[Patrick_Mucci]

Not long ago I played CC of Fairfield, a fabulous Seth Raynor design on a neat piece of property on L.I. sound and Southport Harbor.

The 5th hole is a "Cape" hole.

A dogleg right, around water.

Today's long players could probably drive across the water to the green under the right conditions, but, play for 99.9 % of golfers is along traditional lines.

At the inner elbow of the dogleg, next to the water, sits a flashed bunker.

There's  plenty of room left, but, the further left you go, the longer your approach shot over the water.

The hole was playing down wind so I decided to drive directly over the bunker.

I hit a very good drive, exactly where I had aimed.

I was shocked when I didn't see my ball bounce beyond the bunker.

When I approached the bunker, there was my ball right in the middle.

While I was only about 100 yards from the green, I had to hit over water into a quartering wind.

When I more closely examined the bunker, I was surprised by its size.
From the tee it looked like a typical bunker in terms of size, but, up close it was very large.

I believe the bunkers size made it appear closer, and thus influenced my decision to challenge it.

I noticed the same use of scale at ANGC

The beauty of this bunker was its strategic location.
It was "A" critical element in the play of the hole.
It was incredibly tempting, especially given the play from alternative routes.
It was simplistic in terms of design, configuration and location.

It fooled the hell out of me.

It is my contention that early designers reveled in deceipt.

It's also my contention that today's golfer's whine about unfairness when they're fooled by the architect.
Somehow, the feature is unfair, but, their abilities to judge and execute are near infallible.

This type of bunker and the use of this type of bunker are rare to me, both in terms of modern designers and the classic designers.

My question is, why don't we see more of this rather simplistic yet highly effective feature ?


I've also noticed, when bunkers in the DZ are small to very small that it gives the impression that they're much further away from the tee.

So again, why don't we see more of this rather simplistic yet highly effective feature ?


The SAD part of this is that the new GPS  and ranging systems will remove the effectiveness of that feature.

The same can be said of green size, larger greens look closer and smaller greens look farther away, but, laser devices, aerials and GPS systems are thwarting the architects efforts to deceive the golfer.

GCGC and other clubs prohibit such devices during tournament rounds.

Isn't their use an attempt to cheat on the architect's test, his examination of our skills ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Perhaps it's an attempt to cheat, but I think that certain deceptions win out in the end. There is always going to be some sort of battle between your eyes and your brain even when you know the exact distance. I think the architects who created these deceptions knew this and weren't worried about the player knowing the yardage or not. 

I just don't see much difference in getting the info from a caddie, a disc, a sprinkler head, a tree, a yardage book or a machine. It's surely GCGC's choice to ban the instruments, but a good walk-through prior to the round will supply the top-notch player with all the yardage info he/she needs. I don't suppose they ban the caddies, do they remove any physical indicators and disallow yardage books?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

There aren't any yardage books to my knowledge.

A caddy's knowledge is often as limited as the player's.

I've never seen any yardage markers on the tee that tell the golfer how far it is to various points on the hole.

When you don't know the exact distance, and the wind is blowing, the temptation to challenge the feature is there.

When your read out says its a 280 carry to the fairway, no matter how tempting it looks, you're not going to elect the carry option.

[Kirk Gill]

I totally agree that architectural features like these were intended to use scale to throw off the distance estimation of the golfer, and their effectiveness is negated by distance information being provided to the player, regardless of where the player gets that info.

It sounds to me, Patrick, like you enjoyed having to interface with that architectural element without distance information. What's your feeling about playing rounds without using any more information than you can gauge with your eyes? If you played rounds like that, what would the effect be on your handicap?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,

Even though you now know how far you can't hit it   you will be tempted do so again on that same tee as long as your mind can rationalize a favorable condition for success. The masterful deceptions of the architect are like sirens luring your ship towards the danger, and yardages be damned, you'll probably succumb.  

No electronic gadget can save you from that fate Patrick, I don't believe that good deceptive features are so easily overcome, at least not in ordinary play where there is nothing monumental on the line.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

The best I've seen (that I can recall) are Fazio's at Shadow Creek.  On the short 11th he oversizes everything, and then on 12 he undersizes everything gradually on the way to the green to force perspective and REALLY make the shot look longer than it is.  

Even staring at a yardage marker on the sprinkler head right beside me, I figured it had to be 20 yards longer and overshot the green.  I was confused as a goat on astroturf! So, there still may be a place for it, at least for us not too bright golfers!

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick,
Wouldn't a good caddie have provided the same info as a GPS device in your case?

I'm just playing playing games with you here, but if we ban GPS type devices, should we also prohibit a caddy from providing advice? 

[Emil Weber]

That sounds very interesting, Patrick...

Have you got any photos of the hole?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,
Wouldn't a good caddie have provided the same info as a GPS device in your case?

Absolutely NOT.

How would a good caddy know how far I hit my driver when I'm trying to get a little more loft to get it up into the following wind when he's caddied for me all of 4 previous holes with one being a par 3 of 130 yards ?

I'm just playing playing games with you here, but if we ban GPS type devices, should we also prohibit a caddy from providing advice? 

You must play at very elite clubs where the caddies are all knowing.

In my rounds at clubs I'v visiting, it's a rare situation when a caddy can accurately club me, especially since he doesn't know how I play by feel, especially when he's only known me for a half an hour.

At what clubs do you play where the caddies know the precise distance from every tee and are instantly capable of clubbing you ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

That sounds very interesting, Patrick...

Have you got any photos of the hole?

Emil,

Unfortunately, I don't.

It's a wonderful little hole with a good deal of deception from the tee.

If you go to Google Earth, try to find CC of Fairfield, it's on the water in CT.
You'll recognize the 5th hole from the aerial.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

Do you think that the "retail" golfer finds that deception objectionable ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I wouldn't think so.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think you have to be a pretty sharp cookie to realize you've been decieved. Either that, or a ego-maniacal paranoid always ready to assume that the world is trying to trip you up, and you in particular. I'd guess the percentage of retail golfers who are ego-maniacal paranoids is about that same as in the general population, but I could be wrong.  Could it be that the golden age was a humbler time, at least in terms of golfers and their golf courses?

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

One of the really, really, really neat things abouit CC of Fairfield is the repeated deception from the tee.

On hole after hole the golfer is in doubt about distance and direction.

Raynor did so primarily through the use of bunkering.

The western part of the property (most of it) is fairly flat, so the introduction of slightly raised fairway bunkers can decieve the golfer in terms of direction and distance.

I like that aspect of the challenge, the uncertainty created by the architect, as opposed to having everything mapped out for you.

It's hard to gauge if bunkers are in play or not off the tee.

That make you want to hit away from them, but, that puts you in a less favorable position.

Many of the fairway bunkers are easily challenged, but, you don't know that from what your eye tells you on the tee.

While I haven't played CC of Fairfield in good winds, I would imagine that some bunkers go in and out of play depending upon wind direction and velocity, and I like that even more.

CC of Fairfield is a wonderful golf course, challenging but not overpowering, fun to play, deceptive and just a really, really, really neat golf course, especially when the wind is up, which is quite often.

If anyone gets a chance to play it, DON'T miss it.

[Sean Leary]

Pat,

Wouldn't you only be deceived once? In subsequent playing you would know better..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Wouldn't you only be deceived once? In subsequent playing you would know better..

Perhaps if you played in a vacuum and your game was the same every time you teed it up you might know better, but,
with the heaviness, direction and velocity of the wind it makes for a new experience every time you play.
Not to mention the moving of the tee markers and hole locations

In addition, do you recall the juxtiposition of every feature on every course even though you haven't played it for months ?

On a flat site, where there's little to NO definition to guide you, when you can't see where the fairway margins are, tell me how well your memory is going to serve you in identifying the perfect line of flight ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()