News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2010, 12:08:24 AM »
Wow. This place is beautiful...... Thanks for posting the pics Ryan.

JNC... Not every course needs blowout bunkers. Variety baby, variety is good. I would have rather seen grass faced bunkers with less movement then the ones they have now.  Certainly not anything rugged.

Ed, If money is not a big deal on the maintenance staff you guys could visually benefit from a step-cut. What kind of Turf do you have?

I don't necessarily think the course would have to have blowout bunkers.  However, it looks the clean, wavy bunker shapes with blinding white sand do not fit into the setting.  How about deeper bunkers with turf faces?  To me, there are several shapes that would look better than what I see in Ryan's photos.  I have not played the course, so I cannot comment on how feasible those sorts of bunkers would be.  I am just throwing out ideas.

So your concerns are aesthetic in nature?  How about the architectural substance described in this thread?  I find it ironic that Fazio is routinely taken to task for designing beautiful courses that lack substance, yet when he designs something that is substantively well received it is the aesthetics that are criticized.

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2010, 02:06:48 AM »
Wow. This place is beautiful...... Thanks for posting the pics Ryan.

JNC... Not every course needs blowout bunkers. Variety baby, variety is good. I would have rather seen grass faced bunkers with less movement then the ones they have now.  Certainly not anything rugged.

Ed, If money is not a big deal on the maintenance staff you guys could visually benefit from a step-cut. What kind of Turf do you have?

I don't necessarily think the course would have to have blowout bunkers.  However, it looks the clean, wavy bunker shapes with blinding white sand do not fit into the setting.  How about deeper bunkers with turf faces?  To me, there are several shapes that would look better than what I see in Ryan's photos.  I have not played the course, so I cannot comment on how feasible those sorts of bunkers would be.  I am just throwing out ideas.

So your concerns are aesthetic in nature?  How about the architectural substance described in this thread?  I find it ironic that Fazio is routinely taken to task for designing beautiful courses that lack substance, yet when he designs something that is substantively well received it is the aesthetics that are criticized.

Aesthetic? Maybe, although I believe that something "aesthetic" contains a certain amount of artificiality.  Therefore, the quest for aesthetics generally leads to a contrived and artificial golf course.  This is an issue I have with Fazio.  He builds features that are opulent and aesthetically pleasing but do not fit with the land.  It is such disregard for nature that is a problem for modern golf.  Golf courses have been branded as "artificial creations."  Surely this has something to do with how Fazio, Rees and Arthur Hills build their golf courses.

Besides, is it too much to ask for a course to be both strategic AND fit in well with the land?  I can name tons of Golden Age courses that accomplish both.

Ed, I think it is easier to gain a perspective on the appearance of a golf course from photos than it is on the strategy of a golf course.  Therefore, I made my comments on what little I could gather from photos.  I also reviewed your comments on the strategic elements of Diamond Creek.  Since you play there on a regular basis, I trust you have a very good grip on how the strategy works at DC.  After all, most courses (or at least most great courses) don't reveal all of their secrets on the first go-around.  Therefore, I will trust your analysis of the strategic elements of DC.  I am sure it is generally a strategic course.  However, I did see a few photos that showed holes that appeared strategically limited.  See my next post for two examples.

Finally, I think Fazio courses are very safe.  He avoids quirk and charm like the plague, and he instead opts to be smooth and status quo.  The pictures of Diamond Creek did not do anything to change that view.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 02:21:30 AM by JNC_Lyon »
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2010, 02:10:10 AM »






Ed, how do the bunkers in these pictures "compliment the strategic elements of the course," as you put it in your earlier post?  Like I said before, I have not played Diamond Creek, so I am eager to hear your thoughts.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2010, 02:31:07 AM »
Like John, I can't comment on the strategy, I have never played the course, nor am I likely to any time soon.  Two things struck me from the photos, though (after the surrounding natural beauty, obviously).  The first was the bunkers.  I'll leave John to fight that corner but they are painful on the eye.  What is the obsession with white sand?  The second was the mowing lines.  In such a beautiful setting, surely it is possible to prepare a course without such obvious hard lines?
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2010, 10:29:15 AM »
Ed, how do the bunkers in these pictures "compliment the strategic elements of the course," as you put it in your earlier post?  Like I said before, I have not played Diamond Creek, so I am eager to hear your thoughts.

JNC, thanks for the substantive question.  As I noted earlier, #18 (the second picture) has earned my respect through repeated play.  But, like most everyone else who has played the course and chimed in here, I consider it the weakest hole on the course.  So I won't defend it since doing so would arguably represent the kind of member defensiveness that I spoke of in my initial post.  I just don't think that members (or any other proponents of a golf course) need to feel they have to go to the mat to defend every single aspect of their course.  Every course has weak links, but those weak links do not necessarily signal architectural flaws or lessen the overall quality of the course.  For supporters to deny the existence of weaknesses is as fanciful as it is unreasonable for detractors to expect perfection.

I will, however, respond as to #16 since I believe it clearly evidences the qualities I described in my earlier posts.  I'm actually glad you picked that hole because it is my second least favorite hole on the course after #18.  So if it can stand scrutiny I think that speaks well of the rest of the course.  



From the tee on #16, the two fairway bunkers appear to be parallel and pinching the fairway from each side RTJ-style.  But that is an illusion.  I'm guessing the left bunker is 50 yards or so past the right bunker.  The key to the hole is the speed slot down the right side of the fairway.  If you can find that slot, you can shorten a 485 yard hole dramatically.  But to do so you have to challenge the right bunker.  And if you make a mistake and find the right bunker, you are left with a very difficult long bunker shot with the right to left cant of the fairway working against you.  On the other hand, if you take the safe route and play down the left side of the fairway, the hole becomes much longer.  The left fairway bunker reinforces that effect by forcing you to stay short of it.  So there is a huge risk/reward decision off the tee that is created by the interplay between the fairway bunkers, the contours of the fairway and the hole's conceptual design.

Now, let's look at the approach shot.  From the fairway, the green appears to be a standard back to front design.  But that too is an illusion created by the fact it is viewed from a point high above.  In reality, it slopes front to back and right to left.  It actually shares some common traits with a redan green.  The ground in front of the green is very firm and the best and sometimes only way to get your ball close to the hole is by bouncing it in.  However, the fronting ground is subtly crowned.  So misjugdments will often trickle into one or the other greenside bunkers.  The slopes from the green into the bunkers are downhill and, in my experience, the rough collar in between rarely prevents a misplayed ball from finding the sand.  So, here too, I believe the greeenside bunkering compliments the contours of the green and the available playing options to create the desired effect.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 10:30:53 AM by Ed Oden »

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2010, 10:36:53 AM »
Ed,

That is a very interesting point about the fairway bunkers creating the illusion that they are pinching when, in actuality, they are separated by 50 yards or more of distance.

The 8th hole at Merion has the same feature and one I didn't notice at the time.  I think it is a brilliant tactic by the architect and makes a relatively obvious tee shot much more strategic. 
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2010, 10:57:11 AM »
Like John, I can't comment on the strategy, I have never played the course, nor am I likely to any time soon.  Two things struck me from the photos, though (after the surrounding natural beauty, obviously).  The first was the bunkers.  I'll leave John to fight that corner but they are painful on the eye.  What is the obsession with white sand?  The second was the mowing lines.  In such a beautiful setting, surely it is possible to prepare a course without such obvious hard lines?

Mark, aesthetics are a matter of personal taste.  I can't argue with anyone who prefers a different aesthetic.  Ideally, I do too.  However, I can enjoy and appreciate a wide range of golf course aesthetics just as I can enjoy and appreciate a wide range of music or art or building architecture.  So the white sand and hard lines do not bother me as long as the course has substantive merit from an architectural standpoint.  I feel that is clearly the case at Diamond Creek.  I will say that I think the grasses used and conditions present in the NC mountains make it very difficult to maintain a golf course with minimal line definition.  And if every course in the US that has white sand were sent to the principal's office, detention would be standing room only and include the star quarterback, homecoming queen and half the student council.

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2010, 11:17:38 AM »
Ed,

Thanks for the explanation on 16.  After reading over your description, it sounds like a very fun hole to play.  I am guessing the second shot into the green is very thrilling with firm and fast conditions.  I also appreciate the deception of the staggered bunkers off the tee.  I remember reading about that feature in Ran's description of the 9th at Riviera.  Offset bunkers like that are some of the best architectural features going.

I still agree with Mark on the look of the golf course though.  My issues with the appearance of those bunkers on 16 are their clean, rippling edges that appear artificial and their appearance of "detachment" from the fairway.  I think it is very important for golf courses to have some sort of natural appearance to them.  If strategy was the only concern for golf courses, we could just stay home and play chess.  Yet since golf is an outdoor sport, there should some effort on the architect's part to make golf courses sporty and a part of nature.  I appreciate strategic architecture more than anyone.  However, my experience with courses like Prestwick or North Berwick tells me there is a more to a golf course than strategy.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #33 on: October 23, 2010, 01:43:21 PM »
Ed,

I still agree with Mark on the look of the golf course though.  My issues with the appearance of those bunkers on 16 are their clean, rippling edges that appear artificial and their appearance of "detachment" from the fairway.  I think it is very important for golf courses to have some sort of natural appearance to them.  If strategy was the only concern for golf courses, we could just stay home and play chess.  Yet since golf is an outdoor sport, there should some effort on the architect's part to make golf courses sporty and a part of nature.  I appreciate strategic architecture more than anyone.  However, my experience with courses like Prestwick or North Berwick tells me there is a more to a golf course than strategy.

JNC:

This course is in the mountains of NC.  It will not, and should not look like Prestwick or N. Berwick.  The course is built over rock, on the mountainside.  There are no open sandy areas there or nearby.  ANY sand would be foreign to the environment and so, unless you feel the course should be bunkerless, I feel your criticism about the color of the sand is relatively meaningless.  There is a lot to admire at Diamond Creek: NATURAL beauty, variety, strategy, firm, fast, challenge, and some good shaping.  So while an IDEAL course might have some things different, Diamond Creek, on the whole, falls on the positive side of modern architecture -- substantially so.  I suspect that after playing the course 10 times, your focus would be on all the interesting shots, greens and strategies that you had encountered and the color of the sand would take a distant back seat.

As my own mountain course may soon undergo a bunker renovation, what sort of bunkers do you feel work in a mountain environment and why?  What unnatural color of sand would be best?  If you can spend a day at Diamond Creek or Grandfather and not feel you have spent a day as "part of nature", then you walked around with your eyes closed, ears covered and pinching your nose.  

Bart
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 01:45:55 PM by Bart Bradley »

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #34 on: October 23, 2010, 04:17:40 PM »
Ed,

I still agree with Mark on the look of the golf course though.  My issues with the appearance of those bunkers on 16 are their clean, rippling edges that appear artificial and their appearance of "detachment" from the fairway.  I think it is very important for golf courses to have some sort of natural appearance to them.  If strategy was the only concern for golf courses, we could just stay home and play chess.  Yet since golf is an outdoor sport, there should some effort on the architect's part to make golf courses sporty and a part of nature.  I appreciate strategic architecture more than anyone.  However, my experience with courses like Prestwick or North Berwick tells me there is a more to a golf course than strategy.

JNC:

This course is in the mountains of NC.  It will not, and should not look like Prestwick or N. Berwick.  The course is built over rock, on the mountainside.  There are no open sandy areas there or nearby.  ANY sand would be foreign to the environment and so, unless you feel the course should be bunkerless, I feel your criticism about the color of the sand is relatively meaningless.  There is a lot to admire at Diamond Creek: NATURAL beauty, variety, strategy, firm, fast, challenge, and some good shaping.  So while an IDEAL course might have some things different, Diamond Creek, on the whole, falls on the positive side of modern architecture -- substantially so.  I suspect that after playing the course 10 times, your focus would be on all the interesting shots, greens and strategies that you had encountered and the color of the sand would take a distant back seat.

As my own mountain course may soon undergo a bunker renovation, what sort of bunkers do you feel work in a mountain environment and why?  What unnatural color of sand would be best?  If you can spend a day at Diamond Creek or Grandfather and not feel you have spent a day as "part of nature", then you walked around with your eyes closed, ears covered and pinching your nose.  

Bart

Bart,

Points well taken.  However, I did not state that I thought Diamond Creek should look like North Berwick or Prestwick.  Obviously that is completely impossible.  I think a course built in the style of Prestwick in the NC mountains would look as unnatural as is humanly possible.  My point with Prestwick and North Berwick was this: strategy alone does not make a great golf course.  These two courses used existing features in fascinating ways to create fun golf holes that inspired different types of shots.  Not all of these holes are strategic.  The Alps hole at Prestwick is hardly "strategic" but it is a thrilling hole and a great hole nonetheless.  It takes more than just strategy to inspire.  These are bigger lessons that I took from these courses that can be applied to ALL types of golf courses.

I definitely understand your point about sand being unnatural in a mountain setting.  I believe bunkers are the most overused hazards on inland courses.  Most architects use them as a crutch for strategy.  In reality, bunkers are mostly one-dimensional hazards that only permit on type of recovery shot.  I would not be so bold to suggest a bunkerless course is the answer for every rocky mountain layout.  However, a bunkerless course would probably work better in a mountain setting than in any other because there would be enough interesting land features to make bunkers unnecessary.

To answer your question about what type of sand I would like to see on a rocky mountain course:  well, I know blinding white sand would not work for me.  White sand looks unnatural in almost any inland setting, and it clashes with the natural features around it.  Thus, a tan or rust color would be preferable to give the sand a more natural texture.  In the pictures of Diamond Creek, I see a lot of gorgeous native grasses that are light brown in color.  A darker sand would likely mesh with these grasses and produce a more natural look.

I would also recommend the bunker solution that Donald Ross seemed to use on his Northeast courses: rolled-down, fescue-covered grass bunker faces.  These bunker shapes hide the sand from view on courses regions (like my native Upstate New York) where sand is not indigenous.  As a result, these bunkers look very sporty and natural.  When you like at a Ross course like Teugega or Monroe in Western New York, the bunkers appear to have been there forever.

I do not doubt that the natural features, as well as the neighboring flora and fauna, at Diamond Creek are phenomenal.  Golf in a remote setting like that is always spectacular because of these features.  That is also why I think it is that much more important for golf courses to mesh rather than clash with these brilliant natural features.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #35 on: October 23, 2010, 04:26:39 PM »
JNC:

Do you have pictures of these bunkers that you suggest would fit better on mountain courses?

I must say that Ellis Maples' bunkers remain basically untouched on Grandfather's Mountain Springs executive course and they are just the opposite of what you describe.  Large flashes, interesting bays, and lots of visible sand.  These large scale bunkers (and largely visible bunkers) seem to suit the scale of mountain golf very well.  Interestingly, they seem to be the opposite to what you suggested as the ideal choice for mountainous, non-sandy sites.

Thanks for an interesting discussion,

Bart


JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #36 on: October 23, 2010, 04:36:45 PM »
What do Stanley Thompson's bunker's look like at Banff or the other mountain courses?  I rarely hear his bunkering criticized.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2010, 04:42:11 PM »
Bart,

Here is an example of what I am talking about.  This is a photo of 13 at Monroe Golf Club in Rochester, a course I have seen a half a dozen times.  It is a great old Ross course that gets a lot of praise on this site.  Notice the rolled-down turf faces that conceal most of the sand.  The bunkers are clearly manmade, but they also have a timeless appearance to them.  Monroe actually sits on a sand deposit, but sand is very uncommon in Western New York.  The bunker style seen here is one Ross used at most of his courses in the region.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eko_gfl/3954662472/in/set-72157622455301816/lightbox/

By the way, the picture is from Ed Oden's photo library.

Also try Ran's profile on Highlands and Roaring Gap, two Ross courses in the Blue Ridge Mountains.  Again, I have not played these, but they are definitely examples of how Ross handled bunkering in a mountain setting.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 04:44:12 PM by JNC_Lyon »
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #38 on: October 23, 2010, 04:56:22 PM »
JNC:

I looked at the picture from Monroe and, while fine, do not find those bunkers inspiring.  Given the scope and scale of the natural features on a course like Diamond Creek, I feel those bunkers would feel dwarfed and out of proportion.  

Interesting point JC....although I don't know that the bunkers at Banff are Thompson bunkers any longer, here is a picture from my trip to Banff Springs ....be sure to scroll right to see how much of the right side bunker is visible.




Bart

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #39 on: October 23, 2010, 05:11:27 PM »
oops - wrong thread. I've put my comments on John Lyon's thread.

Eric
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 05:36:16 PM by Eric Smith »

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #40 on: October 23, 2010, 06:46:46 PM »
JNC, as I pointed out in my initial post, Diamond Creek actually has very few bunkers.  There are several bunkerless holes and the majority only have a single fairway bunker and a single greenside bunker.  I can't see how that could be construed as overuse or as a crutch for strategy.  At Diamond Creek, I would argue it's exactly the opposite. 

And with that, I feel that I am at the point where I need to bow out of the discussion since further comment will only look like a typical member defending his course.  I have no desire to go down that road.  But I will say again that I find it ironic that aesthetics are being used to counter substantive architecture.  For me, a course's quality is more a function of what it presents than how it is presented.  I believe you can have a great course that doesn't look natural (e.g., TPC Sawgrass), but a natural course can't be great without top notch strategic design. 


Andy Troeger

Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2010, 07:08:38 PM »
I can see how the view of the sand can be a little jarring, but I actually like the contrast of light colored sand with the darker backgrounds, from an aesthetic perspective. This seems to work at Diamond Creek and Grandfather. Hiding the bunkers, or at least most of the sand, as in the photos that JNC linked, doesn't have much of an effect visually for me. But, I really think its an aesthetic preference more than anything. The course looks very good for one that hasn't gotten much publication. From the photos I've seen, I would have a hard time telling which I would prefer out of Wade Hamption, Mountaintop, Grandfather, and Diamond Creek.

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Diamond Creek - Fazio in Banner Elk, NC - Photo Tour
« Reply #42 on: October 23, 2010, 07:09:38 PM »
Diamond Creek looks awesome.  For those that have played in the NC mountains...what is everyone's favorite.  Old school Linville or Wade Hampton or Diamond Creek?  They all look good fun and certainly eye candy this time of year.  Some of those holes at Diamond Creek look world class.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back