Golf photos that talk. What does this one say? On the serious side, now!

[Greg Clark]

Ian,


Where is your picture from?

It's the 3rd hole at Whistling Straits.  A hole I quite like, despite the over indulgence of bunkers.  The green is excellent.

[Joe Hellrung]

Isn't Ian's photo from Whistling Straits?

[Will Lozier]

Randy's says..."Yuk!"


or..."I am a so-called golf course."

[Randy Thompson]

Randy's says..."Yuk!"


or..."I am a so-called golf course."

Randy hasn`t said anything because who am I to critisize somebody elses work when I need to stayed focused on what I am doing or producing, which is through making mistakes, and living and learning from them. We should all be allowed to do the same.
But let me share a few thoughts or observations.
First Will, I asume the yuck interuptation of mine refers to the first picture not Ian`s photo which I guessed as Whistling Straits by the setting. That course was built under the direction of an X Assistant Superintendent`s of mine and friend. They tried to something different and maybe one or two bunkers that bother me in that photo but I think they did an excellent job making it all beliveable within the setting.
 
The photo I posted I felt represented a lot of things we have discussed in the past. First, I don`t know when it was built but I would guess maybe between 87 and 91. Second as of this moment I don`t know who was the architect but, I do know that it was one of three signature archtectural firms. One can see by the size of the houses and considering the cost of costructing and maintaining this one hole, tells me a signature firm or Tom Fazio. I have seen enough of TF`s work to rule out it wasn`t him.
I also think its a good example of, Designing without Fear, which has its pro`s and con`s because controversy will result.
We have also discussed that, there is a line that should be respected in relation to not throwing the kitchen sink into a design. The problem I see is that line is subjective depending on what we personally like and dislike.
I think we went through an era of golf course architecture where the driving forcé was art and playabilty suffered and I had this same art mind set until two years ago. There is a lot of art in that photo. I never played the hole so, I won`t judge if it is playable or not but, if it is, then what a great of job of mixing playability with indimidation, as I am intimidated by the photo alone.

[RJ_Daley]

A gaudy waste, to be cryit doon. A bored GCA's wet dream, or someone too desperate for attention.

[Garland Bayley]

"I do know that it was one of three signature archtectural firms."



Greg Norman amongst those?

[Tim_Weiman]

Awful.

[Bryan Izatt]

Randy,


What does this one say?



First, it says that the web site you got the picture from did a really bizarre job of skewing a photo from the course's own web site. As Brian posted, the unskewed photo looks like this.  Not quite so bizarre looking.





The picture is associated with the Tom Watson course at the Reunion Resort in Kissimmee FL, built in 2004.  I believe it is the 9th hole and it looks not so silly from the aerial with something of a Cape style drive.  Granted there are a lot of bunkers on this hole (and reportedly 120 all told on the course) but it is consistent with the rest of the course.  I haven't played it so can't comment on the playability.  There doesn't appear to be any ponds on the course.  I'd rather have bunkers than ponds any day on Florida courses.


I have played another Watson course - the Conservatory, at Hammock Dunes, and I thought the shaping, especially of the fairways was quite well done there.

[Sean_A]

For the most part, I think its a shame the bunkering mucks up what looks to be interesting shaping....even if a wee bit ott.


Ciao

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I agree with Bryan that it looks OK from above. I was going to write that the photo was deliberately shot from an angle and elevation with the intention of highlighting the sand; the fairway is barely visible, but then I realised that's where the tees are located. They definitely could have done with just a couple of bunkers on the right side to challenge the drive.

[Thomas Dai]

Would there be praise rather than criticism if the bunkers were scruffy grass humps and hollows and the houses at the rear were the kind of stone dwellings seen alongside the fairways of older Scottish courses?
atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Would there be praise rather than criticism if the bunkers were scruffy grass humps and hollows and the houses at the rear were the kind of stone dwellings seen alongside the fairways of older Scottish courses?
atb

Thomas,


I do not think so as there are plainly too many bunker that have no real strategical value. I think you could lose all but three and have a much better hole. As for the scruffy grass humps effect it is becoming very predictable and dated as a look IMO.


Jon

[Kyle Harris]

The eye of the beholder.

The issue with this sort of analysis is that one man's too many bunkers is another man's sight line. Take, for instance, that little bunker on the way-right that some here would likely label as "unnecessary strategically."

Perhaps.

However, it completes the sight-line down the right side of the hole and allows your eye to cast itself over the bunkers in the foreground and those at the green. You are now aware of the a line of charm down the right side that may actually be compelling to some golfers. Remove this bunker and the photo (and therefore the eye of the golfer) doesn't work and everything is pushed left to the larger, more immediate target.

Bunkers are sexy and that makes them easier to analyze. But, to me, that also makes them more boring to analyze. The shaping here is harsh but that harshness is certainly a worthy aesthetic. There are dozens of ways to implement this idea in the ground while keeping the same amount of bunkers and their locations.

[Randy Thompson]

I got the photo off of Facebook. First it appeared under a group of shapers inc and then the Argentine Toro distributor who was in Orlando for the GCSAA show posted the same photo. The curiosity got me and I entered the web site of the club and the same picture came up. I have a better understanding of the hole now with the aerial but that`s not the point. I am not a marketing expert but, I don`t think the photo was a good choice for a marketing photo in 2017 and wanted to see what was the reaction of the treehouse. Having a better understanding of the hole with the aerial view doesn`t change my views in relation to; the photo or hole represents designing without fear and will almost always generate controversy. Thus, for most, designing without fear will continue to be the road less traveled.
If I had known the year the course opened was 2004, I could have eliminated JN as the posible signature group.

[Sean_A]

Kyle

I would suggest there is no line of charm (because hazards must be taken on) so the bunker in question isn't relevant for your description...its just another bunker.  The line you speak of is the direct line. 

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

I would suggest there is no line of charm (because hazards must be taken on) so the bunker in question isn't relevant for your description...its just another bunker.  The line you speak of is the direct line. 

Ciao

Depends on how far you hit the shot and what is in view outside the composition of the photo. Hence my comments that not much can be derived from any golf photo, really. The "Line of charm" thing is vastly over-considered, anyway. Not every bunker need by strategic, and not every hole need a billion options.

[Sean_A]

Kyle

I would suggest there is no line of charm (because hazards must be taken on) so the bunker in question isn't relevant for your description...its just another bunker.  The line you speak of is the direct line. 

Ciao

Depends on how far you hit the shot and what is in view outside the composition of the photo. Hence my comments that not much can be derived from any golf photo, really. The "Line of charm" thing is vastly over-considered, anyway. Not every bunker need by strategic, and not every hole need a billion options.

I am not commenting on the worthiness of the line of charm concept, only that the bunker you mention doesn't point the way to the line of charm...it points the way to the direct line.  I have said it before and I still believe it to be true; if archies set strict tests and limits on the reasons why bunkers are placed, then we wouldn't have so many over-bunkered and imbalanced courses. 

Bottom line for me...the bunkering on this hole doesn't impress.     

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Kyle,


I think it is down to each individual golfer to work out the line of charm. If the GCA narrows down the options so as to effectively dictate the line of charm firstly he/she is following a penal school of thought which is interesting as the exception and has also stopped being a GCA and become a caddie telling the golfer how to play.


I would also add that though your point is valid for many holes in the case of this hole looking at the overhead it seems a case of over bunkering to me though judging by photo is always dangerous so I would bow to your greater experience of this hole if you have played it yourself.


Jon

[Peter Pallotta]

Every era of golf course design, heck, maybe even every decade, has had its own dominant style/ethos/approach -- some of those decades were flush with cash and the game's popularity, and some weren't. But why was the late 80s decade the one and still only era that produced such garish and overblown examples of excess (which you saw in Hollywood films too)? My guess? Cocaine. Not suggesting that the architects were actually snorting coke; just that alcohol seems the much better drug when it comes to gca. Pot might be good too, and maybe even mushrooms -- but cocaine is definitely not what you want your architects taking....
 

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

I would suggest there is no line of charm (because hazards must be taken on) so the bunker in question isn't relevant for your description...its just another bunker.  The line you speak of is the direct line. 

Ciao

Depends on how far you hit the shot and what is in view outside the composition of the photo. Hence my comments that not much can be derived from any golf photo, really. The "Line of charm" thing is vastly over-considered, anyway. Not every bunker need by strategic, and not every hole need a billion options.

I am not commenting on the worthiness of the line of charm concept, only that the bunker you mention doesn't point the way to the line of charm...it points the way to the direct line.  I have said it before and I still believe it to be true; if archies set strict tests and limits on the reasons why bunkers are placed, then we wouldn't have so many over-bunkered and imbalanced courses. 

Bottom line for me...the bunkering on this hole doesn't impress.     

Ciao

Is the photographer standing on the tee?

And yes, I have played it myself. The expanse is much broader than the photo would suggest and that is the basis for my comments.

Also, it should be noted that I give not one care for mowing lines.

[Sean_A]

Kyle

You have lost me.  I regards to my comments, I have no idea what you are on about re cutting lines, where the photo was taken or the expanse of the hole.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

You have lost me.  I regards to my comments, I have no idea what you are on about re cutting lines, where the photo was taken or the expanse of the hole.

Ciao

Well, it's easy.

Unless the photographer was standing on the tee, where the golfer would start, you can't particularly infer much about lines of instinct and charm based on the photo. If you assume that fairway is the only place from which to attack a hole, the mowing lines are going to further reduce the limits of the lines of charm/instinct. If the photo was in any way skewed horizontally or with lens aberration on the edges, you perception of the corridor's width is going to be off.

All of the above, I think, is the crux of Randy's question about golf photography.

[Stewart Abramson]

This one may be a little more well known here than Reunion


#12 from beginning of minefield

[V_Halyard]

More Cowbell...?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: