News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
What are we suckers for?
« on: February 24, 2014, 10:27:01 AM »
Bold internal green contours as a substitute for great tee to green architecture.

Ostensible strategic options that are in fact superfluous in the prevailing aerial game era.

I often suspect I am being duped.

What else?
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2014, 10:33:02 AM »
Two observations:

1.  Great tee to green architecture is still not much defense in "the prevailing aerial game era" if the green is flat and not hard as a rock.

2.  "The prevailing aerial game era" means nothing to your wife or your dad -- they are the people who use those "superfluous" options you speak of.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2014, 10:38:14 AM »
Dangit, stymied by Doak with the very first post!

Back under the porch for Bogey.

Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2014, 10:38:50 AM »
Chip shots that have me aiming 90 degrees or more off the direct line to the hole.

A par three that lets me hit a goofy high fading shot with my driver. ( Ask Neil Regan, he'll tell ya)

Really good fescues.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

MikeJones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2014, 10:39:16 AM »
The so called 'aerial game' is only played by a very small percentage of golfers. To everyone else ie: the vast majority, a hole's strategy and the green's internal contours are as important as they always were.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2014, 10:43:56 AM »
Hairy bunkers.
H.P.S.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2014, 10:46:00 AM »
The so called 'aerial game' is only played by a very small percentage of golfers. To everyone else ie: the vast majority, a hole's strategy and the green's internal contours are as important as they always were.

Sometimes I wonder if bold green contours aren't a crutch for the architect.   Anybody could build the Short at Olde Macdonald anywhere and we would all ooh and ahh, no?  (Just sticking my chin out a second time for Doak.)

Bogey
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mark Pritchett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2014, 10:46:39 AM »
Split fairway holes


Brent Hutto

Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2014, 10:47:38 AM »
Honest to god I can play a "Doak 0.5" course that is set up firm and fast on a breezy day and feel like I've had a memorable experience. Give me a couple glimpses of an ocean as well and I'll walk off wanting to buy a vacation home there. Add in a handiful of greens broken into sections by some big contours and I'll think I've died and gone to heaven.

Put more simply...conditioning trumps everything except possibly boring flat greens. And maybe even trumps boring flat greens if the weather cooperates.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2014, 10:59:42 AM »
Properly firm course with open views and some wind, plenty of short grass and fine, whispy unpredicatble fescues.  Get the conditioning right on a good course and it will be a match for any great course.   

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2014, 11:04:47 AM »
Bold internal green contours as a substitute for great tee to green architecture.

Must. Not. Derail. Thread...  :D


I'll say half-par holes.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2014, 11:05:11 AM »
Properly firm course with open views and some wind, plenty of short grass and fine, whispy unpredicatble fescues.  Get the conditioning right on a good course and it will be a match for any great course.   

Ciao 

Great post Sean.  Please start a new thread - I'd like that contention debated.

Cheers,

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Brett Wiesley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2014, 11:05:50 AM »
I agree with Tom, and will echo that the aerial game is still quite difficult for even a scratch golfer, especially when the architecture before the green is challenging.  The pro's may hit a lot of greens, but if the rest of us really sit back and count how many greens we hit, it certainly isn't 18.  Big greens also don't mean big greens when separated by rolling ridges.  If you are set on the aerial game, then it really becomes many small targets.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2014, 11:09:33 AM »
I'm with Brent and Sean on the conditioning...but I think Bogey was asking about something more along the lines of..."what do we think we're supposed to like but not sure it's really all that great?"

For him, it seems big bold green contours might be it.

For me, maybe high fescues between holes. Beginning to hate the look in pictures as much as I hate ending up in there! Plant a tree in my way instead.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2014, 11:16:33 AM »
I do like bold green contours but wonder if they aren't often overdone.   Since I went anti-Doak  by citing the Short at Old Macdonald, let me balance my comments by saying I prefer the second green at Tumble Creek - what one might call a tractor seat with a simple gradually increasing ridge running vertically through the green - I find it far more creative and strategic from the tee.  The Stillwellian Short at OM seemed more like a crap shoot (bobbing and weaving) though loads of fun.

Bogey
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 11:18:07 AM by Michael_Hendren »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2014, 11:25:33 AM »
"natural bunkering" in "unnatural" places..... :)

thinking dormant bermuda grass equates to firm and fast

and finally:  thinking the ODG's knew as much about what they were doing as we know about what they were doing...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2014, 11:30:48 AM »
and finally:  thinking the ODG's knew as much about what they were doing as we know about what they were doing...

Another good thread topic. 
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2014, 11:42:14 AM »
Split fairway holes



....where the choice is not obvious and is based on the day's pin location and other variables.

Sam Morrow

Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2014, 11:57:47 AM »
I'm a sucker for center line bunkers

Peter Pallotta

Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2014, 12:46:45 PM »
Bogey - I'm not sure I can explain myself well, but I think 'aesthetics' means more to us than we often realize, and I believe rightly so. Aesthetics should mean something, and do.

I don't mean eye candy, or even period-correct bunker shapes. What I mean is this: we all know that every course we play has been 'planned' for us by an architect. (I use the word planned instead of 'created' to get away from the earth moving-minimalist distinction). And it has been planned so as to provide us with an interesting and fulfilling experience. The interest and fulfilment can come about both through challenges and choices we're presented with and/or through the appearance of challenges and choices.

(To use old language that I've used before: the great architects can give rabbits a chance to feel good about themselves and to compete against tigers while not constantly reminding them that they are rabbits, i.e. without them noticing that the challenges they are asked to surmount aren't all that challenging.)

And so this appearance of challenges - what I think is what, in part, you might be referring to when you think you're being 'duped' -- is what I'm calling the 'aesthetics' of a course, i.e. those visual, often naturally appearing (though of course planned) features and hazards that enrich the experience of playing a round of golf, making it interesting and fulfilling. Sean and Brett's references to 'conditioning' fall into this for me, as does Sam's mention of centre-line bunkers.

I sometimes play a newish public course, for example, where the architect has paid homage to Dr Mac and Crystal Downs with his version of the 3 Sisters, three bunkers side by side crossing straight across the fairway. I think he's done it well - the way the land rises beyond them helps make it feel as if these bunkers/sand could have been there 'naturally', and they look good and they seem daunting when you step up to the tee, and you're happy when you try to go over them and clear them....in short, they add interest and fulfillment, but they are almost entirely 'aesthetic' (in the sense that I'm using the word) because the truth is only my very worst drive would fail to clear those buunkers, and indeed I've never failed to clear them.  Nothetheless, they have been planned to enrich my experience, and they succeed.

All of which is to say, Boges, that we're not often being duped even when later we think we're being duped, because with good architects there is usually a there there, even when nothign is actually there.
Peter  
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 02:31:40 PM by PPallotta »

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2014, 12:49:08 PM »
Navel gazing threads, just before the season starts...
Let's make GCA grate again!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2014, 12:57:27 PM »
I'm with Brent and Sean on the conditioning...but I think Bogey was asking about something more along the lines of..."what do we think we're supposed to like but not sure it's really all that great?"

Ohhh.  Well then, bunkering would be my #1 choice.  I think archies use bunkers a lot because they think I (the royal I) will like them when in fact I rarely find bunkers I like.  They are often repetitive and/or ugly/overly obvious.  I think as Pietro suggests in terms of aesthetics, many archies use bunkers to guide rather than challenge golfers.  Many more over-challenge golfers with too many bunkers. 

#2 Trees - man, in a general sense, my beef is really similar to bunkers. 

Ciao     
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2014, 01:17:47 PM »
I'm a sucker for center line bunkers

Me too.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Josh Tarble

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2014, 01:18:32 PM »
I'm a sucker for lots of fairway cut around the green and any bunker that's directly in a spot I want to aim.

Joey Chase

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are we suckers for?
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2014, 01:28:46 PM »
I am an absolute sucker for massive false fronts on greens like #7 at El Saler or #10 at Morfontaine.