[Chris Kane]

Patrick, you have stated that modern maintenance practices make placing natural-shaped bunkers close to the green edge impractical or impossible.  I play at a sandbelt course of international repute which has natural-shaped bunkers very close to the green edges, and uses modern maintenance practices.  You are more than welcome to see it (and other Melbourne courses) for yourself as my guest - as Dave has said, you might learn something.

That's one of the dumbest things anyone has ever stated on GCA.com.
Evidently you don't have a decent sense of humor and/or the ability to recognize satire.

The usual attempt to get out of jail when you know that what you posted was outrageous.  People who know me personally can attest that (1) I have a decent sense of humour and (2) have the ability to recognise satire.

If the greens come within 1 foot of every greenside bunker, as YOU STATED, and the width of walk mowers is 18 inches and the width of riding mowers is 36 inches, obviously there would be a problem mowing a green.

There obviously isn't a problem mowing the greens because they do it several times per week!  You are posting on something you clearly know nothing about - how about actually visiting the courses we've cited before you tell us that our examples are wrong!  (See invitation above).

Chris, simply put, you don't get it and I don't have the time or inclination to educate you

The classic Pat Mucci retort - "you don't get it".  It seems like nobody gets it but you, most of the time.  As you have said many times (in attacks on others), if someone makes a statement, they must be prepared to defend their position.  You apply this standard to everyone but yourself.

You made the statement, you bear the burden of proof.  David Elvins and myself have provided examples of where your contention falls flat.  How about debating us, instead of insulting us?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Sometimes I think you would rather have an argument than learn something.


Not at all, I relish learning anything and everything I can, every day.

The greens at Metropolitan are indeed mowed to the edge of the bunker and are a feature of the course that most visitors comment on. 

NO, they're not.

They are just mowed to the edge in certain areas, not on the entire green, and that's a critical issue that you and others are missing.

They are not geometric and more often than abutting the greens they eat into the greens, making them more strategic than geometric bunkers that abutt greens.

Only in certain areas, whereas the geometric bunkers tend to universally surround or flank a green, thereby increasing the strategic aspect of the bunker.

Here is a photo of the ninth green.  Not the best example but you can see the mowing lines as an example.


The mowing lines ONLY come up to the bunker/green in limited areas, NOT the ENTIRE green

By the way, I assume your safety comment was a joke but in case it was not, can you name a course where the grass around bunkers is never mowed? 


You assume correctly.[/color]

No matter what length it is it has to be mowed to the edge of the bunker at some stage.

The more common maintenance practice around Melbourne is for 1 foot of fringe grass (shorter than fairway grass) around the green 

That's easy to do when you don't have bunkers surrounding the entire green.
You can establish a practical mowing pattern, which you couldn't do if the ENTIRE green was within 1 foot of the bunkers as Chris stated.

I would be interested to see if you think any of the bunkers pictured below lack function or form.

All bunkers have a function and a form.
That's not the issue.
Please go back and reread my posts, obviously you and others don't understand the concept being presented. 

The 12th at Royal Melbourne - note the strategic advantages of a non-geometric bunker eating into the green.


Yes, I noticed the LIMITED area in which the bunkers eat into/are adjacent to the putting surface

The 10th at Spring Valley - a second tier Melbourne sandbelt course.




Yes, I see the LIMITED areas where the bunkers are adjacent to the putting surface.

The 5th at Royal Melbourne West


Yes, I see the VERY LIMITED area where the bunkers are adjacent to the putting surface.  Do you see it too ?

The 16th at Royal Melbourne East


Again, I see the limited area where the bunker is adjacent to the putting surface.

And finally, this is from Rosanna, a course on clay not ranked in Australia's top 100.


Again, I see the LIMITED area where the bunkers are adjacent to the putting surface.

In summary Patrick, I think these photos show that:
-You can have form and function.

That was never the issue.
All bunkers have form and function.
It's the degree of the function as it relates to the preference for the form that's the issue.

-non-geometric bunkers that eat into greens can actually be more strategic than geometric bunkers that flank greens.

Only if the hole is cut in a limited area[/color]

-the low course maintenance budgets in Australia (and the far higher cost of labour) do not prohibit this design feature.

Only because the bunkers don't come into constant contact with the entire putting surface.[/color]

-and finally, you need to come down and check out these courses one day, it seems like you would like them.

There is no doubt that I would like them.

I like bunkers with severe edges, they're more penal and more intimidating to the golfer.

I can't imagine a green committee filling in those bunkers such that the sand comes to the top of those faces, allowing a golfer to putt out of them.
Yet, that is what has happened in America at some courses.

I like those harsh lines and the signal they send to to the golfers eye.
Unfortunately, for many golfers and GCA.com participants, the signal stops at the eye and never gets transmitted to the brain, and, if it does get transmitted to their brain, their brain doesn't recognize the signal and the inherent message contained within.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I absolutely do.

I'm likely the only guy you'll ever hear on this site who criticizes Coore and Crenshaw for creating a very similar look at differing sites.

Everything in moderation, my friend.

Variety as the spice of life and all that jazz. 

The best architecture constantly surprises and delights.   One never feels like they've been there before.

For all the constant themes that appear at GCGC, for instance, I think one of the great strengths of the course is that one never feels they are playing a hole they played before, and the look of what the golfer is presented with constantly changes.   

Mike,

I'd agree, yet, you couldn't gleen that from an aerial.

The same is true of St George's where geometric architecture thrives.

You have to view a golf course, its holes and its features through the golfer's eyes, NOT through the pilot's eyes, which is what many GCA.comer's keep doing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, you have stated that modern maintenance practices make placing natural-shaped bunkers close to the green edge impractical or impossible. 
That's correct.

I play at a sandbelt course of international repute which has natural-shaped bunkers very close to the green edges, and uses modern maintenance practices. 

Without benefit of seeing the golf course I can only surmise that the bunkers don't surround the entire green with the green being within one foot of every bunker.

In addition, I'm going to make another wild guess and state that the fringe of the greens you mention are at the same basic elevation as the putting surface, and that steep falloffs aren't part of the architectural equation.

If you could post some photos of the greens on the course you cite it would be helpful.

You are more than welcome to see it (and other Melbourne courses) for yourself as my guest - as Dave has said, you might learn something.

I might learn a lot of things, but, what you need to do is understand the conceptual core of the issue I raised rather than babble about bunkers that abutt putting surfaces in limited areas, versus bunkers that abutt putting surfaces UNIVERSALLY

That's one of the dumbest things anyone has ever stated on GCA.com.
Evidently you don't have a decent sense of humor and/or the ability to recognize satire.

The usual attempt to get out of jail when you know that what you posted was outrageous.  People who know me personally can attest that (1) I have a decent sense of humour and (2) have the ability to recognise satire.

Well, you failed miserably on both counts.
David Elvins easily recognized the humor and satire but you didn't.
Perhaps the people who know you don't have a sense of humor and/or the ability to recognize satire

If the greens come within 1 foot of every greenside bunker, as YOU STATED, and the width of walk mowers is 18 inches and the width of riding mowers is 36 inches, obviously there would be a problem mowing a green.

There obviously isn't a problem mowing the greens because they do it several times per week!  You are posting on something you clearly know nothing about - how about actually visiting the courses we've cited before you tell us that our examples are wrong!  (See invitation above).

I know a hell of a lot more about mowing greens than you do.
You were the one who stated that where bunkers surrounded greens the greens were mowed to within 1 foot of those bunkers.  Obviously you don't understand the nuances and lack the ability to distinguish between a green ENTIRELY surrounded by bunkers and a green where bunkers come to the putting surface in limited areas.

Chris, simply put, you don't get it and I don't have the time or inclination to educate you

The classic Pat Mucci retort - "you don't get it".  It seems like nobody gets it but you, most of the time. 

That's not true.
A lot of people get it, you're just not one of them.

As you have said many times (in attacks on others), if someone makes a statement, they must be prepared to defend their position.  You apply this standard to everyone but yourself.

I've defended my position stridently.

The problem is you DON'T understand the issue, the concepts and my position.

You made the statement, you bear the burden of proof.  David Elvins and myself have provided examples of where your contention falls flat.  How about debating us, instead of insulting us?

I can't help it if insulting you is an inherent by-product of debating you.

I addressed each of David's points.
I believe he understands the distinctions raised.
I think we understand each others positions, which aren't in conflict with one another.

I can't say the same for you, at this point.
But, hope springs eternal.

It's bad enough that I have to spend 10 hours a week explaining things to TEPaul, but, at least I get paid a custodial fee for my efforts.
 

[Sean_A]

Pat

I think everybody can understand that square hard against square fits better than circle against square or circle against circle.  What I don't understand is the premise that a completely surrounded green by sand is more strategic (because its more penal?) than other bunkering schemes which leave gaps for shots to kick in.  Additionally, while not stictly true, the grass cut around those bunkers in Melbourne are essentially greens.  One certainly couldn't call it rough.  If its a debate between this and so called geometric bunkering, I know that I would trade the "extra" sand against the green for a better look anyday.  That isn't to say that it isn't cool to have this squared off look once in a while, but it isn't the look of my dream course.  To each is own.  You say the function of the bunker is more important than the looks.  I say that isn't necessarily the case.  To me, both are important and their relative degrees of importance can change depending on the situation. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think everybody can understand that square hard against square fits better than circle against square or circle against circle. 

Sean,

I think many had a problem understanding that.
And, that was a critical element in the thread.

What I don't understand is the premise that a completely surrounded green by sand is more strategic (because its more penal?) than other bunkering schemes which leave gaps for shots to kick in. 

Certainly there are exceptions, but, in general, and without factoring in contouring on specific holes, the geometric bunker pattern described above functions universally rather than randomly

Additionally, while not stictly true, the grass cut around those bunkers in Melbourne are essentially greens.  One certainly couldn't call it rough. 

I'd mostly agree

If its a debate between this and so called geometric bunkering, I know that I would trade the "extra" sand against the green for a better look anyday. 


Sean, I view the bunkers pictured as hybrids between Geometric bunkers and most of today's bunkers in the U.S.

I certainly prefer them to the bunkering schemes you see at most courses in the U.S. 

But, you rarely see bunkers cut hard by the green.
And, you rarely see greens that feed into adjacent bunkers.

Thus, I go back to the element of function, which is the most important element.
Function is THE critical component of how features interface with the golfer, not form.  So, when I see a bunker/s that are tight to the putting surface I equate that with increased efficiency in the interfacing process.

It's rare that you come into contact with Geometric design.

St George's was a rare treat.
And, the really neat thing about St George's is the potential the course has to continue to improve by restoring many of the old features, including bringing the putting surfaces right up to the adjacent bunkers.

That isn't to say that it isn't cool to have this squared off look once in a while, but it isn't the look of my dream course. 

That's not the issue.

It seems that margins of error have been introduced over the years in the name of fairness.  Bunkers and hazards have buffers of rough to prevent balls from entering them, bunkers are offset from putting surfaces to increase the margins of error, etc., etc..  Geometric bunkers tended to create more exacting play due to their immediate proximity to the green.  I miss that.

To each is own.  You say the function of the bunker is more important than the looks.  I say that isn't necessarily the case.  To me, both are important and their relative degrees of importance can change depending on the situation. 


The look is the icing on the cake.

And, the problem with your position is that you're framing the look within the context of aerial photos from 4,000 feet instead of from the golfer's eye, that's where you and others fail in your comparitive efforts.

You have to view geometric bunkers as the golfer views them, not as the pilot views them.

Then, they possess both the look and more importantly, the function

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()