The case for topshot bunkers

[Jason Topp]

One example of the same type of effect is the hill before the fairway on the first hole at Black Mesa.  It largely obscures the landing zone but is not much of a hazard other than for a very poor tee shot.  Our group of 24 included a wide variety of handicaps and I remember very vividly one guy becoming completely psyched out by the hill - thinking it was impossible for him.  I know his normal tee shot would clear the trouble easily but he was convinced he had no chance.

He hated the hill that day.  I wonder, however, what he would think of it if Black Mesa were his regular course.  I suspect he would gradually figure out he could handle the shot and get a thrill from pulling it off.

[Mark Saltzman]

Now why, oh why, would you want to punish someone like that further?

Why would you want to slow down the play of someone struggling further?

What a waste of time and maintenance money....

Maybe 80 years ago they had their place. Mishits at that time didn't fly 280 yards and just a little right. Now, the only people you are punishing are the people who need it least.

There is no case.

George,

I do not believe these bunkers are about punishment, they are about making a tee shot more difficult and interesting by using visual intimidation and deception.

In many of the places I have seen these bunkers used, the forward couple of sets of tees were located ahead of the bunker giving the higher-handicap / shorter-hitter a reprieve from the top-shot bunker.  If a good golfer playing one of the back sets of tees, so intimidated by these bunkers tops his tee-shot, I do not feel any empathy and have no problem penalizing him.

[JC Urbina]

George Pazin

I have to disagree with your conclusion.

If I may.

"Most golfers have an entirely erroneous view of the real object of hazards. The majority of them simply look upon hazards as a means of punishing a bad shot, when their real objective is to make the game more interesting"

Alister Mackenzie

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC,

It would seem to me, that if golfers are so intimidated by these bunkers that they must be very effective in getting into their heads, and as such, a validation of their presence.

[Bradley Anderson]

I wonder - even if the top shot bunker sees little action, does it serve to feed other bunkers later in the round?

Every golfer feels some sense of satisfaction after clearing a bunker in his direct line. The golfer who feels a greater sense of confidence in his ability to take a bunker on, may get punished later in the round by a bunker that is not nearly as easy to take on as the top shot bunker.

I played the Culvers Academy course last month and on the 5th hole (original 9th hole) there was an enormous top shot bunker complex - maybe one of the biggest anywhere?

[George Pazin]

George Pazin

I have to disagree with your conclusion.

If I may.

"Most golfers have an entirely erroneous view of the real object of hazards. The majority of them simply look upon hazards as a means of punishing a bad shot, when their real objective is to make the game more interesting"

Alister Mackenzie

An excellent point, Jim. Who is this Mackenzie guy? I'm not familiar with his work or writings...

At any rate, I hadn't really considered the things you mention in your previous post, so kudos and thanks for illustrating the kinds of things architects do that we mere admirers completely overlook or would never even consider.

However, I can't help but think that the top shot bunker as described by most are merely punishers, not interest providers. And to rebut Mark S somewhat, there is nothing interesting about carrying a top shot bunker, unless it's something the size of the monsters at St. Enodoc or Sandwich, or even the top shot mountain™ at Black Mesa.

[Pete Lavallee]

I don't think we should loose sight of the fact that Top Shot bunkers served a very useful purpose back when Donald Ross built them. Remember fairway irrIgation was unheard of in the days Donald Ross was building these courses. I learned the game on a municipal course in Mass. which still did not, in the 1970's, have fairway irrigation. I can assure you that in the summer months a topped shot could easily travel as far as one that went 200 yards through the air. That same golf course now has fairway irrigation and water hazards that were within easy reach of a three wood are now unreachable in the air with a driver. I suspect that better players were quite pleased that their less skilled opponents were not even with them in the fairway after a duffed tee shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

When you see the photo of the top shot bunker at # 12 at Mountain Ridge, and compare the photo to the hole prior to the introduction of the top shot bunker, you'll gain a new appreciation for how the visual compresses a generous DZ, causing the golfer to worry.

[JC Urbina]

Patrick Mucci

I think we agree to agree

I believe in visual compression, depth of field, fore bunkers and mounds and other forms of camouflage.  These were all part of links golf and the way courses were laid out in the formulation of the game as we know it today.

Golf and it's participation is not played out in a prescribed set of dimensions like a baseball field or a basketball court.  Golf is played on open fields with various forms of topography which requires a golfer to navigate their way around a selected number of holes. 

We all accept the challenge that golf will provide and the execution of a well struck ball is part of the thrill of playing the game.  I have quoted this passage a few times,   " as Bernard Darwin says, to the spirit of adventure_ yet a well played shot always gets it due reward"

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC,

What's interesting about the visual presentation, the deception, is that even though my mind knows how generous the DZ is, the tactical signal, sent by the configuration of bunkers, to my eye, instills elements of uncertainty in my brain, tempo and swing. 
It erodes the confidence I've inventoried, based on my knowledge of the finite dimensions of the DZ.
I know how generous the DZ is, yet, that's not how it looks.
And, when you factor in the element of WIND, which is pretty much in your face or quartering in your face as a prevailing wind, the degree of uncertainty increases.

No matter how much repeat play you engage in, no matter how much you understand the physical dimensions of the DZ, that tactical signal, sent by the configuration of those bunkers, creeps into your brain and your swing.

That to me is a reflection of brilliant architecture.

I'll try to take some pictures of the 12th hole later this afternoon and send them to someone who knows how to post them.

[George Pazin]

George,

When you see the photo of the top shot bunker at # 12 at Mountain Ridge, and compare the photo to the hole prior to the introduction of the top shot bunker, you'll gain a new appreciation for how the visual compresses a generous DZ, causing the golfer to worry.

Maybe it's the name I don't like. What you and Jim are describing doesn't sound like a top shot bunker to me, it just sounds like a bunker.

Have you posted photos of MR #12 on the site? If so, I missed it and would appreciate it if you or someone else could let me know where.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

When you see the photo of the top shot bunker at # 12 at Mountain Ridge, and compare the photo to the hole prior to the introduction of the top shot bunker, you'll gain a new appreciation for how the visual compresses a generous DZ, causing the golfer to worry.

Maybe it's the name I don't like. What you and Jim are describing doesn't sound like a top shot bunker to me, it just sounds like a bunker.

Have you posted photos of MR #12 on the site? If so, I missed it and would appreciate it if you or someone else could let me know where.

Bill Brightly posted an extensive number of photos of Mountain Ridge in a thread.  Unfortunately, I don't remember the title

[Patrick_Mucci]

I had heard some complaints about the new topshot bunker on # 12 at MRCC, especially from the "lady's" perspective.

So, the other day I measured the required carry, which is from a tee elevated above the cross bunker.

It requires a carry of 66 yards.

So, I have to ask, if a golfer can't carry a tee shot 66 yards, should there be any concession made to them, architecturally, on the golf course.

Should there be a "minimum standard test" in the examination of a golfer's game ?

And, is a test that requires a carry of 66 yards from an elevated tee, a reasonable test ?

Or is it a substandard test, one that needs to be raised ?

I'll measure the carry from the elevated white tee next week

[JMEvensky]

Should there be a "minimum standard test" in the examination of a golfer's game ?

Yes,of course there should be.The problem is how one defines "golfer".

I'll assume your experience is the same as mine wrt ignoring those for whom a 66 yard carry with a driver is too onerous. I understand why they complain--I just don't understand why some cater to their complaints.

[Steve Burrows]

Should there be a "minimum standard test" in the examination of a golfer's game ?

Who defines this minimum standard?  You?  The "good" player?  The "average" player?  The "bad" player?  The designer?  Are people who cannot meet this standard simply not welcome on the golf course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Should there be a "minimum standard test" in the examination of a golfer's game ?

Who defines this minimum standard?  You?  The "good" player?  The "average" player?  The "bad" player?  The designer? 
The consulting architect makes that decision.
He is charged with forging a disinterested challenge that neither favors or disfavors any particular golfer's game.

But, there is, if not de facto, an implied "minimum standard test"

Perhaps you should look at the 17th at TPC to see how that test can be crafted.


Are people who cannot meet this standard simply not welcome on the golf course?

Of course the are NOT welcome.

If you look at some of the better Junior Golf Programs at clubs, the Juniors have to pass an etiquette and playing test.
If they fail either, they can't play.

That test should be applied to the general membership.

Think of the time a round would take, and how the course would be backed up, if a golfer couldn't carry 66 yards on their tee shot from an elevated tee.

Steve, you usually ask intelligent questions, is someone else using your computer ?

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

Your response is couched within the context of a private facility (I deduce this from your use of word "club" and "membership"), and so it is only a representative sample of the larger issue.  And whereas I can also appreciate your invocation of the 17th at TPC Sawgrass, how might your exclusion of the unskilled - if not inept -player apply at a lower end daily-fee courses, or municipal facilities?  If someone is willing to pay their money, are they not entitled to hack it around the golf course 66 yards at a time?  Moreover, what happens when the minimum standard moves from 66 yards, to 100 yards, to 150 yards, or further?  Where, or when, does it stop?

 
The consulting architect makes that decision.
He is charged with forging a disinterested challenge that neither favors or disfavors any particular golfer's game.

Also, I tend to disagree with this.  A designer's work is far from "disinterested".  This notion seems highly idealized.  Likely the challenge of a given golf course does not favor an individual person, but a designer is ultimately beholden to their client -- be it an owner, a membership, board, or otherwise -- and so he/she responds to a design program issued by this individual and/or group. If a designer fails to meet the stated program, or otherwise please the client, then changes must be made, or possibly the designer will be fired.  In other words, the work of a golf course designer is implicitly determined by these outside concerns, to the extent that these people, and NOT the designer, are the ones who would decide if a minimum standard exists.  And as different people are involved in each situation, this standard cannot be universal; it would vary from course to course.  

In the case of MRCC, then, these women that you mention have as much prerogative or privilege to comment/complain about these topshot bunkers as you have to praise them.  Moreover, if, hypothetically, they had sufficient influence at the club to alter or remove these hazards to better suit their games, then so be it (though I suspect that their opinion is in the minority).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Your response is couched within the context of a private facility (I deduce this from your use of word "club" and "membership"), and so it is only a representative sample of the larger issue.  

The particular cross bunker referenced, the one with a 66 yard carry from an elevated tee, was at a private club, hence, it's reasonable to deduce  the context is within that private club 

And whereas I can also appreciate your invocation of the 17th at TPC Sawgrass, how might your exclusion of the unskilled - if not inept -player apply at a lower end daily-fee courses, or municipal facilities?

Rather simply I would imagine.
If a non-golfing  beginner attempts to tee it up at Bethpage Black, a daily fee/municipal facility, what do you think would happen ?
Do you think AWT crafted that course with the intention of catering to the unskilled or inept player ?


If someone is willing to pay their money, are they not entitled to hack it around the golf course 66 yards at a time?  


NO, they're not entitled at BPB.
and I would imagine that they're not entitled at a number of public facilities such as PBGC, Bandon and Whistling Straits.  I can also imagine that a chaotic situation would arise for all of the golfers behind that player at almost every public course.

Moreover, what happens when the minimum standard moves from 66 yards, to 100 yards, to 150 yards, or further?  
Where, or when, does it stop?

Like obscenity, I think you know it when you see it.

 
The consulting architect makes that decision.
He is charged with forging a disinterested challenge that neither favors or disfavors any particular golfer's game.

Also, I tend to disagree with this.  A designer's work is far from "disinterested".  This notion seems highly idealized.  Likely the challenge of a given golf course does not favor an individual person, but a designer is ultimately beholden to their client -- be it an owner, a membership, board, or otherwise -- and so he/she responds to a design program issued by this individual and/or group.

So what game or golfer did Ross, AWT, Flynn, AM, CBM, SR and CB favor or disfavor ?

What game or golfer does Dye, Doak, C&C favor ?

They all attempt to forge a balanced challenge that neither favors or disfavors any one type of golfer/game in their 18 hole test.

 If a designer fails to meet the stated program, or otherwise please the client, then changes must be made, or possibly the designer will be fired.  In other words, the work of a golf course designer is implicitly determined by these outside concerns, to the extent that these people, and NOT the designer, are the ones who would decide if a minimum standard exists.  

Now you're confusing disinterested design with minimum performance standards.

Will you list five situations where the owner/developer mandated that the architect favor or disfavor a particular golfer/game ?

Would you also list five courses where the owner/developer established the design criteria of the hole specifics.

Mike Pascucci might have directed N&D to design a difficult golf course, as did the owner/developer of PGA West to Dye, but no one is getting down to outlining the feature specifics for each and every hole.  That's why owner/developers hire architects, because they can't rout themselves

And as different people are involved in each situation, this standard cannot be universal; it would vary from course to course.  
Perhaps, but not by much

In the case of MRCC, then, these women that you mention have as much prerogative or privilege to comment/complain about these topshot bunkers as you have to praise them.

Only in terms of their constitutional rights of free speech

Moreover, if, hypothetically, they had sufficient influence at the club to alter or remove these hazards to better suit their games, then so be it (though I suspect that their opinion is in the minority).

Isn't this how almost every disfiguration of great features on great holes and courses occurred over the years ?
Isn't this how the quest for fairness ruins feature after feature, hole after hole, by catering to objections to the architect's balanced challenge that neither favors or disfavors any particular golfer/game ?

[Sean_A]

Patrick,

When laying out the 11th hole at Common Ground golf course in Denver I used a small mound and some bunkers right off the tee to visually distract the golfer from the distant views,  I did not use the Top Shot bunker as you describe for a "Test" of the driver.  I proceeded to align the fairway bunkers off to the left of the landing area so that your eye continued looking to the left even though the landing area was straight ahead.  The Fore (Top Shot) bunker is about 125 yards off the back tee.

I think that many Golden Age golf course architects used the bunkers for varying reasons not just for tee shot intimidation.  I agree with your other premise that visual distortion was more often the case.

Dunlop is correct, Yeamans Hall has a few of these bunkers right off the tee to distract and or visually stimulate the tee shot.  # 7 the Road Hole immediately comes to mind.  Also the 8th hole at Yeamans  "Hogs Back" has that same bunker right on the center line.  When I restored these two bunkers they were last on the list to reintroduce, you can understand why.

Hmmm, I wouldn't consider those bunkers on 7 & 8 top shotters.  With a bit of wind around they are very much in play for decent players.

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

The mother of top shot bunkers - the "wave" at French Creek #17:

From the tee:


Detail:

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

Your response is couched within the context of a private facility (I deduce this from your use of word "club" and "membership"), and so it is only a representative sample of the larger issue.  

The particular cross bunker referenced, the one with a 66 yard carry from an elevated tee, was at a private club, hence, it's reasonable to deduce  the context is within that private club  

And whereas I can also appreciate your invocation of the 17th at TPC Sawgrass, how might your exclusion of the unskilled - if not inept -player apply at a lower end daily-fee courses, or municipal facilities?

Rather simply I would imagine.
If a non-golfing  beginner attempts to tee it up at Bethpage Black, a daily fee/municipal facility, what do you think would happen ?
Do you think AWT crafted that course with the intention of catering to the unskilled or inept player ?


If someone is willing to pay their money, are they not entitled to hack it around the golf course 66 yards at a time?  


NO, they're not entitled at BPB.
and I would imagine that they're not entitled at a number of public facilities such as PBGC, Bandon and Whistling Straits.  I can also imagine that a chaotic situation would arise for all of the golfers behind that player at almost every public course.

Have you approached these women at your club (and others who do not meet your criteria) of ceasing their participation in the game, or of foregoing their membership at the club?  You're asking people not to play at public facilities; why not at a private club?  If you feel so strongly that they should not be playing golf at this facility or elsewhere, are you willing to start a campaign to enforce your notion of minimum standards on the premises?  If not, why not?

Moreover, what happens when the minimum standard moves from 66 yards, to 100 yards, to 150 yards, or further?  
Where, or when, does it stop?

Like obscenity, I think you know it when you see it.

This answer is insufficient.  Even in its most famous context, it is a generic catch-all; Justice Potter used it because he had no rule of law to support his decidedly subjective opinion on what constitutes obscenity.  Moreover, invoking this kind of rationale implies that there is a final arbiter of such matters (such as the Supreme Court), yet no such authority exists in golf with respect to establishing a "minimum standard."  And without such an arbiter, we are back where we started, with you saying that there should be a minimum standard and these women at MRCC (and likely many, many others) ostensibly believing that there should not be one.  Neither side is right or wrong, they simply disagree.

 
The consulting architect makes that decision.
He is charged with forging a disinterested challenge that neither favors or disfavors any particular golfer's game.

Also, I tend to disagree with this.  A designer's work is far from "disinterested".  This notion seems highly idealized.  Likely the challenge of a given golf course does not favor an individual person, but a designer is ultimately beholden to their client -- be it an owner, a membership, board, or otherwise -- and so he/she responds to a design program issued by this individual and/or group.

So what game or golfer did Ross, AWT, Flynn, AM, CBM, SR and CB favor or disfavor ?

What game or golfer does Dye, Doak, C&C favor ?

They all attempt to forge a balanced challenge that neither favors or disfavors any one type of golfer/game in their 18 hole test.

Jack Nicklaus has been accused of building Muirfield Village to generally suit a fade, even a high fade, which is a shot that matched one of his strengths.  Nicklaus has also stated that Scioto Country Club, where he grew up and which was designed by Donald Ross, tends to work left-to-right, and that this is one of the reasons that his game developed in the way that it did.

 If a designer fails to meet the stated program, or otherwise please the client, then changes must be made, or possibly the designer will be fired.  In other words, the work of a golf course designer is implicitly determined by these outside concerns, to the extent that these people, and NOT the designer, are the ones who would decide if a minimum standard exists.  

Now you're confusing disinterested design with minimum performance standards.

Will you list five situations where the owner/developer mandated that the architect favor or disfavor a particular golfer/game ?

Would you also list five courses where the owner/developer established the design criteria of the hole specifics.  

Mike Pascucci might have directed N&D to design a difficult golf course, as did the owner/developer of PGA West to Dye, but no one is getting down to outlining the feature specifics for each and every hole.  That's why owner/developers hire architects, because they can't rout themselves

This is like saying that I "CAN'T" perform surgery on someone.  I certainly can do so, but I am obviously inclined towards seeking the counsel of a professional, which is to say a doctor.  Similarly, any one is capable of routing a golf course, though it is not very common and the likelihood of success is admittedly decreased in contrast to hiring a professional designer to do the job.  But truly, a number of owners/developers have taken on the challenge successfully (see Crump, Fownes, Bergstol).

And as different people are involved in each situation, this standard cannot be universal; it would vary from course to course.  
Perhaps, but not by much

In the case of MRCC, then, these women that you mention have as much prerogative or privilege to comment/complain about these topshot bunkers as you have to praise them.

Only in terms of their constitutional rights of free speech

Moreover, if, hypothetically, they had sufficient influence at the club to alter or remove these hazards to better suit their games, then so be it (though I suspect that their opinion is in the minority).

Isn't this how almost every disfiguration of great features on great holes and courses occurred over the years ?
Isn't this how the quest for fairness ruins feature after feature, hole after hole, by catering to objections to the architect's balanced challenge that neither favors or disfavors any particular golfer/game ?

This assumes at least three things: First, that a designer is indeed charged with creating a balanced challenge; Second, that they have successfully accomplished this (which is, of course, wildly subjective); and Third, that subsequent generations are, for whatever reason, responsible for preserving that creation in a frozen state, and that we are appreciably worse off for having failed to do so.  Myself, I believe that the living world moves, breathes, and changes over time, so I am not that concerned with losing discreet elements of individual golf courses, or even entire golf courses altogether, should it ever come to that.  It's not the end of the world.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Your response is couched within the context of a private facility (I deduce this from your use of word "club" and "membership"), and so it is only a representative sample of the larger issue.  

The particular cross bunker referenced, the one with a 66 yard carry from an elevated tee, was at a private club, hence, it's reasonable to deduce  the context is within that private club  

And whereas I can also appreciate your invocation of the 17th at TPC Sawgrass, how might your exclusion of the unskilled - if not inept -player apply at a lower end daily-fee courses, or municipal facilities?

Rather simply I would imagine.
If a non-golfing  beginner attempts to tee it up at Bethpage Black, a daily fee/municipal facility, what do you think would happen ?
Do you think AWT crafted that course with the intention of catering to the unskilled or inept player ?


If someone is willing to pay their money, are they not entitled to hack it around the golf course 66 yards at a time?  


NO, they're not entitled at BPB.
and I would imagine that they're not entitled at a number of public facilities such as PBGC, Bandon and Whistling Straits.  I can also imagine that a chaotic situation would arise for all of the golfers behind that player at almost every public course.

Have you approached these women at your club (and others who do not meet your criteria) of ceasing their participation in the game, or of foregoing their membership at the club?

First, it's not my criterion, it's the architect's criterion that a carry of 66 yards is required.
Second, if they can't make that carry, which I doubt, they should take lessons from the Pro so that they can aspire to carry the intended feature.

You're asking people not to play at public facilities; why not at a private club?  

No, I'm not.
The administrators at BPB instructs those who are not accomplished golfers to NOT play the course.
In fact, there's a HUGE sign on the first tee advising them of same.


If you feel so strongly that they should not be playing golf at this facility or elsewhere, are you willing to start a campaign to enforce your notion of minimum standards on the premises?  If not, why not?

Because the process of "natural selection" will take care of everything.

Moreover, what happens when the minimum standard moves from 66 yards, to 100 yards, to 150 yards, or further?  
Where, or when, does it stop?

Like obscenity, I think you know it when you see it.

This answer is insufficient.  Even in its most famous context, it is a generic catch-all; Justice Potter used it because he had no rule of law to support his decidedly subjective opinion on what constitutes obscenity.  Moreover, invoking this kind of rationale implies that there is a final arbiter of such matters (such as the Supreme Court), yet no such authority exists in golf with respect to establishing a "minimum standard."
Not true.

The architect is the arbiter.
He's the one you hire, as an independent consultant, to forge a tactical challenge that neither favors or disfavors any particular golfer or golfer's game.
His task transcends all levels of play and establishes the standards of play.

Your position reduces architecture from an art form to a numerical exercise vis a vis popular voting


And without such an arbiter, we are back where we started, with you saying that there should be a minimum standard and these women at MRCC (and likely many, many others) ostensibly believing that there should not be one.  Neither side is right or wrong, they simply disagree.


Baloney, there is an arbiter and it's the architect, not you, not me nor anyone else.
He's the one whose professional opinion has been solicited, contracted and paid for.
And I'm content with his decisions.
That you aren't is of no concern to me.

You want to promote the concept of having a referendum on every feature.
What kind of architecture, what kind of course would that produce ?

As to golf in general, I believe that there are minimum standards when it comes to architecture, architectural features and the playing of the game.
If a golfer can't get the ball airborne, they have no business playing # 17 at TPC or any course that requires aerial carries over water.
Heroic carries are legendary, but, 66 yards from an elevated tee is hardly a heroic carry.
And, if golfers, male or female, can't carry the hazard, let them face the consequences of their inability to do so, and not whine about having democracy rear it's head to vote the feature out of existance.  Democracy.  Is that where 10 wolves and 4 sheep vote on what's for dinner ?

You would reduce/eliminate the features on golf course that pose an element of difficulty to the lowest common denominator.
Whereas, if you don't produce a challenge to the lessor golfer, they'll never get better.

 
The consulting architect makes that decision.
He is charged with forging a disinterested challenge that neither favors or disfavors any particular golfer's game.

Also, I tend to disagree with this.  A designer's work is far from "disinterested".  This notion seems highly idealized.  Likely the challenge of a given golf course does not favor an individual person, but a designer is ultimately beholden to their client -- be it an owner, a membership, board, or otherwise -- and so he/she responds to a design program issued by this individual and/or group.

So what game or golfer did Ross, AWT, Flynn, AM, CBM, SR and CB favor or disfavor ?

What game or golfer does Dye, Doak, C&C favor ?

They all attempt to forge a balanced challenge that neither favors or disfavors any one type of golfer/game in their 18 hole test.

Jack Nicklaus has been accused of building Muirfield Village to generally suit a fade, even a high fade, which is a shot that matched one of his strengths.

While it's true that some have accused JN of forging a challenge that favors a high fade, I'm not so sure that MV is one of those courses.

Nicklaus has also stated that Scioto Country Club, where he grew up and which was designed by Donald Ross, tends to work left-to-right, and that this is one of the reasons that his game developed in the way that it did.

I had never heard that Scioto favored a high fade.
And, I've never heard that Nicklaus stated that the reason he elected to hit a high fade as his "shot of choice" was because that's what Scioto called for.  Can you substantiate those claims ?

If a designer fails to meet the stated program, or otherwise please the client, then changes must be made, or possibly the designer will be fired.  In other words, the work of a golf course designer is implicitly determined by these outside concerns, to the extent that these people, and NOT the designer, are the ones who would decide if a minimum standard exists.  

Now you're confusing disinterested design with minimum performance standards.

Will you list five situations where the owner/developer mandated that the architect favor or disfavor a particular golfer/game ?

Would you also list five courses where the owner/developer established the design criteria of the hole specifics.  

Mike Pascucci might have directed N&D to design a difficult golf course, as did the owner/developer of PGA West to Dye, but no one is getting down to outlining the feature specifics for each and every hole.  That's why owner/developers hire architects, because they can't rout themselves

This is like saying that I "CAN'T" perform surgery on someone.  I certainly can do so, but I am obviously inclined towards seeking the counsel of a professional, which is to say a doctor.  Similarly, any one is capable of routing a golf course, though it is not very common and the likelihood of success is admittedly decreased in contrast to hiring a professional designer to do the job.  But truly, a number of owners/developers have taken on the challenge successfully (see Crump, Fownes, Bergstol).

Nice try, but that's not the question.
The question was about two seperate entities, an owner/developer and an architect, not the situation where they are one in the same.

Answer the question within the context in which it was posed.


And as different people are involved in each situation, this standard cannot be universal; it would vary from course to course.  
Perhaps, but not by much

In the case of MRCC, then, these women that you mention have as much prerogative or privilege to comment/complain about these topshot bunkers as you have to praise them.

Only in terms of their constitutional rights of free speech

Moreover, if, hypothetically, they had sufficient influence at the club to alter or remove these hazards to better suit their games, then so be it (though I suspect that their opinion is in the minority).

Isn't this how almost every disfiguration of great features on great holes and courses occurred over the years ?
Isn't this how the quest for fairness ruins feature after feature, hole after hole, by catering to objections to the architect's balanced challenge that neither favors or disfavors any particular golfer/game ?


This assumes at least three things: First, that a designer is indeed charged with creating a balanced challenge;

Would you cite five (5) examples where a designer was charged, by the owner/developer, with forging an unbalanced challenge

Second, that they have successfully accomplished this (which is, of course, wildly subjective);

Can you cite five examples where they haven't accomplished this ?
Let's also take, Garden City GC and Oak Hill to start with.
Did Travis/Emmet and Ross accomplish a balanced challenge successfully ?


and Third, that subsequent generations are, for whatever reason, responsible for preserving that creation in a frozen state, and that we are appreciably worse off for having failed to do so.  


Again, take Garden City and Oak Hill.
Are those courses worse off for the work of RTJ and Fazio ?


Myself, I believe that the living world moves, breathes, and changes over time, so I am not that concerned with losing discreet elements of individual golf courses, or even entire golf courses altogether, should it ever come to that.  It's not the end of the world.

Then it's safe to say that the disfiguring of great golf courses is not a concern of yours.

Hence, we disagree.

[Jason Thurman]

I played an early morning Memorial Day round with a few high-handicapper buddies yesterday. They're all former football players and tons of fun to play with, but not very good. As a result, we don't move too fast around the course.

We waited on every single shot from the first tee through the ninth green. A group in front was looking for balls no more than 100 yards in front of every tee.

This was on a public course that only measures 6400 yards from the back. Hardly Bethpage Black.

I agree with Mucci. There should be a minimum standard of play. If topshot bunkers chase a player who can't get the ball airborne off the course, that's just fine with me. Until you can make a 70 yard carry, you should be on a driving range and not on a golf course.

Of course, in real life, the player who can't make the 70 yard carry probably just hits two mulligans and takes even longer to play the hole, but that's another issue altogether.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

I was thinking about the "minimum standard" and how architects express that standard in their designs.

The first hole that came to mind was the 4th hole at Baltusrol, then, the 18th hole at GCGC, then the 13th and 14th at NGLA, then the 12th at ANGC, along with # 15 and # 16 at ANGC.  Followed by the 2nd, 7lth, 11th and 14th at Seminole.  The 14th, 15th and 18th at Pine Valley also sprang to mind.  Then, the 1st and 9th at Yale came to mind.  Then the 10th and 11th at The Creek.

The list goes on and on and on.
Perfect examples where architects incorporated a "minimum standard" into their designs.

So, how would those women, or any man, who couldn't make a 66 yard carry from an elevated tee fare on those holes ?
How would the architects who crafted those holes, AWT, Emmet/Travis, CBM, AM, Ross and Crump feel about the plight of golfers who couldn't carry their drives 66 yards from an elevated tee ?

I think those architects didn't give a rats ass.
Those architects absolutely understood the "minimum standard" and incorporated it into their designs as manifested in the holes I cited and many others.

Steve advocates for NO "minimum standard" as it might disenfranchise anyone who wants to play golf, irrespective of their lack of ability.  The lunacy of his position is it's ultimate influence on all architecture...... architecture absent challenge.

Fortunately, Donald Ross, Tillinghast, MacDonald, Raynor, Travis, Emmet, MacKenzie, Crump and many, many others believed in a "minimum standard" and incorporated it into their designs.

They "get it", unfortunately, Steve doesn't.

[Keith Phillips]

I love topshot bunkers and believe they have their place, but I am sensitive to the 'accessibility' of the golf experience to the novice golfer.  While I 'get' the argument that there should be a minimum standard for a player, I think that is more sensible / realistic at a Pine Valley / Garden City than it is at a typical golf/country club where the Board is trying to enhance the family experience to drive membership roles.

At my club in New Jersey, dozens of bunkers were removed in the 1930s and 1940s, largely for reasons of 'budget' (i.e. maintenance).  Judging from early aerials, many of the bunkers removed were those that were considered irrelevant to the good player but quite penal for the novice, including a number that could be termed 'topshot bunkers'.   As we gradually strive to re-introduce lost hazards, we are also working to ensure that existing hazards are still relevant given the distances the golf ball travels today - bunkers are not only expensive to maintain but they are expensive to build, and we will can't afford 'all of the above' in the current economic environment.  At the same time, we are adopting the USGAs 'play it forward' approach to make the game more approachable for the novice, and we have had really positive feedback since building a set of (makeshift) 5200 yard tees this Spring.  So I am very sensitive to the desires of many of our members/spouses/kids, who are feeling far more comfortable on the golf course, but I also want to add several bunkers over the coming years to restore the club to its foundations - my guess is the topshot bunkers will come relatively late in the process, as we first try to add in a few bunkers which will enhance the challenge for the low-handicapper.  Ideally I'd like the course to be 'more playable for the novice' while also being 'more challenging tee-to-green for the player'.