Straw Poll: Change the Rule, or Change Architecture?

[JohnV]

Discovering white dirt should lead to a Nobel prize.  

Phil,

Yes, Cink was in an area where he could remove loose impediments, BUT, if removing those loose impediments improves your lie, it should be a penalty. Originally I was all in favor of what Cink did all those years ago, knowing the loose impediment rule. Now it occurs to me he did improve his lie.

Adam, so if a leaf or a fallen branch is covering your ball you can't remove it?

[Garland Bayley]

I guess this is the definitive statement that ANGC is and always has been a goat track.

I'll be more clear for you. What I posted is that good architecture is not always equal to a good pro tournament setting. What you illogically induced was that good architecture is never and has never allowed for a good pro tournament setting.

The point is, good architecture does not automatically create a good environment for a pro tournament. A lot more is required.

Also, a buffet is a food bar with sneeze guards. A Buffett is the best value investor out there.

I went back and looked. I did make a mistake in logic on your statement. Sorry.

[Garland Bayley]

OK, we need a straw poll within a straw poll:

-- How many who have answered Mr. Doak's query have walked or played WStraits?

-- How many who posted their answers have walked or played WStraits during a PGA championship held there? Show of hands, please.

Without having been there personally, I think it's hard for folks -- based on photos and TV images -- to imagine the scope of this issue, and the subsequent problems that arise with things like rakes, crowds, and delineating playing areas.

What does any of that have to do with it? The player screwed up! He had every opportunity to know the rule, but ignored it. Roberto didn't blame the printing company that printed the scorecard. Dustin and the rest of you have no business blaming the course.

[Garland Bayley]

By my reading change neither wins hands down. What's next?
 

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin,

I'm not saying that artificiality in and of itself is a bad thing.  I'm saying someone who has seen the Bandon courses and WS ought to be able to clearly tell the difference.  Do I have a clear personal bias towards a more minimally invasive type of GCA? Yes.  There's nothing wrong with Wisconsin farmland for golf courses.  All you need to do is drive a bit further north to see Lawsonia.  Essentially an average piece of farmland with great greens.  As detailed elsewhere, I'd personally give WS a Doak 6-7, perhaps slightly below the average guy here, but well above the average golf course.  If Herb Kohler wants to pay Pete to move a sh*tload of dirt and make a course that looks like a links but doesn't play like one and charge exhorbitantly for it, hey, it's a free country.  Just don't expect the praise from all corners to equal the level of expenditure and hype...

Jud - Thanks for expounding beyond the medication comment.    I'll have to leave it to Ron to discuss the comparison of Bandon & WS since he's played both.  

Obviously, everyone has their own personal biases.   It just seemed that many people (not necessarily you) shut down the analysis of the architecture once they realized how much dirt was moved.  Several years ago, I used to hate "manufactured" golf courses - my first trip to Kohler actually changed my thinking because of how well it was done (i.e. committing to the level of detail that Pete Dye did in making it appear like the land was there first).

I think people dismiss much of the architectural merit of the course because they can't get past the engineering that was needed just to get the project started.  For some to dismiss the course solely as "eye candy" shows a real lack of investigation.  Watching the pros play the course live, there were plenty of subtleties in the green designs that are worthy of merit.  I think viewers would have appreciated them more if Wisconsin hadn't been deluged with rain in the month before the event (allowing pros to fire darts rather than have to contend with the contours).  Also, unless you play this course, you truly can't appreciate all the subtle details Dye works in to mess with you visually.  Whether it be strategic mounds which obscure portions of your landing areas (mentally pushing you towards more danger) or the clever use of angles, there is plenty of substance beyond the surface aesthetics.

I'm not as hung up as most people about the disconnect between the links "look" and the links "play."  If I don't mind the aerial game, then why would I object to this course at all?  I don't believe there's any rule against playing an aerial game on a treeless course.  Herb Kohler has only said he wanted the land to "look" like Ballybunion.  I've never seen a claim that it was supposed to "play" like Ballybunion.

I'd be interested in checking out Lawsonia next time I visit my friends in Chicago.  I have enjoyed a wide variety of courses, so I'll be sure to check it out at some point.  However, in looking at Lawsonia's website, I probably wouldn't call that "average" farmland, and I imagine it was far superior than what Dye had to start with.

[RJ_Daley]

I'd be interested in checking out Lawsonia next time I visit my friends in Chicago.  I have enjoyed a wide variety of courses, so I'll be sure to check it out at some point.  However, in looking at Lawsonia's website, I probably wouldn't call that "average" farmland, and I imagine it was far superior than what Dye had to start with.

Actually Kevin, I think the land L&M built Lawsonia upon was very typical farmland of that region.  The thing I would cringe at is any notion that Lawsonia actually plays like 'links' in any firm and fast definition.  It is usually maintained pretty soft.  Rarely over many years have I played it in a long drought where the irrigation routine can not keep up with hardening of the course.  In fact, the best time to play Lawsonia is the few days it is still open in late Oct., after they blow out the irrigation lines for the year. (not always timed where it is open past the blow-out of the lines)

I'll leave it to far better players than I, but I'd have to say that Lawsonia is more of a target postioning sort of course than a real hard and fast track where ground game is a big factor.  The fortress raised greens mean target golf for the most part on approaches.  Drives are to favorite sides of FW, but you don't get the sort of roll-out that would lend to real links-like golf.  For that, you need to go to our sand hill favorites.  

IN true firm and fast conditions on both Lawsonia and WS, I'd say there is no comparison of how WS would play more of links than Laws.

Sorry for the thread diversion TD, but I voted on your quetion several pages ago...  

[William_G]

FWIW, Johnny Miller votes to change the architecture.... http://www.golfweek.com/news/2010/aug/18/johnny-miller-whistling-straits-pga-dustin-johnson/?BLOG-TourBlog

[Kevin Lynch]

FWIW, Johnny Miller votes to change the architecture.... http://www.golfweek.com/news/2010/aug/18/johnny-miller-whistling-straits-pga-dustin-johnson/?BLOG-TourBlog

Yes Johnny, the course would be much more interesting with unplayable grass replacing 1,000 bunkers.  I know it's much more exciting to take an unplayable lie drop, hack out sideways or re-load because you can't find your ball.  Sand is exactly the type of hazard that is great for the game.  It causes difficulty and there's a chance there will be a horrible lie, but doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of a great recovery.  But since some guy got lost in the moment and didn't connect a) "that's a sandy lie" and b) "I hear there's 1,200 bunkers here", we must take the knee-jerk over-reaction to fill in the sand.  So Johnny wants the "interesting" hazard replaced with something unplayable and boring?

Or is Johnny suggesting that the rough 40-50 yards off the fairway be mowed to a playable height so Johnson would have had a perfect lie on trampled down grass?  That sounds like a much better idea than accepting you may actually draw a nasty lie in sand for spraying the ball.

I've seen plenty of courses with the areas between holes filled with unplayable long grass - do we really need one more? 

Seriously, other than the fact that the bunkers weren't "born there," what is the basis for the architectural angst of "too many bunkers"? 

-  One one hand, people complain that "they never come into play."  OK - so what's the problem?  I'd rather look at a background of sand that blends in with the "theme" of sandy coastal dunesland.  Why is it preferable to fill that area with non-bunkers?  All that would do is make to 100 or so bunkers seem even more out-of-place with the rest of the property.

-  On the other hand, people are complaining about the number of bunkers that come into play.  So what's the beef here?  Are the bunkers not perfect looking enough?  Are they unplayable?  Is there no way to avoid them?  Please, someone explain what the issue is here.

OK - so Johnny only has 60 bunkers on his courses.  And that's good because.......?    How many times have we heard here "you've got to play that new Johnny Miller course!!!"  I'm really baffled by this notion of "it's overbunkered."  I'd argue that more courses are "overgrassed" in comparison.  Would we all feel better if every one of the excess bunkers were replaced by trees?

[Pat Burke]

John:



Steve S:

I don't know how many "bunkers" there are at Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal, and I don't really want to know.  To me, those courses were ALL SAND to start with, and just because I don't grass a piece of them doesn't make it a bunker.

Tom, I love that line

[jim_lewis]

I place a lot of importance on recoverability in golf course architecture, and I consider it to be an important factor when evaluating a course. However, there is a limit. If a big hitter wants to swing from the heels and take the chance of missing the fairway by 30, 40, or fifty yards, he should accept the appropiate punishement that goes with huge misses. Dustin Johnson's tee shot on 18 was so far off line that he deserved severe punishment and no opportunity to advance the ball to the green. A simple wedge back into the fairway should have been all he could have hoped for.

For all its visual intimidation, WS was too generous in tolerating  extremely wild tee shots with relatively little negative consequences. All week long we saw bombers hit tee shots far off line and then have a reasonable shot at the green. Their only punishment is many cases was the hard climb back up up tot the fairway. They were often better off by winding up in a "bunker".

We hear lots of complaints about how equipment and balls enable the modern pro to hit it rediculous distances. One of the reasons they do that is because they can and can get away with it. I am no fan of lots of trees lining fairways, but I did enjoy seeing wild shots punished at Firestone. Bombers lost and winners were guys who hit it somewhere near the fairway.  I like that!

[Pete Lavallee]

To actually try to answer Tom's question, I do love the fact the he and several other prominent architects are building bunkers that look natural. Many times these will nedd to connect to more formalized bunkers. So the choice comes down to building all bunkers with a purely defined perimeter; so that I know when I'm in or not in one, or, to have a more natural sandy waste area that links the turfed areas more naturally with the existing terrain. I must confess I prefer the latter.

Now that I have voted not to change the architecture, what do we do about the rule? It would seem obvious that if you are going to impose a penalty within the confines of a bunker we have a clear understanding just where that perimeter is. There probably could have been 30 different spots on the very perimeter of DJ's bunker that would have required an official ruling to determine whether it was in or out of the hazard. Is that good for golf, probably not. Logically it would seem that it would simplify the rules to play all areas as through the green. But I just can't justify allowing people to ground their club in soft sand. Perhaps a trial would prove that it really wouldn't make the shot any easier and it's all much ado about nothing.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

Some straw poll!! GCA members were given the opportunity to be brief and make a simple decision between TWO options: Change the Rule or Change the Architecture. This became THREE when Tom D. conceded that a third option could be change neither and finally became FOUR when some offered up the solution to change both! I thought I might try to compile some of the numbers. Well more fool me!! It quickly became clear that to get at those numbers meant I had to make many value judgements as to what responders actually meant! As this seems a much loved trait in a goodly number of threads I forged straight ahead.

Remember that this was done for my own fun and there had to be a lot of subjectivity involved as I interpreted the responses. I used 58 out of 136 responses as these 58 seemed to give an unequivocal answer (an oxymoron on G.C.A.!!!!). There was some meandering off topic at times and a bit of to-ing and fro-ing which accounted for the other 78!
And Tom D. I wouldn’t use my figures as a starting point in any future venture of yours!

Change Rules: 45%
Change Architectural Style: 10%
Change Neither: 40%
Change Both: 5%

Interestingly Tom D. says in Post #4
“Okay, "neither" is the third option.  But I'd be amazed if it wins.”

So far that option was not far off it.

Cheers Colin