[Patrick_Mucci]

Donald Ross's configuration of the greens and green surrounds at Seminole form a brilliant deception, a deception that fools golfers over and over again.

The deception consists of three parts.
Part one is a green crowned such that the perimeter feeds/deflects balls off the green.
Part two is a fairly steep area immediately adjacent to the green.
Part three is bunkering that's offset from the green.

From a distance, the golfer sees the bunkers, and, they appear to be a good distance from the putting surface.
Thus, hole locations near the perimeter seem not only accessable, but, demanding of attack, since the bunkers appear to be so far from the green, thus, giving the golfer the impression that ample margins of error are available to slightly mishit or misalinged shots.

But, the cruel truth is that all three components conspire to lull the golfer into a false sense of security when the hole is cut near the perimeter.

Shots hit to the outside of the hole, get fed off the green, then down the adjacent slope, into the concave bunker.
Thus, an approach, landing on or rolling to the perimeter ends up 20, 30 and 40 feet from the hole, leaving the golfer a very difficult recovery to a short side hole location.

This also leads to a false sense of security since the golfer thinks he hit a good shot and was just unlucky, when nothing could be further from the truth

The interesting thing about this architctural configuration is that golfers tend to REPEAT their mistake over and over and over again because the optical illusion is that there are adequate margins for error when NONE exist.

This is probably one of the cleaverest deceptions I've ever seen.

Are there other courses that employ this architectural tactic ?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pat

To answer your question “Architects are smarter than golfers”  -  perhaps that was true a long, long time ago until the introduction of the island Greens which after many strokes proved perhaps the reverse. However, I do believe they are smarter than the Governing Bodies.

Melvyn

[Steve Curry]

Hey Pat,

The smartest golfers make great architects?

Steve

[JESII]

From a distance, the golfer sees the bunkers, and, they appear to be a good distance from the putting surface.

Pat,

Are you referring to the Seminole in North Palm Beach, FL?

If so, you should go back in the day time...the bunkers actually look like they are right at the greens edge when the lights are on.

If anybody feels a sense of security when approaching the greens at Seminole (in Florida...) they are either on the first fairway, or just plain drunk...

[Patrick_Mucci]

From a distance, the golfer sees the bunkers, and, they appear to be a good distance from the putting surface.

Pat,

Are you referring to the Seminole in North Palm Beach, FL?

If so, you should go back in the day time...the bunkers actually look like they are right at the greens edge when the lights are on.

My last visit was on a bright sunny day and my vision was unimpaired.
Perhaps you're shorter than me and as such, get a limited view and perspective.

If anybody feels a sense of security when approaching the greens at Seminole (in Florida...) they are either on the first fairway, or just plain drunk...

Most golfers tee off from # 1, hence that's a good point of reference.
I'm glad we agree on that hole.
When was the last time you played Seminole ?
Had you been overserved the night before ?.

[JESII]

Pat,

The first fairway comment was based on not yet having had the opportunity to attempt to get their ball onto a green...once they get onto the first green (one of the least intimidating out there, I'll add) an observant player would be foolish to feel secure the rest of the day...unless they're drunk!

[Matt Vandelac]

Although I have not visited Seminole, I'm not surprised Ross devised ways to comfort the player right into a tough recovery (I'm with you here, Pat).  I know Pete Dye has designed slopes flowing into bunkers leaving a difficult recovery shot.  I spoke to him about a green complex he was putting in place where he was trying to penalize the better player: If the approach shot landed short and right on this very long par 4, the ball would deflect and funnel into a bunker about 30 yards away from the green.  The theory here was the weak player was less likely to get into trouble because they would not likely be able to fly a ball to this point.  Although this was another example of his genius, perhaps his ability to solve the drainage solution to allow the ball to roll in the bunker and water to deflect might have been even more impressive.  The harder the ball hit the further the ball rolled away and leaving a tougher shot to a narrow green.

[Tom_Doak]

"Architects are smarter than golfers"

You didn't know that already?  Where have you been?

[Matthew Hunt]

IQ tests all round!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Matthew

Please do not confuse Tom and his brothers with words like IQ. They will go in search of the garlic, onions and wooden stakes to ward off the Vampires. No modern designer has ever, I believed got past the first question which is 'What is you name'. They think it’s a hazard/trap question which in their view is possibly penal so decide not to answer it in case they have to commit.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I would say in all cases architects are smarter than golfers with the sole exception being if by "golfer" it happens to refer to YOU!

Or to put it in somewhat the converse, I doubt there has ever been an architect who is smarter about all things to do with architecture than you are.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

If you want to use a generality in your title, maybe it should be that architects are more deceptive.   

Vis-a-vis Seminole, I haven't played it, but it seems to me more likely that the golfers just don't have the skills to cope with the design features you mention, than that they are more stupid than architects.  On those occasions when I see through the architects' deceptions, often it doesn't matter because I can't always execute to deal with them.  To quote Roberto De V. - what a stupid I am. 

 

[Matt Vandelac]

Too bad this thread is being hijacked, Pat.  These guys take the gloves off for you quicker than the media did to that Tiger guy.

[Garland Bayley]

Correction! Course superintendents are smarter than golfers. If you restore the greens to how Ross built them, golfers will gain several IQ points on architects. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Architects are smarter than golfers"

You didn't know that already?  Where have you been?

Tom, GCA.com reinforces that statement every day

[Patrick_Mucci]

Too bad this thread is being hijacked, Pat.

Agreed

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pat

Do you mean something akin to the Volvo – designed by computers, built by robots and driven by dummies.

Melvyn

PS I thought the question was about "Architects are smarter than golfers" so I do not see much of a hijack, but I agree it does not help when some keep wanting to bring the media and Tiger into this topic - well we all make mistakes at times, perhaps more come from the architects, who knows.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

If you want to use a generality in your title, maybe it should be that architects are more deceptive.   

Vis-a-vis Seminole, I haven't played it, but it seems to me more likely that the golfers just don't have the skills to cope with the design features you mention, than that they are more stupid than architects. 

Bryan, it's not a skills issue, when I last played Seminole the foursome behind us had to total 320+ years of age and had a great time navigating the golf course.
It's a mental issue.
The juxtaposition of the green, slopes, bunkers and hole location present the golfer with a choice, and like moths to the flame, golfers are drawn to the decision to attack the pin, no matter how short sided it is.

On those occasions when I see through the architects' deceptions, often it doesn't matter because I can't always execute to deal with them.  To quote Roberto De V. - what a stupid I am. 

I think that has to do with course management and stubborness, something I can relate to

[JESII]

Pat,

Instead of asking for other examples, maybe you could name one hole at Seminole that meets the criteria you laid out in the opening post...

I think just about every bunker that looks like it is right next to the green is, in fact, right next to the green...

Sure, the greens are crowned and deflect balls, but there's no illusion otherwise...unless of course you're playing at night...

[JMEvensky]

Pat,regarding your 4-some of Methuselah and his home boys,isn't the "mental issue" a skill itself?

All the talent in the world isn't much good if you don't know how to use it.

[TEPaul]

"Donald Ross's configuration of the greens and green surrounds at Seminole form a brilliant deception, a deception that fools golfers over and over again.

The deception consists of three parts.
Part one is a green crowned such that the perimeter feeds/deflects balls off the green."


Pat:

I hope you're aware that there is one very prominent architect (who also belongs to Seminole) who definitely does not think what you call crowned greens at Seminole was Ross's work at all.

[JESII]

Tom,

Would you say that Seminole is an example of "bunkering that's offset from the green"?

Other than #6 at Riviera, I'm not sure how much closer they could get...

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Put to me, that's a good question. Don't forget, despite how much I once went there and how well I knew it, it has been quite a time since I was at Seminole.

But if what Pat says is true that there is some separation between greenspace and bunkering that is connected by very short grass over or through which a ball can filter off a green and into bunkering, that would indeed be a very deceptive and interesting and cool architectural feature.

[JESII]

There is some separation...about 3 feet of what is called "apron" and another 3 - 6 feet of grass that's called 'the face of the bunker'...I'm wondering how many times this has deceived Pat...

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

It's not really about smarter or dumber, it's about human nature.  Anyone who has played Seminole a few times would know intellectually that the features you mention are going to have negative effects most of the time if they challenge those kind of pin positions.  But, they do it anyway.  Some people are risk averse and would aim for safer parts of the green.  Some are risk takers and go for the pin regardless of risk.

I think it's human nature for many people to take risks: they smoke when they know it likely could cause cancer; they eat too much even though it likely could cause heart attacks; they talk on cell phones when driving even though they are 4 times more likely to crash; and on it goes ...........   People take risks because of the highs that come with taking the risk.  They are not deceived.  The immediate high is worth more than the longer term risk.

So, people go for tucked pins at Seminole because they want the high the one time in ten they actually make the shot, and ignore the risk.  What fun is it to play to the middle of the green?  But, I don't think it's about deception and stupidity.  But, architects are smart in this regard.  They know many players will take the risk and they design for it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()