"I'm mad as hell ; I'm not going to take it anymore" Bunkers on both

[mike_malone]

 sides of the LZ the same distance from the tee is the lousiest design idea ever! A friend came back from Wilmington South which is flithy with this feature. It is not GOLF! I'm fine with you calling it something else but it ain't golf. Even the smallest separation of distance makes bunkers on each side of the fairway a good idea.

[John Kavanaugh]

Would you be happy if they just monobrowed the damn things and called it a cross bunker?

[Jason Topp]

I think a pretty good test for a fairway bunker is if you would otherwise aim at the spot where the bunker is located, it is placed about right.  I could see bunkers on both sides serving this purpose but only if the green is designed to encourage the player to aim to one side or the other. 

[Steve Burrows]

It is not GOLF! I'm fine with you calling it something else but it ain't golf.

With respect, it may not be your cup of tea, and it is certainly not the most imaginative type of design, but it is most definitely GOLF.  In fact, I would imagine that some may well enjoy this type of challenge from time to time (though a steady diet may prove to be objectionable).

[Anthony Gray]

  Beth Page 18?

[Dan Kelly]

This is why I don't care for the post-USGA Nos. 1, 9 and 18 at Hazeltine: three straight holes with flanking fairway bunkers. Give me the old doglegs -- and restore the children's course!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Its a feature that I think is okay if its not overdone. Most golf courses seem to have this at least once and I see nothing wrong in calling for a straight tee shot, or hit a lesser club from the tee to mitigate the dual hazards. Perfect golf.

[archie_struthers]

   


Just didn't like the 18th at Atlanta Athletic Club for the same reason claustrphobic as hell

[Bill_McBride]

Classic RTJ design!   Anybody played Jacaranda in Plantation, FL?   One hole after another, and many of the bunked are cut into mounds.   

[Sean_A]

Mayday

Its golf, but one of the least imaginative types of design.  If its bread and butter stuff for a guy he is in the wrong business.

Ciao 

[Howard Riefs]

Classic RTJ design!   Anybody played Jacaranda in Plantation, FL?   One hole after another, and many of the bunked are cut into mounds.   

Bill,

Thanks for the flashback. I grew up in Plantaion playing Jacaranda! Beyond the bunkers, at least they finally cut down the palm tree in the middle of the #9 fairway, East course.

[Bill_McBride]

Classic RTJ design!   Anybody played Jacaranda in Plantation, FL?   One hole after another, and many of the bunked are cut into mounds.   

Bill,

Thanks for the flashback. I grew up in Plantaion playing Jacaranda! Beyond the bunkers, at least they finally cut down the palm tree in the middle of the #9 fairway, East course.

Howard, I lived there (because of a corporate fiasco) for sixteen months, three days, four hours and twenty five minutes.   I liked playing Rolling Oaks better (Caddyshack course).   Jacaranda really wasn't as much fun.

[jonathan_becker]

Do world-class tests of golf get a pass with this? 

What about Oakmont?  I counted 10 holes that have this feature.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm scanning the Monterey Penisula with Google Maps and can't find a course that hasn't done this on at least one of its holes...including Cypress!!!    

[Sean_A]

Do world-class tests of golf get a pass with this?  

What about Oakmont?  I counted 10 holes that have this feature.

Despite the GCA.com outcries, Oakmont is the epitome of penal design.  That isn't to say it isn't a great course, I am not the one to judge that, but by any measure it is necessarily penal.  

Ciao

[Jason Walker]

Hmmm...seems to me this provides more than enough of the strategic "options" that people seem to love here-- you can lay up short, try to hit a straight ball between, or fly over them.  What's the issue?

[mike_malone]

 I may have been thinking of Oakmont in the back of my mind when I came up with this topic. Possibly the width it now has allows another option ----miss the bunker to the rough side or ,as I did there all day , go to another fairway all together.

   

[Mike Sweeney]

I may have been thinking of Oakmont in the back of my mind when I came up with this topic. Possibly the width it now has allows another option ----miss the bunker to the rough side or ,as I did there all day , go to another fairway all together.

   

Do you prefer trees on both sides of landing zone:






or bunkers here on both sides:

[Sean_A]

Mike S

Of course trees are likely more of a penal culprit because they reduce one extra option more than bunkers do, the bomb and gouge.  I get your point though, many folks on here give trees a pass and hammer away at bunkers.  Rolling Green certainly has (had?) its fair share of tree shit, but at what width of fairway are trees not considered penal?  I know that s sort of like at what distance is a cross hazard not considered penal? 

Ciao   

[archie_struthers]

 
M Shea.  U can escape the woods and even a bunker but water on both sides are the pits

[JESII]

Who?

 

[Mike Sweeney]

Who?

 

Sully,

I guarantee that M Shea Sweeney has never been to The Bongo Room like Archie and I have:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=62284363056

Archie just burned out a few more brain cells!! 

[Sean_A]

M Shea.  U can escape the woods and even a bunker but water on both sides are the pits

Its the placement of the hazards which define penal not the type of hazard - and I use hazard in the broad sense which includes trees, rough etc.   

Ciao

[Howard Riefs]

Howard, I lived there (because of a corporate fiasco) for sixteen months, three days, four hours and twenty five minutes.   I liked playing Rolling Oaks better (Caddyshack course).   Jacaranda really wasn't as much fun.

Incidentally, my high school golf team played at Rolling Hills (now called Grande Oaks), but on the 9 hole course that was east of the clubhouse. At least it was 9 holes back then. Not sure now based on the Google satellite view. Looks more like a practice facility.

[mike_malone]

 Mike Sweeney,

    Thanks for those RG photos. The first is #7. The trees on the left (and the short ones on the right) are all gone leaving the creek as a more demanding hazard THE FARTHER YOU HIT IT. The second is #15----all of the trees on the right are gone now. The third is #12.  All of the trees on the left are gone as  is that evergreen on the right.The left bunker is farther then the right ones so it's not an offender. But, Flynn eliminated that bunker when he added the ones on the right. Where do you think I get these ideas? I would certainly get rid of that bunker to encourage better players to go for that area bringing the creek into play.

    Thanks for helping me make my point

   As someone who took the theoretical GCA discussions and turned them into practical ideas at RG I'm proud of what we have done.

   My fellow members just wish I would stop now!