do you fill that gap ...... architecturally ? Feature wise ?
As the need to provide 8,000 yard courses for PGA Tour Pros increases, how does the architect provide an equivalent challenge ?
Sure, off the tee, you can locate fairway bunkers at "equivalent DZ's", but, what happens from there ?
On a 500 yard par 4 hole, with bunkers at the 300 yard mark for the pros, leaving 200 in, how can you provide a drive and approach shot that will interface with the same features for the other levels of golfers, from novices to scratch handicaps ?
Before you and others go bashing Rees, come up with a solution to the problem I outlined. ...... first.