News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Melvyn Morrow

Alternatively, an extension to Michael Hendren topic “A Brief Bunker Pictorial (No Frills) including Island Greens.   

Courses with shallow bunkers (both fairway and adjacent to the Greens) and island Greens appear to me to have been designs (sorry I use that words lightly) more like rushed through, as we say here a ‘Friday afternoon job’ (rushed to get away for the weekend).   

The shallow bunker is not a hazard or deterrent let alone a serious trap to the average golfer. It represents no challenged to a Professional unless he is still suffering form the night before. So pray, tell me just what good are they and what is their purpose. Before others add to the already interesting posts on Michaels thread, let me try to see if I can find a reason.  I can’t find a golfing reason for them, but I can see the modern trend of being lenient to the golfer, the lets not upset or test them mentality, the opinion may even encourage golfers to utilise these bunkers to detract them form the better approach to the pin. However once the hole is played the secret is out for the more competent player (or if accompanied by a Caddie, what secret, as all would be revealed).

Some use the same excuse for dislike of blind holes, yet more skill is required to finally understand these holes but over numerous rounds. Yet skill can still be tested by the quality of the Green Keeper with his regular placement of the hole. The shallow fairway bunker unless lipped allows the ball to run straight throw, showing how good a hazard or trap it in the modern game.

These bunkers in MHO are just a total waste of effort, I was going to say design effort but where is the design in the following picture from Michael’s thread.

Or

Worst still is the cost to build or to maintain these things, which puts more of a burden (only financially) on the golfer, so just what use let alone deterrent are they on a golf course.  Penal but only on the cost front, as for good design, well very debatable, so why have them?

No, I am not a supporter of the shallow bunkers and I feel they are a weakness, much used by designers more perhaps out of convenience than for any constructive purpose.

The Island Green, they have been breeding over the last 20-30 years and regrettable still not on the threatened or pending extinction listing. Whilst they may add to the overall picture quality and pretty grandeur of the Chocolate Box course, they have the habit of just killing the game dead. Not just the whole round but match can go face down by these pointless golfing monstrosities. I am reminded of the saying that ‘Beauty is skin deep’, yet in the case of Island Greens, in fact any water hazard more that 6-10 feet wide is IMHO pointless. In a game of golf they are the most penal, thus prosecute the golfer with extreme prejudice resulting and achieving a big fat Zero in pleasure or a sense of achievement. I understand playing over a small burn and drainage channel, gully etc., etc., but building a Green in a lake, no matter how big or small, it’s not natural. The ideas of having to cross, small rivers, burns, channel and gullies, is acceptable and natural, being based upon the most fundamental of all the original golf design practices of working and blending with Nature plus the surrounding land. But, sorry guy’s lakes, that is just again IMHO a cop out by the designers. All a golfer has to do is be proficient and hit a straight ball, but we discard the poor to average players, I may even go as far as to say discriminate against them by allowing these simplest of design features, plain water. I can just hear the excuses for having these, but mainly the lake hold the water supply for that part of the course. Bollocks, keep the lakes away from the Greens and courses. Incorporating them within a course design is that not an easy way out plus I expect one of the most expensive to construct.

On the matter of Island Green I am reminded of Ian’s Caddyshack blog of the 14th Nov 2007, from which I attach a couple of photos of these Island Greens, God where are the battleships when you need one to blast these thing clear out of the water.
     
So do you like pretty, pretty or do you want to play golf is, I suppose the question we all need to ask ourselves. As for the Designers, may I be so bold to suggest working over the weekend, hopefully, alleviating these need for the quick fix/fast finished design options.

To the designers, no disrespect intended, as I am only stating my opinion. Not being aware or knowing the limitation you are required to follow or for that matter your Clients brief only you can answers the question WHY do we need Island Greens and/or Shallow Bunkers?

Melvyn
« Last Edit: September 19, 2009, 09:50:45 AM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Andy Troeger

Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2009, 10:44:18 AM »
Shallow bunkers and island greens are totally different issues to me, so I think addressing them separately makes more sense than together.

I tend to agree with Melvyn's premise that shallow bunkers are rather a waste of time. That first bunker pictured would not affect my thought process on the hole in the slightest--I'd rather be in the fairway of course but it wouldn't seem that an iron out of there would be much tougher than the fairway shot. At least in the second photo they have a fraction of a lip to them that might keep balls in the bunker instead of running through them. I don't think signficant depth is required all the time, but they don't do much good if they don't require the golfer to think about them.


Island greens are a totally different type of hazard--you go from one extreme to the other. Whereas the shallow bunker makes recovery so easy as to be inconsequential the island green is a situation that provides no recovery other than the reload or drop zone. I think they are overused and most of the time aren't all that interesting because there's no thought involved, just fear. That said, I think the fear component is a good one to use sparingly--so I can't say that I hate all island greens or the concept. I think there's a place in the world for #17 at TPC Sawgrass, for example, although perhaps not all of its additional clones. I also like the 16th at Cougar Canyon in Colorado which is on a high point surrounded by desert scrub. That one might be a bit different in that a recovered ball is possible, although not that likely.

One additional comment on island greens--my personal feeling is that if you're going to make a hole an island you forego all sense of playability and make it a true do-or-die hole like the one at Sawgrass. These island holes with 20 yards of rough/bunkers/whatever surrounding the green before the water and/or island greens with greens so massive that anyone could hit them eliminate the point. The shots that go in the water are so bad that their awfulness is punishment enough, and most decent golfers don't give the water a second thought.

Sawgrass to me works because the course primarily seems to be for (1) the pros that play it in the tournament and (2) golfers that play the course once or perhaps "once in awhile." For the pros its a real test at the end of the round/tournament, and for the rest of us it becomes more of a thrill to hit the green than a disappointment to splash one (or three). I don't know that I would like it as well on a members course.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2009, 11:23:16 AM »
I like Island greens and I think 99% of UK golfers do.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Melvyn Morrow

Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2009, 11:48:32 AM »

Adrian

A rather generous statement 99%, somehow I do not think you have this one right.  Very few of my friends and fellow golfers seem to like them. Nevertheless, I cannot give you any accurate percentages, but certainly not that high and I would also question 50-50 too.

Therefore, we need to look no farther that you as the propagator of these crocodile pits.

Andy
Thanks for your thoughts, as for fear I do not feel that should have a place within the game or on the course. The game is about getting passed hazards, originally natural, but not lakes or rivers. If this was the requirement in golf would it not just be easier to have narrow tree lined avenues say 10-20 yards wide as fairways, ideally for those who can hit a straight ball, but what about the majority of golfers.

I fear (the only fear acceptable re golf) this site and our architects miss the fact that Mr Average outnumbers the Professional & Scratch players by a considerable margin. What sort of response would be forthcoming from the golfing world if courses had these narrow fairways? Island Greens mimics the narrow fairways, as only straight shots will achieve the target. Fear, no wrong word IMHO, but frustration would perhaps be more appropriate.

Melvyn   

Andy Troeger

Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2009, 11:54:48 AM »
Melvyn,
I agree with most of that and perhaps I didn't make the point very well. I think narrow fairways are in the same boat with the island green. My rather small disagreement is that island greens and narrow fairways do have a very small place, perhaps one hole on certain styles of courses, to be used as a change of pace or something to make the golfer face something different. You wouldn't want an island green at St. Andrews, Ballyneal, or many number of other places, but at TPC Sawgrass and in a couple other situations it fits.

MikeJones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2009, 12:49:57 PM »
I don't think that there is anything wrong with shallow bunker per se, it all depends where and how they are used.

For anyone but a pro or scratch amateur, playing from a sandy lie (even with virtually no lip on the bunker) makes it much more likely that you'll leave your recovery shot short of it's intended destination and if that means your next shot is a forced carry or played over a diagonal hazard, the degree of difficulty is ramped up several notches. You might end up paying more of a price for the original miscue than by simply hacking it back into play from a pot bunker.

As for island greens, I've never actually played to one surrounded by water but I imagine for the average golfer it's virtually no different from any forced carry over water. Personally I think they're ok if used sparingly.




Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2009, 01:10:36 PM »
Melvyn- 99% may have been a bit rash but I think if you polled average golfers if they like the 17th at Sawgrass, the figure would be in excess of 90% would like it. On this forum we think a bit too deep sometimes and this '1500' are very much in the firm and fast, anti Nicklaus, anti Fazio, anti Trent Jones and generally anti modern unless our modern architects are trying to make something look old and then you normally are having a go that that is no right. The 17th at TPC would make it into the average persons top 10 golf holes in the world and may be closer to the top than the bottom.
I have designed a par 3 hole with an island green twice, they are without doubt the main talking points of the course, most photographed and most loved. I have never heard 1 negative comment against.
The majority of golfers love water, water plays a significant role in new golf communities and plots with water views command a premium. BUT they are modern, BUT so what.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2009, 01:39:17 PM »
It's hard to tell what the angles are from the pictures, but could any of the bunkers show be there to keep balls from running into adjoining fairways? 
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Melvyn Morrow

Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2009, 02:04:17 PM »

Adrian

I agree, I love water but it’s called the sea and I love links golf. I am happy with the Swilken Burn, its does its job and offers a water hazard, but my point is that Island Greens are a bit of a cop out on the design front. In addition, I expect cost a fortune to build and may also help to slow play down.

I accept they are few and far between but as a golf course hazard they are a non-starters, they can just kill the game for a golfer. Not what I thought would be a good idea. Golf for me is a challenge, but these water pits are destructive.

Of course, that is just my opinion. As for joining a club with an Island Green, I feel that that Hell would freeze over first, they, well for me should be on a crazy golf course with their windmills, tunnels etc. Nevertheless, I do understand that some people enjoy this type of Green. I suppose I may one day when I develop tunnel vision, but until that day, they should remain on the front of Chocolate Boxes where they I expect will be more at home. ;D

Melvyn

PS Two so far, on the third is it true that you become the reincarnation of the Egyptian God ‘Sobek’. Hope it helps improve the table manners. ;)


PPS Don’t you just love the guys on this site, “keep balls from running into adjoining fairways?” Don’t these Shallow bunkers actually allow balls to run straight through to all places North, South, West or East depending from your view point.  ;D ;D ;D ;D :'( :'( :'(



cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2009, 02:42:19 PM »
Island greens are fun, but I think have no place in golf. Way too penal. Add the wind and it can become a horror story.

Me and my partner, both mid to low single digits tied 2 other low handicappers on a 1 best ball with 7's on a day with high wind and hard greens.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2009, 02:59:34 PM »
Melvyn - Whatever your opinion is, it is. But it is a minority one. Just for the record I love links golf and I am not suggesting island greens on links turf, but most courses are NOT linksland and most in the UK are on sites that you state are not fit for purpose. Few natural sites exist anymore so we have to manufacture the (wrong) land and make a good case for our customer that we can man-make a golf course that he will enjoy. That result will only be proven if that course is used in good numbers and holds good standard events.
Cary - They need not be so severe that they are exceptionally penal but I accept there is no ground game, but is that not the case on many great holes?
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2009, 03:10:47 PM »
As I understand the USGA, they figure bunkers are a 1/2 stroke penalty....water hazards are a full stroke...

I think bunkers, shallow or other wise, in the landing zone impact the golfer on the tee...they frame the land zoning and provide a visual target, and they put in the golfers head "don't it it there"...
LOCK HIM UP!!!

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2009, 05:37:06 PM »


PPS Don’t you just love the guys on this site, “keep balls from running into adjoining fairways?” Don’t these Shallow bunkers actually allow balls to run straight through to all places North, South, West or East depending from your view point.  ;D ;D ;D ;D :'( :'( :'(




Deleted.
AGC
« Last Edit: September 19, 2009, 05:41:53 PM by A.G._Crockett »
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2009, 05:47:01 PM »
Melvyn,

It's notions like creative energy, raising the bar or pushing the envelope that put man on the moon.

Without dreamers willing to try something new we'd probably lack things like the internet, which bring people closer and allow for faster communication.

And the list goes on and on when it comes to creative ideas.

Island greens do not seem so disgusting to me......as they say, variety is the spice of life.
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Melvyn Morrow

Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2009, 06:27:16 PM »
AG Crockett

It would appear that you may not seem to like my PPS, so just in case let me assure you I was looking at the funny side of your comment. No disrespect intended.

Melvyn

Michael

I take your point but feel that island greens are a backward step and show a total lack of forward thinking, well that my opinion.
Melvyn
« Last Edit: September 19, 2009, 06:29:09 PM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2009, 07:10:16 PM »
Melyvn,

You need to get out more and do some hob-nobbing with the hoi polloi. Bunkers are bunkers and present a challenge to that average player you don't know so well.

By the way, there is no appreciable difference in the way that a sand scratch like this one at Askernish and the shallow bunker you so  despise would play. Of course that would mean you'd have to make an unbiased assessment and I don't know if your narrow minded approach to architecture will let you do that, but you can try.
 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Jeffrey Prest

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2009, 07:47:25 PM »
Melvyn- 99% may have been a bit rash but I think if you polled average golfers if they like the 17th at Sawgrass, the figure would be in excess of 90% would like it. On this forum we think a bit too deep sometimes and this '1500' are very much in the firm and fast, anti Nicklaus, anti Fazio, anti Trent Jones and generally anti modern unless our modern architects are trying to make something look old and then you normally are having a go that that is no right. The 17th at TPC would make it into the average persons top 10 golf holes in the world and may be closer to the top than the bottom.
I have designed a par 3 hole with an island green twice, they are without doubt the main talking points of the course, most photographed and most loved. I have never heard 1 negative comment against.
The majority of golfers love water, water plays a significant role in new golf communities and plots with water views command a premium. BUT they are modern, BUT so what.

Island greens are like those charity calendars where unlikely people get naked. The prototype was a clever idea but the endless wannabe follow-ups set my teeth on edge.

I love Sawgrass but I believe the 17th works predominantly in the context of the Players' - great drama in a major (small m) championship. If the concept proves popular elsewhere, it's because Joe Public fancies a crack at the same challenge that he's seen on the TV.

It's the old two-tier level of golf course appreciation. There's them that likes the subtle, purist stuff and there's them that just likes the thrill of getting their ball from A to B more or less as planned, in pleasant countryside. Nothing wrong with either approach but I'd be interested to hear from a mid- to high-handicapper who has to face an island green at his home course week in, week out. That might provide a telling insight as to the enduring appeal of the theme.



Michael Huber

Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2009, 01:28:30 AM »



The shallow bunker is not a hazard or deterrent let alone a serious trap to the average golfer. It represents no challenged to a Professional unless he is still suffering form the night before. So pray, tell me just what good are they and what is their purpose.


I have to disagree with this comment. 

Why does a feature have to be a serious challenge to even an "average" player to be a good feature?  Does the burn on the first hole at st andrews cause that many problems for the average golfer?  Is it that tough to naivgate through the valley of sin on 18?  Uneven lies dont cause all that many problems either, but they are staple on all the great courses.  Should we just flatten out nooks and crannies and bumps and such becuase pros dont have a problem with them?

Emil Weber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2009, 06:06:42 AM »
Reading myself through the posts, I noticed the shallow bunker might have a great psychological effect. Imagine standing on the tee of such a hole - nobody who played the course for the first time would see it's actually a shallow bunker. For that reason the player may aim at the other side of the fairway, just to then be left with a bad angle or bad view of the green while the shot would've been much easier from the bunkerd side, even if the ball is the bunker. What do you say?

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2009, 08:51:01 AM »
Shallow fairway bunker or off the grass..... I know which I'd rather play off.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Melvyn Morrow

Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2009, 08:54:49 AM »

In answer to Jim, with his usual moans at me re my faults, he has made an interesting statement “By the way, there is no appreciable difference in the way that a sand scratch like this one at Askernish and the shallow bunker "you so despise would play”. First I must ask has he played both holes, so his comment would come from first hand experience, then of course I will happily bow at his feet due to him knowing both holes. However, we know you have not, so you comment is based upon the photos below.


Looking first at Michael Hendren photo (from his topic Brief Bunker Pictorial) which clearly show a contrived manmade shallow bunker, it would appear that that bunkers would allow a ball to run straight through with very little to resist. Looking at Askernish natural sand trap there appears to be more resistance in a narrow width, which might bring the ball to a stop. In addition, I feel the need to check out the underlying quality of the sand before making a final statement. 

Of course, we must not forget what we are looking at, Michael’s photo is of a manmade bunker, airing onto the modern approach of what a bunker or sand trap should be, perhaps I might even dare to call it a hazard or is that really stretching the imagination. To be honest it just looks like a continuation of the path seen at the top end of the bunker. The Askernish is what early architects faced with their design, something I expect many would love to work with rather than keep manufacturing bunkers in the hope of making them look natural. Let’s not forget on links courses there is anadditional tool the designers used in the good old days was the wind in defence of their course. Looking at both photos, which would hold a ball in place at wind speed of around 30-40mph. 
Sorry, but I cannot see how Jim can make that statement “there is no appreciable difference in the way that a sand scratch like this one at Askernish and the shallow bunker you so  despise would play”.

Before moving on, I wish to make a statement to show how some of you are causing problems by falsely informing others of what I have NOT said. I do not despise the shallow bunkers, I just see no need for them or their cost to first construct them then the on going maintenance bills, if they are not working as a hazard. ‘Despise’, just a clever use of words by Jim in his on going war, for what reason, you will have to ask him. 

Michael

I was under the impression that bunkers and hazards were there as deterrents or challenges for a golfer. If they are just to be an aesthetics feature, why waste the money on them or their upkeep. As for TOC, I have seen many balls in the Swilken Burn in my time, so it seems to work as a hazard. As for the Valley of Sin and levelling out the contours of all courses is just going slightly off this thread by a few light years.

Emil

The point I am trying to make is that I do not believe that any bunker shot should be made easy. You are in the bunker because of error or poor shot and that should not be rewarded, in fact, I feel the some well place bunkers on the fairways should be deep and penal, forcing at least a side or rear retreat. Their position should be close to the ideal attack towards the Green, thus challenging the golfer. I feel we need to separate the word ‘hard, slogging courses’ from a ‘challenging one’. They are not IMHO always the same thing.

With money tight these days can courses still afford to have hazards that cost money to maintain but in reality are next to useless? I expect it depends on ones definition of the word ‘useless’.

Melvyn
 

Andy Troeger

Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2009, 09:14:19 AM »
Do we know whether that original shallow bunker from Melvyn's first post is even a bunker? Looking at the photo again it could just be a continuation of the cart path as he mentioned? I don't see any rakes...

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2009, 09:18:15 AM »
Melvyn,

What bunker depth and area is ideal?

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2009, 09:49:25 AM »
Jim is right, in playing terms, there's no real difference between the shallow bunker and the sandy scrapes you see on old links. 

An island green in Florida swamp fits better than in other environments.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A highly creative design feature(s) or just totally devoid of thought.
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2009, 09:53:22 AM »
Melyvn,
I have no war with you. If we are on a thread and you are making a comment that I think is incorrect then you should expect a rebuttal.  I could probably start off by saying that you dislike a bunker, the shallow one, that you have never played out of, but I'm not going to bother. Apparently you fail to see that a shot from either one of them is similar.

No one is putting words in your mouth, you never used the word 'despise', however, you do say that the shallow bunker is:

The shallow bunker is not.... a serious trap

It represents no challenge

So pray, tell me just what good are they and what is their purpose.

I can’t find a golfing reason for them

These bunkers in MHO are just a total waste of effort

Where is the design


So I guess you like the shallow bunker? Coulda' fooled me, sounds more like you despise (my choice of word) them.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back