[Matt Kardash]

More pics here

http://www.worldgolf.com/photo-galleries/french-lick-springs-resort-pete-dye-course-preview-indiana-9553.htm

[Ryan Farrow]

Rob, please take a moment to think about where those pictures were taken from. Of Course the cart paths will be evident when you are standing on 15 ft. mounds looking back / sideways / down golf holes. Cart paths are not designed to be hidden from the photographer looking for an interesting shot. If you look at the shots that are actually in the golfers perspective playing the hole, the cart paths are not very evident. But that is only based on "my" interpretation of those pictures.

As for the Ross course, sometimes it is what it is. It was a re-model of a lay of the land golf course, designed in 1917. Cart paths didn't exist back then. Right? From my understanding it is a pretty tight golf course and when golf holes are already laid out, side by side, there are only so many spots to place a cart path. And yes, they will be in view and there is almost nothing you can do about it. If you have a lot of land to work with or feel like creating a bunch of mounds to hide them, that's great, but its not always a reality. Hey, I hate cart paths as much as the next person.

[Brett Hochstein]

Ryan, this is sort of what I was saying before in that the holes have not been photographed from the best angle.  From being on site, these features actually look a lot better on ground than they do from the heightened perspective of the photographer.  It works in Myrtle Beach when all you have is flat ground with bunkers, pines, and ponds, but not when you have definitive topography.

Matt, I have not seen all of Dye's work.  From his major works and those featured on this site, I haven't noticed anything quite like that at French Lick, especially the volcanoes in the middle of a waste area next to nine.  Again, I don't know if it makes sense, but I give kudos for it being different and interesting.  I certainly don't want to see it become common, and you may very well be right about the crew just following Pete's past work.

[Jeff Doerr]

I looked through all the available photos - I am not getting the gumdrop volcanos. I love a LOT of Pete's work and his creativity, but he "jumped the shark" on those...imho.

[Andy Troeger]

I'm interested to see it--one photo's caption was that the shaping was reminiscent of Whistling Straits. I can see a bit of similarity in that--I think its hard to tell from the photos what it will look like when actually playing it.

[Brent Carlson]

The site is certainly good for golf.  Only time will tell on the course.  Can't wait for a GCA review.

Does it need repeating?  The Ross course is phenomenal!!  Awesome! Amazing!  Really enjoyed the Rossian feel.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Ryan,
  You're very defensive of the course, but you didnt answer my question-have you seen it, in person?

[Ron Waterson]

Haven't had the experience of playing this one yet, but we intend to head up and review it for our site this spring.  Reading through others comments about the course and Dye design in here prompted a few thoughts....Seems like the balance of the conversation is pointed at appearance.  Perhaps that is because you haven't played it yet, so all there is to discuss is appearance.  My first impression of the photos of the Dye course is that there is excessive emphasis on being photogenic and highly difficult.  I have played a few Dye designs, not many, but I find his use of deep fairway bunkers to detract from playability and test of golf .  I think you should be able to hit a green from a fairway bunker if you hit an excellent shot.  If you don't hit an excellent shot, then it should cost you stroke, but I find it poor design to guarantee that the bunkered tee shot is never going to be anything other than a wedge back to the fairway and no opportunity to save the stroke with ability.  I see a lot of that in Dye design.  Emphasis on making it visually dramatic or highly difficult at the expense of fair and challenging test as it relates to the golfer.

I would also argue that moving dirt to form mounding in optimal landing areas from the tee is silly.  The golf course should be designed with fairness to the golfer in mind, not defending par through oddity.  If I drive the ball to the optimal landing area, my competitor does the same, why would you want a course that penalizes one player with bad stance and rewards the other with level ground?  That just doesn't make sense unless you are more concerned with creating something that produces erratic results than you are creating a good test of golf.  A little more focus on the golfer and less on whimsical artistry is OK with me. 

So while I’m sure I will find playing the course at French Lick a thrill, because after all it is playing golf with friends and the views will be magnificent, I seriously doubt that it would be someplace I would be interested in playing on a regular basis.  I would think that an architect would aspire to create something golfers yearn to play again and again.  Perhaps others will.  I hope that seeing the course in person changes my mind, but I suspect my past Dye experiences are going to pale in comparison when it comes to what I consider curious features.

Ron

[Matt Kardash]

Haven't had the experience of playing this one yet, but we intend to head up and review it for our site this spring.  Reading through others comments about the course and Dye design in here prompted a few thoughts....Seems like the balance of the conversation is pointed at appearance.  Perhaps that is because you haven't played it yet, so all there is to discuss is appearance.  My first impression of the photos of the Dye course is that there is excessive emphasis on being photogenic and highly difficult.  I have played a few Dye designs, not many, but I find his use of deep fairway bunkers to detract from playability and test of golf .  I think you should be able to hit a green from a fairway bunker if you hit an excellent shot.  If you don't hit an excellent shot, then it should cost you stroke, but I find it poor design to guarantee that the bunkered tee shot is never going to be anything other than a wedge back to the fairway and no opportunity to save the stroke with ability.  I see a lot of that in Dye design.  Emphasis on making it visually dramatic or highly difficult at the expense of fair and challenging test as it relates to the golfer.

I would also argue that moving dirt to form mounding in optimal landing areas from the tee is silly.  The golf course should be designed with fairness to the golfer in mind, not defending par through oddity.  If I drive the ball to the optimal landing area, my competitor does the same, why would you want a course that penalizes one player with bad stance and rewards the other with level ground?  That just doesn't make sense unless you are more concerned with creating something that produces erratic results than you are creating a good test of golf.  A little more focus on the golfer and less on whimsical artistry is OK with me. 

So while I’m sure I will find playing the course at French Lick a thrill, because after all it is playing golf with friends and the views will be magnificent, I seriously doubt that it would be someplace I would be interested in playing on a regular basis.  I would think that an architect would aspire to create something golfers yearn to play again and again.  Perhaps others will.  I hope that seeing the course in person changes my mind, but I suspect my past Dye experiences are going to pale in comparison when it comes to what I consider curious features.

Ron

You obviously would hate links golf.

[John Mayhugh]

I have played a few Dye designs, not many, but I find his use of deep fairway bunkers to detract from playability and test of golf .  I think you should be able to hit a green from a fairway bunker if you hit an excellent shot.  If you don't hit an excellent shot, then it should cost you stroke, but I find it poor design to guarantee that the bunkered tee shot is never going to be anything other than a wedge back to the fairway and no opportunity to save the stroke with ability.  I see a lot of that in Dye design.

The fairway bunkers that you seem to dislike can play a great role in strategic design.  If a player can hit the ball on the green with an "excellent shot," then it's probably not severe enough as a hazard in many cases.  There are so many examples of where this type of bunker really makes the hole.  I don't really want to see any hazard overused and perhaps that is what you meant to suggest.  But golf architecture would be really diminished without the bunker you describe.

I have to agree with Matt's concise observation on the last post.  Have you played any courses overseas?  Which courses (US or otherwise) are your favorites?

Anyway, glad to see another Kentuckian on the board.  I'm sure we won't always disagree.   

[Doug Ralston]

Anyway, glad to see another Kentuckian on the board.  I'm sure we won't always disagree.   

Ron; meet John, not just another Kentuckian, but a member of Olde Stone. THAT can't be bad. 

Doug

[Frank Sullivan]

Anyway, glad to see another Kentuckian on the board.  I'm sure we won't always disagree.   

Ron; meet John, not just another Kentuckian, but a member of Olde Stone. THAT can't be bad. 

Doug

Uh, me too...born and raised in Loo uh vuhl!

[Ron Waterson]

I've played over seas, but not the seas you have in mind. 

If you consider inland courses in the US that are coined "Links Style" then I have played quite a few.  Not sure I consider them Links courses.  Now that I think about it I have played one on the coast in South Carolina too, but the name escapes me.  I like the links style courses I have played here in Kentucky.  In fact, I love Kearney Hill. 

John, you will have to explain further to me as to why issuing a stroke and forcing the golfer to hit a wedge to a large area, something any decent golfer can achieve, is a better test of golf than providing a golfer the choice or strategy to make a spectacular shot where he might end up costing himself two strokes, yet he has the opportunity to save par?  Strategic design is established by the presence of a feature that causes you to think...it doesn't have to be a sink hole or a negative thought.  I'm always going to look at design the way it affects the golfer, not the camera or the architects resume.  I'm also putting substantial weight on fairness to the competitive golfer.    I like bunkers that frame and guide the golfer to the desired location.  Otter Creek in Columbus, Indiana is probably a good example of nice fairway bunkering in my opinion.  They are not flat or easy, that is not what I am suggesting.

I'm not really saying you can't have a fairway pot bunker and have good design, I'm just saying the rest of the hole design needs to be considered and I don't think that there are that many holes on any course that should need them...so yes, I think he over uses them.  For perspective, I would say you have some fairly difficult fairway bunkers at Olde Stone, but I do not reacall thinking of them as excessive or unfair to the golfer. 

I like love the look of certain courses, but those courses also have to be for the golfer to be a complete course in my mind.  I think the Dye course at French Lick looks awesome....I just have my doubts about how it will play.  Par should be accessible shouldn't it?  Over 8,000 yards on a course that will always be windy with those features...it appears excessive.  Who is that for?

I really can't nail down a favorite course, but a few I really like in Kentucky and Indiana are Otter Creek, Lafayette, Olde Stone, Hurstbourne CC and Old Silo. 

Ron

[John Mayhugh]

John, you will have to explain further to me as to why issuing a stroke and forcing the golfer to hit a wedge to a large area, something any decent golfer can achieve, is a better test of golf than providing a golfer the choice or strategy to make a spectacular shot where he might end up costing himself two strokes, yet he has the opportunity to save par?  Strategic design is established by the presence of a feature that causes you to think...it doesn't have to be a sink hole or a negative thought.  I'm always going to look at design the way it affects the golfer, not the camera or the architects resume.  I'm also putting substantial weight on fairness to the competitive golfer.    I like bunkers that frame and guide the golfer to the desired location.  Otter Creek in Columbus, Indiana is probably a good example of nice fairway bunkering in my opinion.  They are not flat or easy, that is not what I am suggesting.

I'm not really saying you can't have a fairway pot bunker and have good design, I'm just saying the rest of the hole design needs to be considered and I don't think that there are that many holes on any course that should need them...so yes, I think he over uses them.  For perspective, I would say you have some fairly difficult fairway bunkers at Olde Stone, but I do not reacall thinking of them as excessive or unfair to the golfer. 

I don't see us reaching agreement on this.  Bunkers are hazards, and the player isn't owed a chance to hit the green from a fairway bunker any more than they are owed the chance to hit the green from a water hazard.  You should have a chance for recovery, but sometimes that does mean wedging out and then making a great up and down from the fairway. 

In Ian Andrew's blog (which I miss), he described this philosophy far better than I ever could.

If a bunker is easy to get out of you will give it little thought during the round, but if a bunker requires you play backwards you will always be aware of its location and what you need to do to avoid it. Pete Dye made the comment, “Strategic placement of bunkers subconsciously forces the golfer to head away from the bunkers, when the better route is to hug them….when you get those dudes thinking they’re in trouble.” I think the comment is missing a reference to depth and how it affects the thoughts and mind of the player. There still must be repercussions that force those dudes to think. What gets a player thinking is the difficulty of the recovery. If a player faces a bunker where any club is an option then they will hug the bunker looking for an ideal line since they have no fear of missing the shot. They will also swing without fear since there is nothing to loose and nothing to get nervous about. Tell me how that hazard offers any strategy other than to high handicappers who fear sand in general?

If the bunker is nasty and recovery may not be possible, now the player is aiming away out of fear. He will also make a tentative swing at the ball trying to steer by the trouble rather than hitting a confident stroke. This is when a bunker has enough presence to get into the players head. Donald Ross said, “Hazards and bunkers are placed so as to force a man to use judgment and to exercise mental control in making the correct shot.” If there is no risk, why should a player exercise either judgment or control? The usual complaint is about recovery from such a bunker, but if the player has tried an aggressive line and failed you must ask them why not choose a line further from the bunker? I’ve never understood why a deep bunker in a key location is unfair when an architect provides either width or an alternative route around. As Donald Ross points out, “Often the highest recommendation of a bunker is when it is criticized. There is no such thing as a misplaced bunker. Regardless of where a bunker may be, it is the business of the player to avoid it”

I must admit I love Mike DeVries blunt comment of, “it’s a hazard, deal with it.” It always strikes me as absurd that many a member will tolerate or enjoy the most penal of hazards on the links courses and yet be so critical of a feature at their own club. It is the great hazards at our own courses, and how we handle them that define us as a player. Maybe the issue is ego, since I often deal with players who continue to attack a hole or pin where better judgment will yield better results. The fault is not with the depth or difficulty of the hazard; it is with the player’s decision making. Charles Blair MacDonald said, “The object of a bunker or trap is not only to punish a physical mistake, to punish a lack of control, but also to punish pride and ego” The game is about management and execution, shallow bunkers do not identify either skill. 

Take a look at Sean Arble's photo tour of St. Enodoc.  Do you really think the course would be improved without the Himalaya bunker on the sixth hole?
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39199.0.html

[ChipOat]

I haven't been paying enough attention to Pete's recent work, I guess.  This course doesn't look anything like The Golf Club, Harbour Town, TPC Sawgrass and Long Cove - the only Dye courses I've ever played.

What's with the mounds (looks too much like Rees)?  And where are the railroad ties?

As Hubert Green said after his first look at Harbour Town: "This is the only course I've ever seen that could burn down."

[Ron Waterson]

John,

I think I would need to know more about the hole, (that is not a request) to answer your question, but I suspect my answer is no. The bunker appears to serve the golfer from the tee which is perfectly acceptable design for me.  I'll bet they didn't draw that up and move all that earth to create the bunker. 

Since I read your rather rigid stance (rrr) on bunkering before your edit, I agree we're not going to agree on this one.    But I don't want you to walk away thinking I was arguing for flat or easy bunkers...if you read my earlier post, its clear that is not what I was writing.  My point was aimed at the Dye bunkers on courses I have played and the photos at the French Lick site.  Based on photos, it looks excessive.  Again, who is that for?  I don’t believe that is done to make golfers think from the tee as you suggest with your writers explanation.  It will be interesting to see if many of those bunkers are even visible from the tee.   Personally, I’m not the type of golfer that has the three paragraphs of thoughts you quoted.  I guess my game is a little simpler than that.  See fairway, see pin placement if possible, avoid hazards, try to hit the ball to the optimal spot for approach.  Honestly, that doesn’t require much thought for me if the course is designed well and I’m not burdened by the plethora of demons suggested as I stand over every tee shot either.  I am competitive, but it is still just a round of golf. 

I agree that wedging out to the fairway and trying to get up and down might be the best recovery option...that is the decision the golfer has to make at that moment based on ability and perhaps stature in competition.  It shouldn't be the decision the architect made years ago with a pen and a bulldozer….at least not as a regular occurrence.   

Hitting a water hazard is a penalty by rule.  It would be pretty boring if all sand bunkers were a one stroke penalty by rule.  It would keep things moving faster.

I noticed a lot of golfers trying to hit greens from fairway bunkers over the weekend. 

Ron

[John Mayhugh]

Ron,

I figured out how to put the material from Ian's site in a quote block so I edited my earlier post to do that.  I wanted to make clear that I wasn't trying to claim his words as mine.  That's all that I changed.

My "rather rigid" stance on fairway bunkers that you refer to is a rather basic principle of golf architecture. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()