Dufner on Doral

[Alex Miller]

Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.

Ryan,

With 87 posts, I know you are new here, so I'll try to be kind. But when you make bold statements criticizing a course, be prepared to back it up with facts. At least know the hole where players intentionally aimed for the bunker. I asked you, and you could not answer. There clearly was no hole at Doral where the best option was to aim at a bunker.

You can't criticize an entire course as lacking strategic options because one or two pros aimed a bunker. Tell us the circumstances. What hole was it? Was the pro out of position after his drive?  Don't take a comment made by a PRO out of context. 2 plus 2 does not equal 22.

Quality, not quantity William!

My opinions are just that. They are no more or less factual than yours. Like and dislike are qualitative rather than quantitative.

I assure you Tiger Woods said in his post round interview yesterday with Sky Sports as did at least one other I can't recall, that they tried to hit into the green side bunker. I note you said earlier in the thread that 'perhaps it was a par five'. In my view this shows that perhaps you don't have the grasp of strategy that you think you do. Par is just an arbitrary number and I can see no reason why par should dictate or excuse why anyone, least of all a pro would choose to play a hole a certain way. The aim is to go round in the fewest strokes.

If you're going to make lofty, grandiose 'you're new here son' comments you should perhaps live up to this yourself and read and debate with a little more care. I watched a fair bit of this over the weekend and at times, particularly on Friday, it made for embarrassing viewing with the course producing completely disproportionate punishment to shots, good and bad. Just my view as I saw it. Not based on a couple of whinging pro's. more like dozens of balls rolling into a watery grave after landing on a green with bunkers and Bermuda fairways short of it.

I can and do criticise courses as I see fit. As do you. Rather than try and find a bunch of excuses and caveats, perhaps you could rebutt my criticism that the course has far too much water. Far too much sand. Very few penal bunkers. Is farcical in a reasonable wind and is not suitable for firm and fast conditions and given both becomes a Mickey Mouse course. This course is the antithesis of everything preached on here and yet because one of the favourite sons has his name attached, you and others are wriggling with weasel words rather than call it like it is.

Quality, not quantity William!

Yeah!


Proceeds to write long post of debatable quality...

[BCowan]

Jeff,

      Was the Blue Monster named after the 18th hole at Doral or the 12+ water hazards on the course? 

[Jason Thurman]

My opinions are just that. They are no more or less factual than yours.

This sounds reasonable, until you read the next three paragraphs and realize just how wrong the opinions expressed in them are.

[Ryan Coles]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

[BCowan]

''Let's assume there's no way to really have the fairways play as firm as the greens since you never see that in the US, esp on bermuda.
Wouldn't the fact that the greens are substantially larger help?
Why is Reed able to negotiate all these impossible shots?

Look I'm disappointed to see more water introduced to play lines at Doral as I don't care for water as a frequent hazard.
It's not on my short list to play even though I'm quite connected there.
But as a Tour site I enjoy it a lot.
I really like the greens and width of fairways..

By the way, in general I'm a big fan of waaaaay fewer bunkers that are far more penal.
the problem is they are attempting to honor Dick Wilson at a Tour site called The Blue Monster for Donald Trump, and I think they served these masters well, even if those four masters aren't synonomous with classic design
The course is a symbol of an era in golf architecture, and that era was the dark ages Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
 Kudos to Hanse for introducing some of the strategic features that were in the original plans but not built, and kudos to Hanse for introducing a few strategic features of his own.

I just happen to think this course has way more strategy of any of the tour courses I am familiar with(a relatively small #) except Augusta.

I am afraid they will do some tweaks, sadly they won't involve removing water, but no doubt will involve the best feature of the new course, the undulations on the greens. I heard a moronic announcer mention just that but the reality is they'd just run them a foot slower with the predicted forecast, nearly all of their problems would've gone away.''

I agree with most of what you said.  There was positives with the width and green complex's but the increase in the introduction of more water was lame.  The best part of it was the improvement to the Range, don't you think?  Looks really cool, couldn't believe how small the old one was for that place.  

[Alex Miller]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!

I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.

[jeffwarne]

Bcown,
the range is better, but there were mistakes made-not real well thought out on the teaching end
The range is the reason the drive on 10 is so awkward-to say nothing of the goofy trees they used to screen it

[Randy Thompson]

Things GCA loves:
Gil Hanse
Firm and fast
Wind
Green contours
Courses that require playing away from the "line of charm"
Courses that fight bomb and gouge

Things GCA hates:
Water
Difficulty
Lost balls
Donald Trump
Any aesthetic style that can't be described as "minimalist"
Expensive courses
CCFAD atmospheres
Idiots spectators who pick up balls from the rough during a tournament and walk off with them


I often lament that there's no "blind taste test" with golf design. There's no way to ask a GCA Kool Aid drinker to evaluate a course objectively, because their take is always cluttered by their knowledge of who the designer is, their general perception of courses from its era, and numerous other influences. The closest we can get to seeing what people REALLY think is to show them a course that presents such an interesting dichotomy of features that GCA loves crossed with features that GCA hates.

I just spent almost an hour reading all seven pages of these post and Jason really summed it well on early on with the above post. I can only add that in any business sometimes you have to take risk and the best seem to know when... or do they just get lucky? We lived through an era where tougher golf courses were labled as better golf courses and there are a few that still think this way but the tide has changed and has been changing for about fifteen years. To me in this day and era Trump took a huge gamble by putting more teeth into a monstor and Gill also by being involved in something so controversial. An owner who seems to have an attitude of, I pay, I say and also I am sure the pga tour was throwing in their two cents. A good warm up for Brazil in my opinion and canīt wait to see how that turns out. The board likes to group Gill in the same catagory of Doak & Coore and I donīt  get it, D & C have solid foundations and have coinsistently produce winners (correct clients and correct lands helped a shit load IMO). Also, IMO, Gill is still forming his foundation and as much controversery that this re-design has created can be a positive thing or could be the road to destruction. The same holds true for the Olympic course with all the hands in that pot of soup. I am not saying either one has mistaken, just saying, both took huge risk. Now if anybody can forward me, Mr. Trumps email, I would like to send my resume to him and see if I can be in charge of maintaining the grounds of one of his mansions! Itīs nice to play General after the war but I need to freaking eat!

[Bill Brightly]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

OK, so we are talking about PROS playing a drivable Par 4. Some decided that missing the green in a greenside bunker is ok, far better than the water on the left. Pros have been making that type of choice for years... They do it a Winged Foot, and the Five and Dime at Ridgewood in the Barclays.

Tillinghast designed GREAT short par 4's. The fact that pros can now bomb driver 300-350 pros AND are extremely skilled at getting up and down from bunkers, in and of itself, does not mean the architect did a poor job.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Doral. I've said repeatedly on this thread that there is far too much water as a hazard around the putting surfaces for my taste. I have little desire to play the course.

My point is that you made a ridiculous statement. You took a pro's strategic plan on a short par 4 and implied that the entire course design was faulty. That was wrong.

I view Doral as exhibit A for the lengths an architect must go to to really challenge pros. Exhibit B is the US Open set ups we see every June. They are horrendous from the perspective of 99% of the golfing public, and I can't believe the memberships put up with these setups for the year leading up to the tournament. (I played Merion before the Open and felt sad.) But the pros are SO damned good, these are the kind of crazy things you have to do to really get in their heads. I think that's why Tom Doak seems to have little interest in designing courses that could host a US Open. And make no doubt about it, the Doral we saw this weekend was intended to be US Open-hard.

If we are not going to roll the ball back or reign in equipment, this is what we have to do to our golf courses if the goal is to make a course truly hard for pros. I happen to love watching pros really put to the test by a golf course, even if I have no business being on that course... I love hearing them whine after a round. I know what it means to be truly unsettled standing over a golf ball because of the architecture, and I know it takes a lot to make a pro feel that way.

The last thing you should know is that there is very little to be learned about golf course architecture by watching how pros play. A course designed with pros in mind should be judged on that basis.

[Ryan Coles]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!

I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html

Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there

All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.

A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?

[Ryan Coles]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

OK, so we are talking about PROS playing a drivable Par 4. Some decided that missing the green in a greenside bunker is ok, far better than the water on the left. Pros have been making that type of choice for years... They do it a Winged Foot, and the Five and Dime at Ridgewood in the Barclays.

Tillinghast designed GREAT short par 4's. The fact that pros can now bomb driver 300-350 pros AND are extremely skilled at getting up and down from bunkers, in and of itself, does not mean the architect did a poor job.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Doral. I've said repeatedly on this thread that there is far too much water as a hazard around the putting surfaces for my taste. I have little desire to play the course.

My point is that you made a ridiculous statement. You took a pro's strategic plan on a short par 4 and implied that the entire course design was faulty. That was wrong.

I view Doral as exhibit A for the lengths an architect must go to to really challenge pros. Exhibit B is the US Open set ups we see every June. They are horrendous from the perspective of 99% of the golfing public, and I can't believe the memberships put up with these setups for the year leading up to the tournament. (I played Merion before the Open and felt sad.) But the pros are SO damned good, these are the kind of crazy things you have to do to really get in their heads. I think that's why Tom Doak seems to have little interest in designing courses that could host a US Open. And make no doubt about it, the Doral we saw this weekend was intended to be US Open-hard.

If we are not going to roll the ball back or reign in equipment, this is what we have to do to our golf courses if the goal is to make a course truly hard for pros. I happen to love watching pros really put to the test by a golf course, even if I have no business being on that course... I love hearing them whine after a round. I know what it means to be truly unsettled standing over a golf ball, and I know it takes a lot to make a pro feel that way.

The last thing you should know is that there is very little to be learned about golf course architecture by watching how pros play. A course designed with pros in mind should be judged on that basis.

Bill

I believe I've elaborated at length on my criticisms of the course. They are broadly the same as yours.

Assuming you're correct about pro golf and the aims of this course, please can you explain what you think the purpose of the great swathes of sand / bunkers is?

[BCowan]

Ryan,

   I agree with some/most of what you say, but the PGA tour I believe doesn't like PENAL bunkers.  So possibly Gil is handicapped in this aspect.  The sad thing is Sawgrass and Doral have been the model for most everyday Florida golf courses built after them.  Streamsong, Ft Myers (renovation), WW, and Ocala Golf club will just work fine for me.  No Yo Yo courses for me...

[Bill Brightly]

Ryan,

OK, I'll take your last response as an admission that you were wrong.

As for your question about the sand, did you watch the flyovers I posted? Doral ALWAYS had a ton of sand. From what I can tell, Gil merely re-positioned the bunkers to reflect the length players can hit their drivers. I think his purpose was to restore to original architect's intent.

Would I prefer Macdonald-Raynor bunkers? Sure. Gil could have filled in all the ponds and re-built Lido while he was at it. I would fly to Florida tomorrow to go play it... But I'm pretty sure that's not what he was asked to do...

[Pat Burke]

BTW..I actually worked the ball (with) the wind for the most part.

Pat,

That's really interesting.  Don't you find it difficult to judge the "run out" working the ball with the wind as opposed to the quick bite working against the wind?

Ken

Ken,
I did say, for the most part
I had the belief that i was a good wind player.  I also believe that I was a good wind player, due to the fact
that I was pretty good at adjusting my "par" in those conditions.  I had a pretty good idea that a course would
play, (however many) shots harder if it was howling.  I would take what the wind and the course gave me.
I guess it would have been better to say that I didn't fight the wind on most approach shots, I let the wind move it.
My lines were certainly more conservative on those shots.
Being pretty comfortable moving the ball both ways, there were certainly times when I had to try to hold the ball against
the wind the be able to stop it.
My biggest complaint, was that we didn't play in enough days like Friday at Doral!

[Alex Miller]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!

I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html

Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there

All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.

A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?

Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.


Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In practice the approaches are nowhere near as firm as the greens.
From what I can see, the rare ball that lands short, stays short.

That cultured shotmaker Kuchar hit right on the front of the green on the long par 3 and still ended up in the water.
I've never seen anyone hit a great recovery from the water.

Name a PGA Tour site with firm greens that has approaches equally as firm


Jeff,

What most of the morons forget is that new greens are invariably firm.

The old rule of thumb was for between 2 and 5 years.

Didn't this course just open ?




[/quote]

[Mark Saltzman]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!

I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html

Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there

All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.

A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?

Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.


Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.

Right, so these guys felt they will score better, on average, by being in a greenside bunker vs fairway 140 yards out.  How penal should/could a bunker be that you wouldn't make the same decision?

[Jason Thurman]

If greenside bunkers need to present a serious challenge to pros for a course's architecture to be good, there can't be more than about 15 or 20 good courses in the world.

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,

OK, I'll take your last response as an admission that you were wrong.

As for your question about the sand, did you watch the flyovers I posted? Doral ALWAYS had a ton of sand. From what I can tell, Gil merely re-positioned the bunkers to reflect the length players can hit their drivers. I think his purpose was to restore to original architect's intent.

Would I prefer Macdonald-Raynor bunkers? Sure. Gil could have filled in all the ponds and re-built Lido while he was at it. I would fly to Florida tomorrow to go play it... But I'm pretty sure that's not what he was asked to do...

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/2014/03/7-things-gil-hanse-would-have-you-know-about-the-new-blue-mo.html

No, Bill it isn't. I maintain the design is flawed on a number of levels. The bunkering being one of them.

You're evading the question. Did the original architect intend players to play into his hazards? What was their purpose in 1962?

[Bill Brightly]

Ryan, you keep repeating the same mistake... You can't criticize an ENTIRE COURSE because a few pros chose to to hit driver on a short par 4...

I'm about to change my font to green and refer to you as Pat would...

[BCowan]

In practice the approaches are nowhere near as firm as the greens.
From what I can see, the rare ball that lands short, stays short.

That cultured shotmaker Kuchar hit right on the front of the green on the long par 3 and still ended up in the water.
I've never seen anyone hit a great recovery from the water.

Name a PGA Tour site with firm greens that has approaches equally as firm


Jeff,

What most of the morons forget is that new greens are invariably firm.

The old rule of thumb was for between 2 and 5 years.

Didn't this course just open ?


Jeff, wouldn't you say that Bay Hill plays as firm as Doral did this past week assuming there is no rain.  PM firm greens are great more of them, just the greens were too fast for Friday especially! 

[Ryan Coles]

If greenside bunkers need to present a serious challenge to pros for a course's architecture to be good, there can't be more than about 15 or 20 good courses in the world.

I'd say around 80 in the UK alone have excellent bunkering.

Your attempt would better be described as "lots of otherwise excellent courses are let down by their bunkers not being proper hazards. We should get rid of of lots of the meaningless bunkers and make the few remaining ones worthwhile and genuinely to be avoided.

[jeffwarne]

Mark,
I've yet to see any bunker, UK,NGLA, anywhere that I wouldn't prefer to be in (on average) moreso than being 140 out.
BTW, Iwasn't crazy about new 16
too short,and greenside bunker or green was easily attainable.

Would've liked to have seen the hole a bit longer,more tilt in green ala 10 at Riviera, and/or less sand in the area of fairway 40-70 yards out on the right(nobody went for that)
and an area of fairway a bit more short left with the furthest point of the water ending up there and diagonally making the carry shorter the further one went right.

I want to see longer hiitters go for 16, not everybody in the field.(didn't see anybody not make the carry)
that's what #13 was for when it was 242 30 years ago-should've made 13 250-260 yards

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.

How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?

[Ryan Coles]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!

I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html

Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there

All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.

A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?

Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.


Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.

You don't see that the bunker in question has completely failed and therefore serves no purpose on the course other than to boost maintenance spending?