Straw Poll: Change the Rule, or Change Architecture?

[tomgoutman]

Change to rule and prohibit the grounding of clubs in any sand, since it is too easy to improve one's lie, even unintentionally, by doing so. Never understood the big deal about not grounding one's club. We manage to play from fairway bunkers without grounding our clubs and rarely even give it much of a thought. I don't think the presense of rakes should mean anything--unless one is grounding the club to improve one's lie, what diffence does it make if the hazard has rakes and footprints, etc. have been smoothed away? A brightline rule is the best.

[Tim Leahy]

If it isn't marked as such and  doesn't have a rake, its a waste area and should not be played as a hazard. Rules oficials should mark off bunkers or hazards that are not clearly defined just like unplayable areas.

[Carl Johnson]

My vote (in the straw poll) would be for architects to design whatever they want, including "natural looking" sandy areas.  Then, it should be up to the rules makers and players to deal with the result.  The rules are the key.  I'm not going to express an opinion about how the rules makers should handle such areas.  However, once they make the rules, then it's up to the players to learn them and follow them.  Footnote: In my opinion, DJ, as a "paid professional," should have known the clearly stated rules at WS.  He just screwed up, plain and simple.

[Kevin Lynch]

Change the architecture. NO course needs 1000 bunkers, sandy pits or zits, waste zones, playpens...well you get the point.

Yes, DJ was wrong and deserved the penalty, but DYe and Kohler's insistence on extraneous rinky-dinky playboxes led to this mess.

Steve,

What exactly would you have preferred?  I keep hearing everyone complaining about "faux-links" but at the same time bemoaning the excess number of sand bunkers.  How "natural" would it appear if there were 1,000 acres of mounded area, but the only place that "nature" placed bunkers was within 15-20 yards of the playing corridor?  I think WS would look absolutely ridiculous trying to "limit" the amount of bunkers to only those in the playing corridor.

I'm not in Pete Dye's head, but I suspect the whole point of the bunkers was to give the impression that this 1,000 acreas of land with sand formations existed first, and a course was laid among it.  Yes, I know it's artificial, but the alternative (laying out a course and adding bunkers after) would have looked horrendous.

The other alternatives might be replacing these bunkers with what?  Foot high grass?  Zero option rough?  Dye likes to see players make a shot rather then just chip out.  If the player has to contend with irregularities of surface, so be it - it's supposed to be difficult.

IMO, everyone who is complaining about the architecture needs to get a grip.  If there was an issue, it is solely in the enforcement of the rules.  There are arguments for playing "through the green" and there are arguments for treating these as "hazard."  I'm with Tom regarding this whole question of "well, there's not a rake" - it's supposed to be a penalty for missing the fairway.  So what if spectators have walked through the area?  Believe me, from being there, the players were given ample room inside the ropes to play with.  Johnson had to work pretty hard to get that far into the spectators.

I could easily see on TV that was a bunker.  How can you play this course for seven days and not have it even enter your mind that there are "a thousand" bunkers everywhere?  Johnson had a brain cramp that was "enabled" by Feherty's ridiculous analysis.

Look back at the old Brian Davis threads.  I'm usually the anarchist who thinks the Rules are too stringent or ridiculous at times.  But I'm squarely on the side of the PGA on this one.  The player blew it. Period.  If this had happened to Charlie Wi on Friday afternoon, everyone would simply have said "well, yeah, it's a bunker! What's the issue?"

For people to even try to make this an issue about Pete Dye's architecture (or even his ego) is absoultely absurd.

[Jason Connor]

How "natural" would it appear if there were 1,000 acres of mounded area, but the only place that "nature" placed bunkers was within 15-20 yards of the playing corridor? 

How natural do you think it looks right now?  Honestly, it looks as natural as Sawgrass or PGA West to me.  Which is to say not at all natural.  It's just a totally different sort of artificial than Sawgrass or PGA West.

[Rick Shefchik]

My vote: No rule change needed. It's up to the course and the officials to decide how the sandy areas are to be played, make it clear before an event, and leave the responsibility to comply with the players.

I also vote not to build courses where the sand areas tend to pop up randomly all over the property, from the hot dog stand to the parking lot. I believe your specific question, Tom, is what to do about an all-sand site. My vote is to grass as much of the sand as you want to, but what is not grassed ought to be well enough defined -- and in large enough segments -- to be treated the same way throughout the course, i.e., either all bunkers or all waste. I don't believe the "natural" look of classic seaside courses consists of 1200 separate bunkers.

Especially if a course is intended for tournament play, why make things more complicated than they need to be?

[Kevin Lynch]

How natural do you think it looks right now?  Honestly, it looks as natural as Sawgrass or PGA West to me.  Which is to say not at all natural.  It's just a totally different sort of artificial than Sawgrass or PGA West.

To me, it looks about as "natural" as Oakmont or Augusta.  Honestly, what on earth is a "natural" course (other than the original courses)?  How does this feel any more "artificial" than perfectly edged bunkers that only exist near the playing corridors?  Honestly, for all the CB McDonald love that was going on here for Greenbrier, how many "rectangles" exist "naturally."  I think there's a bit of a double standard used here for Pete Dye's "faux-natural" and CB McDonald's / MacKenzie's "faux-natural."  

Yes, I know that the whole landscape had to be "created" from a flat airbase - but so what?  If you're going to try and create something that "LOOKS" natural, I think you have to go "all out" like Pete Dye did and give the illusion that the landscape existed first with thousands of sand formations, without any previous knowledge of where the course would be routed.  If you commit to that notion of "the landscape existed first" - of course there are going to be excess bunkers that don't come into play.  So what's the issue?

My point is, if Pete Dye had simply placed 150 sand pits around the 1000 plus acres of property, and all along the playing corridors, it would look ridiculous.  That would clearly give the impression that the Golf Course was laid down first and the bunkers were "artificially added" to the landscape (which is the sort of "artificial" that I see at many "revered" courses).

If you want to complain that the course doesn't "play" like a links - that's a valid point of view (but ultimately one of personal preference).  But if you complain that the extra bunkers make the course look "more artificial" - I disagree strongly.  And I believe if people play out what the course would look like if the "bunker reduction" was implemented, I think that may see my point.

[George Pazin]

... But if you complain that the extra bunkers make the course look "more artificial" - I disagree strongly.

How 'bout just plain ugly? Sometimes artificial works, sometimes it doesn't - in neither case do I see the artificiality as being the defining characteristic.

[Jud_T]

Kevin,

If you can't tell the difference in artificiality between WS and a dozen other modern courses often lauded here, then either you've seriously got to get out more or immediately schedule an eye exam....

[Kevin Lynch]

Yes, DJ was wrong and deserved the penalty, but DYe and Kohler's insistence on extraneous rinky-dinky playboxes led to this mess.

This is a point I clearly don't understand.  Many people have claimed the problem was caused by the "excessive" bunkering.  Well, ff this bunker was so "extraneous" or "excessive," why did it come into play?  Seems to me that this particular bunker had a pretty definite purpose and shouldn't be added to the "eye candy" category.

Would things have worked out much better if Dustin Johnson had been rewarded with a trampled down rough lie for airmailing a ball 30 yards deep into spectators?  Really, what's the suggested alternative?  Keep spectators back 40 more yards?  Foot high grass in that area (as if the hole didn't play difficult enough)?

It was a bad shot and a brain cramp on a rule that was pretty clearly communicated.  Let's stop trying to make this about Pete Dye.

[Paul Jones]

So, if I decided to waste time while waiting for the final group and build a sand castle in the bunker and leave my chair in the bunker - what would the ruling be? (besides me being an idiot...)  What would happen if Dustin's ball would have rolled into the dungen of my castle?

I would only worry about this if you are building a course to hold large tournaments.

Paul

[Steve Lang]

  TD,

 if you're going to change one, better change both..

and for "The Committee" get your act together

[David Kelly]

Yes, DJ was wrong and deserved the penalty, but DYe and Kohler's insistence on extraneous rinky-dinky playboxes led to this mess.

This is a point I clearly don't understand.  Many people have claimed the problem was caused by the "excessive" bunkering.  Well, ff this bunker was so "extraneous" or "excessive," why did it come into play?  Seems to me that this particular bunker had a pretty definite purpose and shouldn't be added to the "eye candy" category.

Would things have worked out much better if Dustin Johnson had been rewarded with a trampled down rough lie for airmailing a ball 30 yards deep into spectators?  Really, what's the suggested alternative?  Keep spectators back 40 more yards?  Foot high grass in that area (as if the hole didn't play difficult enough)?

It was a bad shot and a brain cramp on a rule that was pretty clearly communicated.  Let's stop trying to make this about Pete Dye.

While I am no big fan of Whistling Straits or Dye's later work in general, I agree completely with Kevin on this one.

My vote is don't change the rule or the architecture.  But I wouldn't have played any major tournaments there to begin with if I was in charge.

[Bryan Icenhower]

Amidst the rubble of the fallout from the 72nd hole at the PGA Championship, I've seen several people opine that the design of the course was flawed because it created such a Rules flap.  But, if the PGA of America had incorporated the same local rule, this incident COULD have happened at Kiawah, Pacific Dunes, Friars Head, Ballyneal, Chambers Bay, Old Macdonald, or many other modern courses which are highly regarded.  The only difference at Whistling Straits is the number of such areas, and the fact that all the sand was imported.

So ... either we architects are going to have to stop trying to do such a good job of making sandy hazards look natural, or the governing bodies are going to have to change the Rules.

Which should it be?  I'd like to know, because I'm starting a new course on sand this week.

answer - neither, keep it as it is.  This area, when devoid of the people, is clearly a bunker, even with all the hay trampled into it.  This isn't an issue of architecture nor rules, but of unintended consequences of crowd management.

To me the question is asked as a way to figure out what was the driving factor for this flap.  To me, it was neither the architecture nor the rules in this particular instance.

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.

walked and played on several occasions.  Now it wasn't during the PGA championship, but it was 14 hours later.

[Kevin Lynch]

... But if you complain that the extra bunkers make the course look "more artificial" - I disagree strongly.

How 'bout just plain ugly? Sometimes artificial works, sometimes it doesn't - in neither case do I see the artificiality as being the defining characteristic.

Well, as soon as you can define "ugly" for everyone, let me know.  I know Plotinus started working on that a millenium ago, and there hasn't been a final answer yet.

I don't find the pits / ruts / gouges at all ugly.  I certainly think they are more "hazardous" looking than the pristine "hazards" these pros are used to seeing.  But even if you could definitively conclude they are "ugly," why is that a negative? 

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin,

If you can't tell the difference in artificiality between WS and a dozen other modern courses often lauded here, then either you've seriously got to get out more or immediately schedule an eye exam....

Of course it's "different."  Another way to define it would be "unique."  Ultimately, I'm still trying to understand how anyone is making the connection between the design and the fiasco brought on by DJs lack of awareness.

[Ronald Montesano]

Jud, how is it less natural than Bandon?  Is the grass blue or astroturf?  Is the turf made of nerf?  Are the flowers plastic?  Is the sand cotton candy?  Have you been on the site?

"looks" natural is like Art or Music appreciation.  It is not quantifiable and is a pathetic shield behind which cowards hide.  I've been on Whistling Straits and the first three Bandon courses and found much more in common than not among them.

[Jud_T]

Tricks,

Do not operate heavy machinery under the influence of this medication.  Next you're going to tell us that all courses are inherently artificial, regardless of whether zero dirt was moved or if the entire thing was created with the heavy machinery that you should apparently not be operating inyour current condition.

[Kevin Lynch]

Tricks,

Do not operate heavy machinery under the influence of this medication.  Next you're going to tell us that all courses are inherently artificial, regardless of whether zero dirt was moved or if the entire thing was created with the heavy machinery that you should apparently not be operating inyour current condition.

Well, Jud, we've established that Ron is on medication.  What we haven't established is the big difference you see between WS and the Bandon Courses.

Any possibility you can "discuss" your perception of the difference?  How about telling us what Pete Dye did poorly in creating the imitation?  Or is it simply upsetting to you that WS had to be created from farmland (and therefore, can never be viewed favorably in your opinion)?

[Jason Connor]

This is a point I clearly don't understand.  Many people have claimed the problem was caused by the "excessive" bunkering.  Well, ff this bunker was so "extraneous" or "excessive," why did it come into play?  Seems to me that this particular bunker had a pretty definite purpose and shouldn't be added to the "eye candy" category.

While this bunker was in play, did the abundance of extraneous bunkers lead to spectators standing in them all?

Meaning if the only bunkers were meaningful bunkers, then the PGA probably wouldn't have let fans in them and fans would have had more room in the grass to watch.

But because there are so many -- most of them excessive -- the PGA just said 'screw it' and let fans go anyhere.

[MikeJones]

Neither needs changing, the fact that DJ ended up in a bunker that many people would probably have thought as extraneous shows that .... erm..... it wasn't!

[Kevin Lynch]

This is a point I clearly don't understand.  Many people have claimed the problem was caused by the "excessive" bunkering.  Well, ff this bunker was so "extraneous" or "excessive," why did it come into play?  Seems to me that this particular bunker had a pretty definite purpose and shouldn't be added to the "eye candy" category.

While this bunker was in play, did the abundance of extraneous bunkers lead to spectators standing in them all?

Meaning if the only bunkers were meaningful bunkers, then the PGA probably wouldn't have let fans in them and fans would have had more room in the grass to watch.

But because there are so many -- most of them excessive -- the PGA just said 'screw it' and let fans go anyhere.

Again, I think calling the bunkers “extra” is missing the point.  Dye built the land first with bunkers everywhere, and then routed the course (at least that was supposed to be the perceived intent).  After that, the spectators were free to roam anywhere outside of the vast playing corridors provided to the players.

You hit it 30 yards deep into the spectators, you deserve whatever lie you get, whether it be a footprint in the sand or a rut in the mud where a fan may have slipped. 

[Adam Clayman]

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.

[George Pazin]

... But if you complain that the extra bunkers make the course look "more artificial" - I disagree strongly.

How 'bout just plain ugly? Sometimes artificial works, sometimes it doesn't - in neither case do I see the artificiality as being the defining characteristic.

Well, as soon as you can define "ugly" for everyone, let me know.  I know Plotinus started working on that a millenium ago, and there hasn't been a final answer yet.

I don't find the pits / ruts / gouges at all ugly.  I certainly think they are more "hazardous" looking than the pristine "hazards" these pros are used to seeing.  But even if you could definitively conclude they are "ugly," why is that a negative? 

Never said anything about it being ugly for everyone, nor would I. Ugly is a completely subjective term.

I don't find pits/ruts/gouges at all ugly either. I do find the overheads of the holes at WS to be ugly. Doesn't mean they don't play well or serve a purpose, just means the course looks ugly to me when viewed on TV, in overheads, etc.

[Jud_T]

Tricks,

Do not operate heavy machinery under the influence of this medication.  Next you're going to tell us that all courses are inherently artificial, regardless of whether zero dirt was moved or if the entire thing was created with the heavy machinery that you should apparently not be operating inyour current condition.

Well, Jud, we've established that Ron is on medication.  What we haven't established is the big difference you see between WS and the Bandon Courses.

Any possibility you can "discuss" your perception of the difference?  How about telling us what Pete Dye did poorly in creating the imitation?  Or is it simply upsetting to you that WS had to be created from farmland (and therefore, can never be viewed favorably in your opinion)?

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 exorbitantly 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...