[Mike Sweeney]

THE issue is, ELIMINATING buffers of rough that act as a safety net to slow down and prevent balls from entering a bunker.

OFTEN, it's NOT a maintainance issue, but, a cultural issue.

Thoughts after Mountain Ridge? I personally go for diversity, but is one preferred to the other?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike, if you adhere to the theory that architects create bunkers as recepticles for golf balls, then I think the concept of "safety net" buffers of rough to prevent balls from going into them is wrong.

You'd know that if you'd attended Monday's get together at Mountain Ridge.

Brad Klein addressed the issue as did others.

In some cases it's a maintainance and/or cost issue.
Especially where there's a rising footpad that has the bunker encapsulated in it.
That makes it difficult for the mower to get real/reel close to.

The issue has come up at Mountain Ridge and I think Ron Prichard's plan is addressing it, especially on holes like # 10 where a significant buffer fronts the right fairway bunker/s.

It's my understanding that many of those buffers of rough will go, providing the Cliff feels that it won't compromise or damage the golf course.

[Michael Whitaker]

Pat - I'm totally confused. In the thread on the tour of Mountain Ridge's greens you called Sean Arble an idiot for suggesting that some of the buffers of rough around the greenside bunkers could be cut back... bringing the gathering nature of those bunkers into play. On this thread you seem to be supporting the very same idea. What gives? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat - I'm totally confused. In the thread on the tour of Mountain Ridge's greens you called Sean Arble an idiot for suggesting that some of the buffers of rough around the greenside bunkers could be cut back...

Go back and reread what Sean wrote, it's not what you state above.
His complaint was the rough pinching in at the front of the greens, not buffering the bunkers.

bringing the gathering nature of those bunkers into play.

NO, that's NOT what he stated.
Your memory is lacking or you're being disengenuous.

I"ve posted his statement below
Please read it carefully this time

On this thread you seem to be supporting the very same idea. What gives?  

You are totally confused.

And, you're not reading carefully.

The bunker I referenced with too much fronting rough on # 10 is a fairway bunker, not a greenside bunker.

As too Sean's idiotic suggestion, why don't you go back and reread what he said.
He wasn't referencing fronting buffers of rough in front of bunkers, he was referencing the rough pinching in at the green.

Here's his post:

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  

One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  
The tunnel look gets old fast.  

He's talking about the approach to the green, not buffers of rough fronting the bunkers

It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

He's talking about from the GREENS, NOT the BUNKERS

What you also failed to read, and see in the photos is the topos of the greenside bunkers and the greens and the difficulty with getting mowers into those difficult quarters.

But then again, you're probably far more familiar with the greens, greenside bunkers, rough and topography in those areas

[Michael Whitaker]

Pat - you are correct.  Sean's original comment did specifically mention the "pinching" effect of the rough at the green entrances. To be fair, the photos do suggest to someone, like me, that has never been to Mtn Ridge that this is indeed the case in a number of instances. Photos do sometimes give the wrong impression and that obviously happened here.  

Sean went on to comment about buffers around bunkers by saying he was "not a fan of marooned bunkers or rough cut tight to greens." This was the comment of his to which I was agreeing. I too dislike mowing patterns that isolate bunkers and prevent running shots from finding their way into them. I dislike these buffers around fairway bunkers, as you seem to... but, I also dislike these buffers around greenside bunkers that were designed to be "gathering." In general, these buffers negate the intended impact of the bunker and make them play too small.

I see now that in this thread you were only referring to fairway bunkers... thus my confusion, as you were defending the greenside buffers at Mtn Ridge in the other thread. I wrongly thought you were "against" the buffers and "for" them, all at the same time.

It all makes sense now.
 

           

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat - you are correct.  Sean's original comment did specifically mention the "pinching" effect of the rough at the green entrances. To be fair, the photos do suggest to someone, like me, that has never been to Mtn Ridge that this is indeed the case in a number of instances. Photos do sometimes give the wrong impression and that obviously happened here.  

Mike,

Camera angles often don't tell the same story as the golfers eye and feet.
As an example the photo of the approach to the 1st green is taken from the left rough area far forward of the DZ, giving the viewer a different perspective from a golfer in the desired DZ.

Sean went on to comment about buffers around bunkers by saying he was "not a fan of marooned bunkers or rough cut tight to greens." This was the comment of his to which I was agreeing.

So many of the greens are elevated above grade with bunkers cut into the side of the fill/foot pad., hence, they're not marooned, but, an integral part of the green complex

I too dislike mowing patterns that isolate bunkers and prevent running shots from finding their way into them. I dislike these buffers around fairway bunkers, as you seem to... but, I also dislike these buffers around greenside bunkers that were designed to be "gathering." In general, these buffers negate the intended impact of the bunker and make them play too small.

The dilema with most of those greenside bunkers is the topography surrounding/adjacent to them.
If you look carefully at the photos, you can see either sharp falloffs, or sharp rises immediately adjacent to the bunkers and the rough.
This presents maintainance issues.
Cliff Moore, the exceptional superintendent is trying to figure out how to reduce or eliminate buffers without compromising playing conditions in those areas.  It's not as simple as you'd think

I see now that in this thread you were only referring to fairway bunkers... thus my confusion, as you were defending the greenside buffers at Mtn Ridge in the other thread. I wrongly thought you were "against" the buffers and "for" them, all at the same time.

It all makes sense now.

There are problems with reducing or eliminating rough from areas adjacent to greenside bunkers.

Go through the hole by hole photos and I think you'll get a feel for the falloffs and rises that make it difficult to get equipment into those areas without causing damage or having a mower flip over

If you want to go through the exercise on a hole by hole basis, I'll do it with you.

[Neal_Meagher]

Life is fleeting and ephemeral so it is always worthwhile to take stock of the moments that matter most.  I can't help but think back to that late afternoon/early evening in June 2001 when I first had the honor of actually descending those stairs and taking in the scene of this golf hole.  That it was in the company of Tom Paul and Gib Papazian makes it all the more special given both of those gentlemen's affinity for NGLA. 

And it did sink in for me.  To this day my mission is to try, try, try to get clubs and other facilities to maintain their courses with a minimum of rough between fairways and hazards.  Otherwise, why bother?  The needless ribbons of 5-15 yard wide rough between fairways and "fairway bunkers" is the greatest oxymoron in golf.  To me, this is the greatest single affront to the spirit of the game that we have created due to our collective "maintenance regimes" over the years.  A greater good I cannot think of than to eliminate this extraneous bit of puerility from golf courses, public and private.  Long live C.B.

[Sean_A]

Pat - you are correct.  Sean's original comment did specifically mention the "pinching" effect of the rough at the green entrances. To be fair, the photos do suggest to someone, like me, that has never been to Mtn Ridge that this is indeed the case in a number of instances. Photos do sometimes give the wrong impression and that obviously happened here.  

Mike,

Camera angles often don't tell the same story as the golfers eye and feet.
As an example the photo of the approach to the 1st green is taken from the left rough area far forward of the DZ, giving the viewer a different perspective from a golfer in the desired DZ.

Sean went on to comment about buffers around bunkers by saying he was "not a fan of marooned bunkers or rough cut tight to greens." This was the comment of his to which I was agreeing.

So many of the greens are elevated above grade with bunkers cut into the side of the fill/foot pad., hence, they're not marooned, but, an integral part of the green complex

I too dislike mowing patterns that isolate bunkers and prevent running shots from finding their way into them. I dislike these buffers around fairway bunkers, as you seem to... but, I also dislike these buffers around greenside bunkers that were designed to be "gathering." In general, these buffers negate the intended impact of the bunker and make them play too small.

The dilema with most of those greenside bunkers is the topography surrounding/adjacent to them.
If you look carefully at the photos, you can see either sharp falloffs, or sharp rises immediately adjacent to the bunkers and the rough.
This presents maintainance issues.
Cliff Moore, the exceptional superintendent is trying to figure out how to reduce or eliminate buffers without compromising playing conditions in those areas.  It's not as simple as you'd think

I see now that in this thread you were only referring to fairway bunkers... thus my confusion, as you were defending the greenside buffers at Mtn Ridge in the other thread. I wrongly thought you were "against" the buffers and "for" them, all at the same time.

It all makes sense now.

There are problems with reducing or eliminating rough from areas adjacent to greenside bunkers.

Go through the hole by hole photos and I think you'll get a feel for the falloffs and rises that make it difficult to get equipment into those areas without causing damage or having a mower flip over

If you want to go through the exercise on a hole by hole basis, I'll do it with you.

Patrick

My comments referenced pushing back rough on the wings without bunkers at MR.  While I do think this may create a more visually enticing option for grounders, that wasn't the reason for comments.  The point of pushing the rough back was for an increased variety in look.  IMO, the rough surrounding greens look on the approach is repeated too often.  That seems to be the heavily favoured look at nearly all parkland courses.  Its fine if you disagree, but I don't understand what naming five courses in metro NYC that push rough back when the opportuity arises has to do with it.  Perhaps that would be a better excerise for you to carry out since you live there and seem interested in knowing that answer to that question.

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

I always thought The Vineyard Club presented an interesting look/play with hairy backsides to their gathering bunkers. Going from memory, I think some of the greenside bunkers have this look and some are closely mowed:




This was a picture by Chip Gaskins of Merion 14 from the Walker Cup. Did the look ever catch on?



Found a greenside bunker at The Vineyard that has a hybrid look:

[Michael Whitaker]

Good pixs Mike. That is exactly the look I prefer. The bottom photo from The Vineyard shows how a gathering greenside bunker becomes more menacing when it is not isolated by a buffer of thick grass.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,

PLEASE take a closer look at that bunker and note it's relationship to the green and fairway.
Look at the topography

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

My comments referenced pushing back rough on the wings without bunkers at MR.  While I do think this may create a more visually enticing option for grounders, that wasn't the reason for comments.  The point of pushing the rough back was for an increased variety in look.  IMO, the rough surrounding greens look on the approach is repeated too often.  That seems to be the heavily favoured look at nearly all parkland courses.  Its fine if you disagree, but I don't understand what naming five courses in metro NYC that push rough back when the opportuity arises has to do with it.  Perhaps that would be a better excerise for you to carry out since you live there and seem interested in knowing that answer to that question.


Sean,

Look at these pictures of Mountain Ridge and then let's discuss your perceptions versus the reality of how the holes look and play.

Compare the photo of the 1st green from Joe Bausch's photo to Bill Brightly's photo of the 1st green from the elevated tee.
Do you notice a difference ?












Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Look at these pictures of Mountain Ridge and then let's discuss your perceptions versus the reality of how the holes look and play.

Compare the photo of the 1st green from Joe Bausch's photo to Bill Brightly's photo of the 1st green from the elevated tee.
Do you notice a difference ?[/color]


SAME GREEN.         DIFFERENT ANGLE


Notice how the green is angled low right to high left.
Notice the back left pin locations, which are on a raised tier.
Notice that in order to have the optimal approach into a back left pin position that your drive has to be in the right side of the fairwaym, CLOSE to that fairway bunkers.

READ   RISK/REWARD

That green is WIDE OPEN in front.  There's NO PINCHED ROUGH.

But Joe's photo might lead you to believe that.

All is not what it appears to be.

That's why CBM wrote what he did on page 295 in "Scotland's Gift"

[Sean_A]

Pat

You're like a dog with a bone.  Only thing is you are chewing on the wrong bone.  Re-read my posts or ask your tutor Tom Paul to expound.  Its not that hard to grasp, but perhaps you are distracted by thoughts of what is sure to be another messy game by your gold domers. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

You're like a dog with a bone.  Only thing is you are chewing on the wrong bone.  Re-read my posts or ask your tutor Tom Paul to expound.  Its not that hard to grasp,


I neither need to reread your posts nor consult with my personal ward.

Here's what YOU wrote

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor. 

One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides. 

The tunnel look gets old fast.

Now go back and look at hole # 1 and show me where the rough pinches in at the front of the green.
Do you consider 30-40 yard wide approaches , "pinched in" ?

Would you like to do this on a hole by hole basis, or just make it easy on yourself and admit that you're flat out wrong without going through the exercise ?

Your analsysis is so flawed, so far from reality that it's comical

but perhaps you are distracted by thoughts of what is sure to be another messy game by your gold domers. 

[Sean_A]

Look at these pictures of Mountain Ridge and then let's discuss your perceptions versus the reality of how the holes look and play.

Compare the photo of the 1st green from Joe Bausch's photo to Bill Brightly's photo of the 1st green from the elevated tee.
Do you notice a difference ?[/color]


SAME GREEN.         DIFFERENT ANGLE


Notice how the green is angled low right to high left.
Notice the back left pin locations, which are on a raised tier.
Notice that in order to have the optimal approach into a back left pin position that your drive has to be in the right side of the fairwaym, CLOSE to that fairway bunkers.

READ   RISK/REWARD

That green is WIDE OPEN in front.  There's NO PINCHED ROUGH.

But Joe's photo might lead you to believe that.

All is not what it appears to be.

That's why CBM wrote what he did on page 295 in "Scotland's Gift"

Pat

Your lack of lateral vision is a disappointment and perhaps why one reason you believe Notre Dame often gets the short end of the stick with ref calls.  Try looking at where the rough surrounds the greens.  Don't look anywhere else.  Put that bone down that you can't help but to gnaw on.  Nobody will take it from you.  Now, hopefully you have seen the same rough I see surrounding greens, but with your eye sight difficulties there is no guarantee.  I am merely suggesting that on some holes, where the opportunity presents itself, that the rough be pushed way back.  By way back I don't mean two yards from the green (hence my pinching comment).  I mean 20 or 30 yards from the green - not unlike some of the chpping areas noted on other photos of BM and the numerous other examples you have been shown.  Perhaps you didn't see those photos if your attention was diverted by The Bone.  If you still have said Bone between your teeth, take a photo and post it; two hands up will signify you see and understand, one hand will signify you don't see or understand.  If you merely showcase a dumb look on your face hidden by what surely msust be a well chewed bone, it will be a sure sign you disagree, but thats ok because your tutor Tom P can explain the Big World Theory when you next visit Happy Dale Farms. 

Ciao         

[Patrick_Mucci]

Look at these pictures of Mountain Ridge and then let's discuss your perceptions versus the reality of how the holes look and play.

Compare the photo of the 1st green from Joe Bausch's photo to Bill Brightly's photo of the 1st green from the elevated tee.
Do you notice a difference ?[/color]


SAME GREEN.         DIFFERENT ANGLE


Notice how the green is angled low right to high left.
Notice the back left pin locations, which are on a raised tier.
Notice that in order to have the optimal approach into a back left pin position that your drive has to be in the right side of the fairwaym, CLOSE to that fairway bunkers.

READ   RISK/REWARD

That green is WIDE OPEN in front.  There's NO PINCHED ROUGH.

But Joe's photo might lead you to believe that.

All is not what it appears to be.

That's why CBM wrote what he did on page 295 in "Scotland's Gift"

Pat

Your lack of lateral vision is a disappointment and perhaps why one reason you believe Notre Dame often gets the short end of the stick with ref calls.  Try looking at where the rough surrounds the greens. 

You're trying to weasel out of your original position.

You specifically referenced the fronting roughs "pinching in" the fronts of the green, a pinching in which you categorized as the "Tunnel Look"

Don't look anywhere else.  Put that bone down that you can't help but to gnaw on.  Nobody will take it from you.  Now, hopefully you have seen the same rough I see surrounding greens,

The same rough surrounding the greens was NOT your original objection.
Stop trying to weasel your way out of your absurd comment and position regarding  the rough "pinching in" at the front of the green, creating as you called it, the"Tunnel Look".  Rough around a green does NOT create a "Tunnel Look", nor a "pinched in" Look.
Stop be disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Every Parkland course has the greens surrounded by rough in this area.


but with your eye sight difficulties there is no guarantee. 
I am merely suggesting that on some holes, where the opportunity presents itself, that the rough be pushed way back. 

OK, on which holes should the rough be "pushed WAY back ?
Cite the holes and Post the pictures and let's see if it's feasable

By way back I don't mean two yards from the green (hence my pinching comment).  I mean 20 or 30 yards from the green - not unlike some of the chpping areas noted on other photos of BM and the numerous other examples you have been shown.  Perhaps you didn't see those photos if your attention was diverted by The Bone.  If you still have said Bone between your teeth, take a photo and post it; two hands up will signify you see and understand, one hand will signify you don't see or understand.  If you merely showcase a dumb look on your face hidden by what surely msust be a well chewed bone, it will be a sure sign you disagree, but thats ok because your tutor Tom P can explain the Big World Theory when you next visit Happy Dale Farms. 

Sean,

What your non-discerning eye fails to see is the mounding, bunkers and water hazards near the front and flanking the greens.

Berms, hillocks and water hazards that   are next to impossible to maintain as fairway, but, I'm willing to listen.

Rather than rmake vague, general statements, name the hole and Post the pictures of the holes where you feel that the rough should be cut back 20-30 yards around the green.

The balls's in your court        

[Sean_A]

No Pat, the ball is not in my court.  I have expounded on my position more than once and believe it is quite clear.  It is all there in the black and white of my previous posts.  I can do no more for you.  The ball is in your court, but it doesn't really matter as this is my final contribution on this subject with you.  Your obtuseness has made for yet another wonderful discussion. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

Here are the photos of the greens on the front nine taken from various angles in the fairway.

Would you tell us, on each hole, where they should cut the rough back 20-30 yards from the green, and, in which direction ?

# 1 (long par 4)


#2 (long par 4).  


#3 (shorter par 4)


#4 (long par 3).  This back right pin was so challenging... and this green so large.


#5 (par 4).


#6 (shortish par 5).  This back left pin was also fun.  It is on a little area running away from the front.


#8 (long downhill par 4).


# 9 (uphill par 5)

[Patrick_Mucci]

The Back Nine.

#10 (par 4).


#11 (par 4)


#12 (par 4)


#13 (par 4)


#14 (uphill par 3)


#15 (par 4)


#16 (par 3)


#17 (par 5)


#18 (par 4)

[Patrick_Mucci]

No Pat, the ball is not in my court.  I have expounded on my position more than once and believe it is quite clear.  It is all there in the black and white of my previous posts.  I can do no more for you.  The ball is in your court, but it doesn't really matter as this is my final contribution on this subject with you.  Your obtuseness has made for yet another wonderful discussion. 


I knew you'd refuse to point out exactly where the rough should be cut back 20-30 yards on some holes.

The fact is that you know NOTHING about Mountain Ridge, the green complexes, the topos, the surrounding features, etc. etc..

When it was your time to step up to the plate and support your position, you couldn't do it because you don't know what you're talking about and don't want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

Others besides myself have tried to explain to you the errors of your ways, but, their admonitions have likewise fallen on deaf ears.
That's fitting because, obvisously, you're architecturally challenged/blind as well

The photos are posted.

Go ahead and show us how and where the rough should be pushed WAY back, 20-30 yards.

Your failure to do so will be an admission that your analysis and premise were dead wrong.

Something that I and others who have seen the site already knew

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

Here are ALL the photos of the greens on the front and back nine.

Please tell us, on each hole, where they should cut the rough back 20-30 yards from the green, and, in which direction ?

# 1 (long par 4)


#2 (long par 4).  


#3 (shorter par 4)


#4 (long par 3).  This back right pin was so challenging... and this green so large.


#5 (par 4).


#6 (shortish par 5).  This back left pin was also fun.  It is on a little area running away from the front.


#8 (long downhill par 4).


# 9 (uphill par 5)


#10 (par 4).


#11 (par 4)


#12 (par 4)


#13 (par 4)


#14 (uphill par 3)


#15 (par 4)


#16 (par 3)


#17 (par 5)


#18 (par 4)

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,

It might be easier to change the culture at clubs who have flat bottomed bunkers, but I wonder if the flow of rainwater that gets slowed/dispersed by the rough would deter a club, especially one with flashed bunkers, from ever changing?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

It might be easier to change the culture at clubs who have flat bottomed bunkers, but I wonder if the flow of rainwater that gets slowed/dispersed by the rough would deter a club, especially one with flashed bunkers, from ever changing?

Jim,

I"m not sure I fully comprehend what you're trying to say.

But, it did cause me to reflect on the greenside bunkers at Mountain Ridge.

In many, if not most cases, the perimeter of the putting surface rises when there's a nearby bunker.

I suspect this was for drainage purposes.
The only hole where this doesn't occur is # 3, on the left, and there's a good deal of doubt that that green is an original Ross green/complex

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()