[Kyle Harris]

Pat Mucci's wonderful NGLA threads got me thinking about the lack of presence of nastiness over a green these days - especially in terms of hidden hazards.

Have yardage markers nullified the effectiveness of the rear hazard?

How about just relegating them to framing duties with no real purpose?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

I never thought it was yardage markers that reduced nasty back bunkers. I thought it was the desire for visibility.  Hard to have a deep back bunker when it has to set above the green to be seen, as you state in your last sentence.

The other side is how most of us route holes - with greens set in gentle up slopes, which make deep back bunkers rare.  If a green is on a downslope, they tend to be deeper naturally, although most back hazards below the greens would be grass.  Given the cost of bunkers (liner, drainage, perfect sand) it does seem a shame to build one where no one will see it.  And the grass bunker is just as tough.

[Philippe Binette]

I feel a back bunker is more effective when the player doesn't see it. The nothing behind the green effect is awesome on a back pin

[Sean_A]

When I think of rear bunkers Dr Mac immediately comes to mind.  I don't believe 150 markers had anything to do with why he put these things in.  Part of their placement had to do with aesthetics and another part implanting fear in the mind of the golfer who is searching for a rear hole location.  Of course, imo, often times the aesthetics don't work these days because the bunkers have become sterile and a static looking thing rather than a dynamic looking thing.  Also, imo a blind rear bunker(s) (or even just a steep slope) puts just as much fear into golfers as a visible one and the knee jerk reaction of coming up well short of the hole is often a predictable outcome.  Obviously Dr Mac liked the amphitheatre like green setting to really go to town with the rear bunkers and in this situation its more a matter of does one want the bunkering or not because it can't be hidden without ripping the heart of the green design out.  

I can recall a hole at Pasatiempo (its a pity that recent Pasa pic tour wasn't saved by "Art Fuller") which had a wee rear bunker saving shots from going into the road.  I spose a lot of rear bunkers were placed for this reason, but do they have to be seen?  Often times they destroy sight lines for no good reason (visibility in and of itself is not a good reason imo).

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

Yardage markers have no more nullified hazards behind a green than they have any other hazard. Which is to say not at all. Every time a topic like this comes up the thought occurs to me that maybe we on this site spend too much time playing courses once or twice in search of novelty. Anything a yardage marker or rangefinder or GPS gives you the first time you play a course is something that will firmly lodged in your mind at a dozen plays even if you have no yardage aid but your eyes and feet.

There's a bunker behind a Par 3 green at my club, water in front. Think of the twelfth at Augusta National with a bunker instead of that Azalea bed and a pond instead of the creek. Same front bunkering, larger green, similar distance. No matter where the tees are placed each day and what pin position is in use I know where that bunker is and what club(s) not to use if I want to avoid it. Being there is just about as bad as being in the water and far worse than being in the front bunker. Just don't go there and expect to make par or necessarily even bogey unless you're a sand wizard.

Now that bunker is not blind and yes, there is a yardage plate on the tee box. So if you hit the ball in it there are no excuses. But if the bunker were down below the green and hidden somehow (actually impossible given the topography of that portion of our course) and if the yardage marker were dug up and thrown away it would not add to the number of balls in that bunker. Everyone knows to give it a wide berth and it's either a mental error or a terrible shot to hit it there.

The yardage marker is most useful to get an exact distance over the front bunker. Because of the slope of the green you really only have about a 8-9 yard deep window to hit when the flag is back and less than that when it's up. And the bunker is a hazard worth flirting with to try and get a flattish or uphillish putt. But the back bunker or slope of grass over the green to the right is something you give a wide berth to and it doesn't really matter if you know the back-of-green distance to the nearest yard.

[Kyle Harris]

Brent,

When you speak, I tend to listen very closely.

But are you saying that over-clubbing is just as likely knowing the yardage than without knowing the yardage?

Your case is based in familiarity with the course - which naturally is going to lead one to know which clubs to use and not to use. Would you argue that the availability of yardage markers softens that learning curve or the opposite?

[cary lichtenstein]

Just desin holes with greens with very little depth, high front bunkers and deep rear bunkers, works every time

[john_stiles]

I don't think the yardage markers hurt.  
Before the yardage markers, you had yardage books.
Before the yardage books you had the old sayings.
Like, a blind shot is only blind once.

So you play once, you know it is there.  
You get in a penal hazard and you remember the next time.

Put the hole location near the rear, and you usually play to the middle.

But, the thought is usually there, and sometimes gets you,  'don't go long'.

[Brent Hutto]

Kyle,

Yes I was speaking to familiarity. And yes I think yardage markers "soften" the process during ones first dozen or two dozen times around a given course in the sense that you can play safe/conservative from almost the very first time you see a feature, given a yardage book (or caddie or member showing you around) and some sort of marker or yardage aid. So if yardage markers ruin anything, it might be the gotcha factor for blind features ones first time or two playing a hole. And to a lesser extent the uncertainty that may persist beyond the first couple plays on a particularly subtle or hard to execute judgement shot (like Cary's example maybe).

The hell of it is that resort and Destination courses which are most frequently played by first or second timers are the very ones most likely to keep everything visible, measured and obvious so as to keep the pace of play up when fully booked. So my main point is that a NGLA or similar member's course would be achieving almost nothing by eliminating yardage markers or encouraging player to eschew aids other than eyeballs and feet. A high percentage of its rounds are either players who know where all the trouble lies or (I'm presuming) visitors assisted by caddies and/or members.

P.S. Not surprisingly Mr. Stiles has said it more succinctly and pithily than I can manage. Let me also add that the one truly effective way to induce that pleasant state of uncertainty for the player is to provide very firm links turf, low-profile greens and hazards and a brisk wind. Would that archies could design that into inland courses.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

Yes I was speaking to familiarity. And yes I think yardage markers "soften" the process during ones first dozen or two dozen times around a given course in the sense that you can play safe/conservative from almost the very first time you see a feature, given a yardage book (or caddie or member showing you around) and some sort of marker or yardage aid. So if yardage markers ruin anything, it might be the gotcha factor for blind features ones first time or two playing a hole. And to a lesser extent the uncertainty that may persist beyond the first couple plays on a particularly subtle or hard to execute judgement shot (like Cary's example maybe).

The hell of it is that resort and Destination courses which are most frequently played by first or second timers are the very ones most likely to keep everything visible, measured and obvious so as to keep the pace of play up when fully booked. So my main point is that a NGLA or similar member's course would be achieving almost nothing by eliminating yardage markers or encouraging player to eschew aids other than eyeballs and feet. A high percentage of its rounds are either players who know where all the trouble lies or (I'm presuming) visitors assisted by caddies and/or members.

Brent,

My only real counter is with the addition of weather variables. I think at a course like NGLA with a near constant variability with winds, one must really, really know the golf course to be able to get around without some form of base. Take away yardages and we're adding one more variable to the uncertainty.

I think there's a certain mindset that is comfortable under such circumstances (I certainly am) but I also know of people who are lost without some basis for perception.

[Bill_McBride]

When I think of rear bunkers Dr Mac immediately comes to mind.  I don't believe 150 markers had anything to do with why he put these things in.  Part of their placement had to do with aesthetics and another part implanting fear in the mind of the golfer who is searching for a rear hole location.  Of course, imo, often times the aesthetics don't work these days because the bunkers have become sterile and a static looking thing rather than a dynamic looking thing.  Also, imo a blind rear bunker(s) (or even just a steep slope) puts just as much fear into golfers as a visible one and the knee jerk reaction of coming up well short of the hole is often a predictable outcome.  Obviously Dr Mac liked the amphitheatre like green setting to really go to town with the rear bunkers and in this situation its more a matter of does one want the bunkering or not because it can't be hidden without ripping the heart of the green design out.

Great example of Mackenzie 'scare' bunkers on the hillside behind the 15th green at the Valley Club.  You don't want to be in one, but they are really there for the effect more than the reality, I think.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()