[Jeff_Brauer]

After getting some work done, and a small touch on this subject with another architect off line as part of another conversation, a few thoughts struck me.


First, and ideally, for any and all features on a course under design commission, the architect must consider in some blended fashion:


His/her general philosophy, developed over decades of successes and less successful holes,
A constant questioning if the old philosophy needs to be rethought in general
A detailed look at the background factors in place for this individual design (i.e., public, private, climate, etc.)
A detailed look at whether a feature fits this course, this hole and this shot in context of the rest of the golf course......


Obviously, many gca's are accused of repeating holes, in essence overly relying on what they know as "fact" based on experience......truthfully, they are hired on earlier projects and what they tend to do.  Ideally, the balance ought to shift readily from the general background thoughts to very site and hole specific ones.


Thus, when Ian, Tom, or I quickly state we are for or against target bunkers, we are really just relaying our long held thoughts.  When other posters state opinions, they tend to do it on their long held thoughts, from the players perspective, but also (like architects) recalling specific holes where it works or doesn't.


There are very few ultra universal truths in golf design, and my next project may have zero target bunkers, and Ian may very well use a few!  At least, we will have thought through why or why we didn't.

[archie_struthers]

 




Greg's point on the cactus impacting his set up on a hole he knows quite well is telling. So much of the golf game is in the visualization of the shot at hand. it's so critical to good design and good play!


Isn't it interesting that the newest best player in the world constantly talks about tight lines and visualization. It's a critical part of his pre-shot routine. I'm quite sure Jack Nicklaus saw his shots in his mind better than his peers, amongst his other great skills. He rarely pulled the trigger until  he was ready , that's for sure .


So should an architect try to disrupt this flow by trickery and deceit , or give a roadmap to success that is easily seen? Perhaps a little of each is the answer.

[Joe Sponcia]

From 1976 Golf Digest. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder if Melvyn will come on here and claim thumbs are an unfair technology for determining distance, LOL.

[Kerry Gray]

In my limited experience, Fazio uses aiming bunkers or trees on several holes. Some are completely unnecessary, others are helpful the first time you play the course. One I thought was useful was a par 5 where the fairway dipped severely (mostly blind) and turned to the right. Because you could not see the fairway landing area at all I thought it was ok. I think this idea might be useful on resort courses where you get many first time players and less repeat business so to speak.
But for the most part, especially member courses I think they are not needed and likely just add expense.

[Joe Lane]

Hi Jeff,


Sorry for the late answer, but I’ve been traveling. It’s high season in SC!


Anyway, about your point regarding the “slow reveal”—doesn’t your thought about “resort courses,” that they may or may not need aiming points (because one-time players may not notice them) tend to confirm the idea that ALL courses ought to be “slow reveals?” If a player only plays once, they are not likely to notice aiming points anyway—unless instructed by a caddie—which defeats the purpose of easy legibility. What would be the point of building a course that was simple to read? I suggest that your argument that there are multiple purposes for golf courses is defeated by your own logic.


Joe 

Joe,

Those points are interesting to consider, for sure.

And, you indirectly raise the other issue that all courses are not the same.  I have no doubt private clubs can and should be the slower reveal type courses, and would be more likely to have caddies to assist, not to mention repeated playing experiences.  By the same token regional mid level resorts and upscale publics, where the typical public player may play once a year for variety, doesn't know the course, and probably will never pick up on the subtly, may or may not benefit from either aiming points and no aiming points. 

Speed of play and fun golf are still issues here, and every little bit helps.  Is it technically great architecture IF you are designing for top level players?  Maybe not.  But, even top level players like the comfort of aiming points (and I have heard it from a guy usually ranked among the top10-20 golfers of all time as something he likes).

So, the question to me is do you give the customer/golfer what they want, and what the Owner may need (as a contributor somewhat to the bottom line, even if very small) or find some esoteric reason not to?  The reasoning given here is that somehow, we know what's best for, or seemingly think players have it "too easy" when we all struggle with the game.  I am not sure at all we can quantify the architectural benefit to the player of making them uncomfortable on the tee, when they prefer to be comfortable.  Is golf a game, or is golf a battle of some sort?

I do agree with Pete that IF you want to make it more difficult for the top player, you take out aim points, a reason why his lake edges are always pretty straight to make it harder to pick a line.  And, a reason I don't usually like target bunkers on the far side of cape holes either.  As Ian says, play away on a Cape, and more distance and rough is usually enough of a penalty.  It's just that I question if every shot should be designed to be harder?  Even Mac, Bobby Jones, and others wrote that the purpose of hazards was to encourage players to make a shot, not make it harder.

Also agree that if you place a bunker past the LZ, maybe you ought to consider its depth for the better player, who because of distance and strength, would be playing a shorter iron out.  Of course, you also have to consider that the poor player who hits it on his muffed second then hits the green in 4 instead of 3, which goes back to the speed of play issue, slowing down the slowest.

Long post, but the short answer, as always, is, "it depends on what is important to any particular design."

[Steve Lang]

    Hold it, TIME OUT.... doesn't everybody whip out their phone and look at the Satellite map when really in doubt or waiting during slow play??? Especially at resort courses, if they don't have GPS on the carts or its walking only???

[Joe Hancock]

   Hold it, TIME OUT.... doesn't everybody whip out their phone and look at the Satellite map when really in doubt or waiting during slow play??? Especially at resort courses, if they don't have GPS on the carts or its walking only???

One can do that with a flip phone? I had no idea....

[Steve Lang]

   Joe,  I finally gave in and bought a smart phone.  Much more fun than the little palm sized flipper..


IF you bend too much, sometimes its better to break..

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()