[Jim_Kennedy]

Why is it folks can accept that getting caught on the high side of a green and having next to no chnace of two putt is okay, but being stuck behind sand on the green is not?  I don't see much material difference between these two and would again suggest that the essential question is if there are crucial hole locations which can be gained because of the bunker in the green.

Ciao

Because you did the former to yourself. The latter can happen even when hitting a good shot into the green but missing your intended area by a small margin, i.e. what happens for many players.

There are enough hazards on and around greens as in your example of being on the high side with little chance of two-putting, no need to add sand into the equation.  Take a poll and there's no way that it isn't seen as a cheap trick.

[Ben Stephens]

The par 5 18th at Bloody Point - Daufuskie Island nr HHI has a bunker in the middle of the 60 yard long green which is angled. The course was designed by Weiskopf and Morrish.

[jeffwarne]

Why is it folks can accept that getting caught on the high side of a green and having next to no chnace of two putt is okay, but being stuck behind sand on the green is not?  I don't see much material difference between these two and would again suggest that the essential question is if there are crucial hole locations which can be gained because of the bunker in the green.

Ciao

Because you did the former to yourself. The latter can happen even when hitting a good shot into the green but missing your intended area by a small margin, i.e. what happens for many players.

There are enough hazards on and around greens as in your example of being on the high side with little chance of two-putting, no need to add sand into the equation.  Take a poll and there's no way that it isn't seen as a cheap trick.

Jim,
Many players (and evidently modern architects) see sloped greens as a cheap trick also.
That's how we got into the problem wth boring architecture in the first place.

A bunker on or near the middle of a green can add interest to many pin locations, the same as a tucked or tight pin.
If you hit your ball behind the bunker, how is that "not doing it to yourself", the same as hitting on the high side of the hole.
Certainly the green plateaus at NGLA or many other well designed interesting greens, offer targets no bigger than the ones offered left, right, or in front of the pictured green at Doonbeg.
What's the difference between being 30 feet long and left and screwed(by having a bunker in your way) as you are at many difficult green complexes and maybe having your ball roll into a downhill lie with green running away from you?
At least you can get the next one on the green(if you're already on the green)

[Andrew Lewis]

This is very interesting. I've never seen that result occur, but of course I take your word for it Andrew (and Tom, I guess I should've known better than to challenge your memory).  To be clear, are you saying eagle is difficult, or simply not possible (with a putter)?  Architecturally, I think the difference is vast. I've never played Riv, which of course is the prototype in the US, but I guess I just didn't think of this hole as having the same DNA as Riv.

Mike DeVries, if you're watching this discussion, can you weigh in on the genetic makeup of this hole? If we assume that the back left pin placement negates the chance for eagle, we must also assume it was an intentional design. It is surprising to me in some part though, as this is a very difficult pin placement - in fact, I've never seen it in use. I would think that if you were going to go through the effort to engineer this result, and this is one of the only holes at TKC where it makes sense to try, why leave only one variable setting at the super's disposal to engage this feature?  Of course all of this is moot if it is used all the time, and my sample size is too small. But at 16 or 17 rounds, I don't think that is the case.

Mike Demetriou:

I agree that the 13th at Kingsley differs from the other holes being discussed; they have bunkers internal to the green, whereas the Kingsley hole does not.  I'd obviously defer to Mike Devries on design intent, but I would be surprised if he set out to create a stymie effect...I believe that the green was largely like then when he "found" it.

On playability, the back-left pin doesn't eliminate the chance for eagle, but it does make it far more difficult, especially if putting from front-left.  And yes, it's not a frequently used placement -- mostly during tournaments or if you have somehow angered Dan Lucas 

If anybody on the board observed the college tournament at the course last fall, it would be interesting to know whether that pin was in play and, if so, how that skilled group of golfers played it...

[Anthony Gray]

Before a recent renovation, the 13th green at Tiger Point (Gulf Breeze, FL, across the bridge from Pensacola, Jerry Pate mid-'80s) had a bunker in the middle of the lower tier of the green on the par 5 hole.

More often than not, the hole was cut on the back tier, but it was fun avoiding the bunker on the 3rd shot.  I never saw anyone short of the bunker.  There were no slopes that would let you putt around the bunker a la Riviera, so just as well.

  Played there once. Long before I ever heard the word golf course architecture. I thought it was neat. I think there was a par 4 with the 2nd shot a full catty over water.

  Anthony

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
Once you've found the green you should have to contend w/putting, not chipping.

I wouldn't think there are many of them in existence, thankfully.

[Tom MacWood]

Bernard Darwin described a couple of greens at Woking that at one time had a bunker in the middle.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
Once you've found the green you should have to contend w/putting, not chipping.

I wouldn't think there are many of them in existence, thankfully.

Jim,

You're right, there aren't too many in existence.
It would appear that on the one at Doonbeg you could use the contours in many/most cases to avoid chipping over the bunker.

The way "chipping areas" have become (too tight to chip off of-and too perfect not to simply use a putter), the only solution to get players to chip may be hazards in the middle of greens/chipping areas.

[Jim_Kennedy]

It would appear that on the one at Doonbeg you could use the contours in many/most cases to avoid chipping over the bunker.

That's at least palatable, but when you're on a green you ought to believe that you have a chance at making a snake, even if that chance is remote.  I'm not a fan of removing the illusion.

The way "chipping areas" have become (too tight to chip off of-and too perfect not to simply use a putter), the only solution to get players to chip may be hazards in the middle of greens/chipping areas.

Supers will love that one.

[Joel_Stewart]

There is a bunker in the middle of a double green at Olympic Club Cliffs course.  Doesn't really come into play.

[Mike_DeVries]

Posted by: Mike Demetriou 
Insert Quote
Quote from: Tom_Doak on Yesterday at 10:11:01 AM
Nick:

The 13th at Kingsley has a bunker which is not actually inside the green, but the green wraps around the bunker to a back plateau, so that you can be on the green and stymied by the bunker -- it's very possible to drive the green and have to putt around the bunker to that hole location, as Bill and Jeff suggested earlier.  Personally, that's the only reason I don't really like that hole, but others seem to embrace it.


Tom D,

I'm one of those who loves this hole, in no small part because of the combination of a massive undulating green and the relatively short nature of the drive required to make things exciting.  I think the bunker makes the a front right pin difficult, but I really cannot remember seeing someone ON THE GREEN and being stymied. Have you actually seen that occur there? I've played that hole enough to have a decent sample size and I'm not sure it is possible.

This is very interesting. I've never seen that result occur, but of course I take your word for it Andrew (and Tom, I guess I should've known better than to challenge your memory).  To be clear, are you saying eagle is difficult, or simply not possible (with a putter)?  Architecturally, I think the difference is vast. I've never played Riv, which of course is the prototype in the US, but I guess I just didn't think of this hole as having the same DNA as Riv.

Mike DeVries, if you're watching this discussion, can you weigh in on the genetic makeup of this hole? If we assume that the back left pin placement negates the chance for eagle, we must also assume it was an intentional design. It is surprising to me in some part though, as this is a very difficult pin placement - in fact, I've never seen it in use. I would think that if you were going to go through the effort to engineer this result, and this is one of the only holes at TKC where it makes sense to try, why leave only one variable setting at the super's disposal to engage this feature?  Of course all of this is moot if it is used all the time, and my sample size is too small. But at 16 or 17 rounds, I don't think that is the case.

Mike Demetriou:

I agree that the 13th at Kingsley differs from the other holes being discussed; they have bunkers internal to the green, whereas the Kingsley hole does not.  I'd obviously defer to Mike Devries on design intent, but I would be surprised if he set out to create a stymie effect...I believe that the green was largely like then when he "found" it.

On playability, the back-left pin doesn't eliminate the chance for eagle, but it does make it far more difficult, especially if putting from front-left.  And yes, it's not a frequently used placement -- mostly during tournaments or if you have somehow angered Dan Lucas 

If anybody on the board observed the college tournament at the course last fall, it would be interesting to know whether that pin was in play and, if so, how that skilled group of golfers played it...

Mike and Andrew,

Yes, the green was largely as I found it.  Originally, the concept was for the green to be a narrow, wide crescent on the ridge beyond the deep bowl that is left of the green, but when I cleared off the brush on the greensite, it was just too cool to not put the green there.

As to a golfer being stymied from the front left by the bunker, the contours of the ridge connecting the front of the green and the back plateau allow for a putt to go around the bunker quite easily – the falloffs are more of the issue.  As Andrew noted, it is very difficult to do without sliding into a big problem, but it is a putt in excess of 100 feet, probably closer to 140’ if at the extreme left front (green is about 55 yards long) . . . so, was driving the green the right play in that situation?  The ridge also allows for balls to be curled in a variety of ways to the front and into the big right bowl or right front shelves from the back and other areas (in fact, on Sunday morning, I hit my wedge a bit strong, it landed & stayed on the middle of the ridge above the bunker for a front left pin and I had a long, but OK, putt (I certainly wasn’t trying to place the wedge there!).  The original intent wasn’t to stymie players but to make them think about how they wanted to play the hole and there are a zillion different and acceptable ways to do so.

I don’t really consider this to be a good example of what the thread is about.  If it is then how does Sand Hills #8 fit into this situation?  It certainly has a green that wraps around a front center bunker, it is driveable, but the contours are not overly severe to be able to always work it around to typical pins from the opposite side.  What about the 7th at the Downs with its boomerang green?  It is the best boomerang around, but from the extreme edges, it is difficult to sling it far enough around to a medium-far edge pin on the other half – it takes a delicate wedge play to flip it over the big bunker in the hillside on the interior of the horseshoe to get it really close.

As to the play to Kingsley’s #13 back pin location, there are many options but it depends on what you like to play for a recovery or second: drive into the big bowl left of the green and pitch or putt up the fairway slope, drive to the right front approach and hit wedge in line with the back plateau to the pin, drive into the big green bowl and putt up to the plateau(Andrew’s option #2), hole a wedge (actually happened in the Peninsula Cup 2 or 3 years ago!) for eagle, . . . pray it stays where you can make a putt . . .  It is a difficult and infrequently used location that offers something totally different to the member.

[Nick Campanelli]

Does anyone have pics of 13th green at Kingsley?  The descriptions are nice, but to an outsider that has never played or seen this hole, seeing this green complex seems to be the only real way to understand its complexities.

[Jay Flemma]

well how about the terrible one at Dismal river?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

I had the fortune to be able to design a „doughnut“ green - it was a client-wish on a redesign of the golf course at Domat/Ems in Switzerland - however I relished at the oppurtunity, as it is ultimately just “quirk” involving a green and a bunker, requiring golfing skills to overcome the hazards - and not necessarily a “windmill” on a mini-golf.

We gave it a lot of thought and obviously studied  Riviera’s and a favourite of the clients a Niklaus green at “Desert Mountain” and another at “Bayside”.

In the end we decided to put it in on a Par 4 dog-leg.

The reason of the Par 4 was to lighten the situation as the second shot would always be shorter than a Tee shot on a Par 3. Also it was downwind where the running shot came more into play.The Par 4 is one of those dog-legs where the longer you hit the drive, the tighter the angle to open part of green. Or put another way, if the drive is shorter at 180 yards say the view into the green is more open.

The green is big at 10’000 square feet, wide open with no raised front, and a slight banana to the right. The bunker is positioned in the middle of the back right-hand quarter where the “banana” offers enough room for the “hidden” pin position behind the “doughnut” bunker.

The green can be played like a normal green when the pin position is in the middle or front, then the “doughnut” bunker just acts as a close bunker guarding the back right of the green.

However the fun part is with the “hidden” pin position

There is only a light fringe round the bunker, not a semi rough as in Riviera. This allows the players to putt through the fringe to get a tighter line when putting past the bunker. However it also increases the chances of a ball rolling in from the approach.

We put in some light modelling to create a sort of Indianapolis banking about 2 yards outside the bunker so the players can sling the ball round the banking and closer to the “hidden” pin position. However the speed must be right otherwise it will roll over the banking and further from the hole (this appealed to my sadistic GCA nature)

The bunker sole is deliberatly flat at the front to allow the option to “putt” out of the bunker - in other words give the players the easy option, but still requiring skill, when the pin was on the “normal” part of the green. However the bunker has a strong raised lip at the back to deter a putt towards the “hidden” pin position where the good shot is a “slow splash”. The aerial approach over the “dougnut bunker” is no guarantee for success, as the ball will more than likey roll off the green.

The “Dougnut” green and bunker has survived 3 seasons so far, and this up against a volatile membership of 1000 players, some of whom are stern defenders of their handicaps. Generally the players enjoy the challenge of the getting their chosen approach right and trying out the sling shot.

Whoever gets himself in the “Doughnut” bunker will surely have lost some kind of bet, so at least the others will be happy.

[Matthew Runde]

John, that sounds awesome.  I love stuff like that; stuff that gets players thinking creatively.  Do you have any photos you could share?

[Michael Taylor]

Yeah that really sounds cool John.  Any photos available?

Pup

[Mike Demetriou]

Mike DeVries, thank you very much for weighing in.  #13 is one of my favorite holes on the course, because it wickedly tempts both the high and the low handicap player to go for whatever they think they can get away with.  When match play starts to heat up on the back nine, this is often the start of the roller coaster.  A long bomber (not me) is in no better position on that tee than a guy who can hit a serious flop shot (me) but cannot safely attack the green off the tee.  That the green is so large, and has such massive moves in it makes the short walk  to the green complex one filled with a great deal of anticipation as you soon see the price for your gambling.

Having said all this, I agree with you Mike, this doesn't really belong here in this thread.

And I further agree - don't p$## off Dan Lucas! :-)

[MClutterbuck]

Old topìc, new situation for a natural green site.   

Middle of green pot bunker being considered on a 125/135 yard hole, with a 20 meter downhill vertical over a ravine. Green is 152 feet at its widest diagonally across right to left and 85 feet deep. The green slopes about 3 feet back to front.  Counter lines show ridges to the back and to the right of the green that would probably allow for slightly missed shots to roll onto the green.



Should idea be pursued? Dropped? Is potential controversy just too costly and risk tarnishing the rest of the course?

[Thomas Dai]

MC,
Not a fan of a central bunker, bit gimmicky imo and not convinced playability wise for all standards of player - I can imagine a lessor player hitting a fat or topped tee shot into the ravine and then pitching uphill/blind into the central bunker!. A few "Grrrrrrrrrr's" might result.
Would a puttable-through thumb-print in the midst of the putting surface work instead, drainage permitting? Or maybe have the bunker more towards an edge of the putting surface which you could then 'work' putts around if necessary? How about a Biarritz at an angle!?
Atb

[MClutterbuck]

MC,
Not a fan of a central bunker, bit gimmicky imo and not convinced playability wise for all standards of player - I can imagine a lessor player hitting a fat or topped tee shot into the ravine and then pitching uphill/blind into the central bunker!. A few "Grrrrrrrrrr's" might result.
Would a puttable-through thumb-print in the midst of the putting surface work instead, drainage permitting? Or maybe have the bunker more towards an edge of the putting surface which you could then 'work' putts around if necessary? How about a Biarritz at an angle!?
Atb

The ravine would play as a frontal hazard and we would have a drop zone across it. The lesser player will face a 100 yard tee shot, downhill. So this is not going to be a tough hole at all.


Since I am not an architect or designer I am not going to comment on other potential designs. I am more focused making up my mind and giving the architect some feedback on a proposal he himself is not sure about and might only get resolved on the field during construction.

[Tom_Doak]

Old topìc, new situation for a natural green site.   

Middle of green pot bunker being considered on a 125/135 yard hole, with a 20 meter downhill vertical over a ravine. Green is 152 feet at its widest diagonally across right to left and 85 feet deep. The green slopes about 3 feet back to front.  Counter lines show ridges to the back and to the right of the green that would probably allow for slightly missed shots to roll onto the green.



Should idea be pursued? Dropped? Is potential controversy just too costly and risk tarnishing the rest of the course?

Looks like a pretty shallow target to have a bunker breaking it into pieces ... and there are already a lot of bunkers front and left, so another one on that side would look pretty crowded, in my estimation.   But it really all depends on whether you can make the shots around the bunker work okay and there is something to do when you're stymied besides having to putt away from the hole.


Since this thread first aired, we did build a bunker in the mid-green on the 2nd hole at Tara Iti in NZ.  Originally Brian Slawnik had shaped a bunker eating into the green from the back, and I was concerned because it would make you putt way around to the front if you found the wrong fork from the tee.  So I suggested trying to break the bunker apart and just have a little pot sticking into the green, and it worked.  We tried to put enough slope around the bunker that a ball is not too likely to stay right by the lip, so you're given some room to putt around it when you have to.


After we'd started playing with the central bunker, I had a pause to consider whether the client would go for the concept ... and I remembered that his main house is the big one behind the 6th green at Riviera!  I swear to God that is the first time it dawned on me ... it was too funny.  Sure enough, he really liked the idea; so you don't get far into the round at Tara Iti before finding out it's going to be a little different than the norm.

[MClutterbuck]

Tom,


Thanks for the feedback. 85 feet might be shallow, but I believe long would end up coming back onto the green as the surrounds are kept at fairway height, as you saw. So it effectively plays less shallow. 


On paper it seems the bunker is small enough and the slope is such that you would be able to putt above it and curve back down.


Fun fact on Tara Iti. Do you have pics of #2 green there? Sure it is amazing.

[Alex Miller]

MC,


Looks like having the right tongue of the front bunker eat into the green another 10-15 ft could serve the same effect, as long as there would be enough slope around it to allow players to put reasonably should they find themselves on the wrong side.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Old topìc, new situation for a natural green site.   




After we'd started playing with the central bunker, I had a pause to consider whether the client would go for the concept ... and I remembered that his main house is the big one behind the 6th green at Riviera!  I swear to God that is the first time it dawned on me ... it was too funny.  Sure enough, he really liked the idea; so you don't get far into the round at Tara Iti before finding out it's going to be a little different than the norm.

Paul R

Tom--Intersting comment about @3 at Tara Iti...I had thought you did it there BECAUSE the client's house is above 6 at Riviera

[Tom_Doak]

Tom--Intersting comment about @3 at Tara Iti...I had thought you did it there BECAUSE the client's house is above 6 at Riviera

Paul:


I really try never to pander to clients.  [Or anybody else.]  Mr. Kayne's only direction was to build a great course -- in fact he wanted me to guarantee we could get there before we started.  So then he had to give me the freedom to succeed.


Late in the project, he did ask if we would change the 17th hole, because it didn't turn out as fearsome as he'd thought.  It was a tough ask, considering the hole had been planted two weeks earlier and the grass was just coming up ... I had to meditate on it for a couple of days before I brought it up to the superintendent.  I would have been less likely to tear into it if Ric had asked for a lot of other changes through the process, but that was really the only time, and it would have been stupid to argue unless he was absolutely wrong about it.  But, eventually I sorted out that Ric had a point, and we could make the hole tougher without it being unplayable, so we went ahead and made the change.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()