[Ira Fishman]

During the past few years, I have learned a lot on this site and by having the good fortune to play many wonderful courses. With the New Year upon us, I hope to figure out answers to several questions:


Does bunker style really matter except for aesthetics?


Are rumpled fairways really more expensive to maintain?


Why don’t more courses use smaller greens?


Why don’t architects angle greens to the fairway more frequently?


How does one learn to look at a piece of raw land and have a clue if it would make for a good course?


Why do fewer people curse at false fronts than at greens that cant toward the back?


Please share questions you might have for the New Year.


Ira

[Ian Andrew]

Does bunker style really matter except for aesthetics?
No for strategy
Yes for maintenance reasons and long-term sustainability

Are rumpled fairways really more expensive to maintain?
No, unless the microundulations get to tight or severe.

Why don’t more courses use smaller greens?
To avoid wear issues, the greens need to be simple to maintain enough pin area.
They can be pitched in a single direction strongly, but you have to avoid interior contours
The short answer is wear.

Why don’t architects angle greens to the fairway more frequently?
In my opinion, in Modern Architecture, this is done way too often.
Almost every green does this.
It's done to make greens receptive, visible and "fair"

How does one learn to look at a piece of raw land and have a clue if it would make for a good course?
That's a long answer with too many variables for this format.

Why do fewer people curse at false fronts than at greens that cant toward the back?
In almost every case I've ever seen, the body of the green behind has been made receptive.

I find as long as their is fairway feeding into the fall away green, and the player has options, most get it and don't complain. I built six greens like this at Laval, members understand the task, visiting golfers sometimes struggle with how to play it the first time.

[David Harshbarger]

Why don’t architects angle greens to the fairway more frequently?
In my opinion, in Modern Architecture, this is done way too often.
Almost every green does this.
It's done to make greens receptive, visible and "fair"

I read this as angling the axis of the green relative to the axis of the fairway.  Ian, is your take that this is overdone?  Or are you saying that modern courses angle the pitch of the green relative to the pitch of the fairway (back to front most typically)?

IMO I don't think you could overdo angling the axis of the green relative to the axis of the fairway, as it's such a good way to create interest in the approach.  Well, I guess one could take a meta-view and ask why do greens need a single axis, or any axis at all?  That approach, where greens have multiple axis, like a 'T', or boomerangs, or the giant sprawling lay-of-the-land naturalistic greens, also seem to create great interest.

[Bernie Bell]

What qualities make a cheap course cheerful?

[Tim Martin]

What qualities make a cheap course cheerful?

First off nice use of alliteration. Are there any “Cheerful” rankings or guidelines currently in play?

[Ira Fishman]

Why don’t architects angle greens to the fairway more frequently?
In my opinion, in Modern Architecture, this is done way too often.
Almost every green does this.
It's done to make greens receptive, visible and "fair"

I read this as angling the axis of the green relative to the axis of the fairway.  Ian, is your take that this is overdone?  Or are you saying that modern courses angle the pitch of the green relative to the pitch of the fairway (back to front most typically)?

IMO I don't think you could overdo angling the axis of the green relative to the axis of the fairway, as it's such a good way to create interest in the approach.  Well, I guess one could take a meta-view and ask why do greens need a single axis, or any axis at all?  That approach, where greens have multiple axis, like a 'T', or boomerangs, or the giant sprawling lay-of-the-land naturalistic greens, also seem to create great interest.

Yes, I meant it the way you read it. Thanks for making clearer than I did.

Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

I do think that bunker style can have an impact on strategy. A bland and benign looking bunker can be expected to play that way as well -- which takes away much of the 'fear' and therefore the decision-making too. If that fairway bunker is ostensibly defending the ideal line into a green but simply doesn't look the part, then it won't actually serve its function: I can just aim straight at it, knowing that whether I land short of the bunker or to the left/right of it (most of the times) or right in the middle of it (on rare occasions) will  make very little difference to my next shot. And with that realization, whatever strategic impact the bunker 'location' may have had goes out the window.     

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Re: Bunker Strategy


An interesting discussion on 5 @ Kapalua


https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2020/1/3/designing-for-golf-pros-files-5th-at-kapalua-edition

[JC Urbina]

Ira,


How does one learn to look at a piece of raw land and have a clue if it would make for a good course?




A few things I look for are,
1- Ease of walk - Topography
2- Examine cost to build - Rock- Trees- Power lines- Lakes
3- Type of soil
4- Surrounding vistas
5- Owners intent - infrastructure
6- Native landscape
7- Availabe land- how many acres
8- Enviromental concerns
9- Regional location
10 - Cost of land




Not in order of importance except for first one, although one may outweigh others.  With several  questions spun off from these intial observations.

[Ira Fishman]

Ian and Jim,


Thanks for taking my questions seriously which is how they were intended.


Re small greens: although I have not played it, Pebble Beach has small greens and heavy play. Is it the case that the place has so much capital that they can pay to fix the Wear problem?


Re Native Landscape as a way to evaluate a piece of land. I genuinely have no idea what that term means.


And finally re Soil. I get why Sand is preferable, but there are some great courses on Clay. Are those days long gone given cost?


Ira

[Sean_A]

I agree with Pietro to a point...which is why I would prefer if nearly all bunkers were brutal.  Don't litter courses with bunkers, but when utilized, make em' look and be harsh. 

I also think presentation can make bunkers play very different.  The more short grass prior to bunkers the more bunkers come into play. To flip the coin, if there is rough around the bunkers, it signals aerial play and that in and of itself makes bunkers play differently.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Nice listing by JCU. Be good educationally to see some expansion of each point.
As to bunkers, be careful what you desire.
These days bunkers are more about appearance and contrast to the eye with the seeming desire for them to be ever more photogenically striking. And competition, keeping up with the Jones’ etc, on social media, not just course-vrs-course but also Super/CM-vrs-Super/CM, appears to be moving this trend ever forward, although not necessarily in a good way.
There’s a tremendous amount of maintenance crew time spent in relation to bunkers. Not just periodic repairs/renovations but tasks like keeping the faces, sides and tops irrigated so the grass in areas of regular sand splash and wear don’t appear scruffy and in need of care but instead looks lush and green. And cutting tight to the front edge might look nice and mean bunkers play ‘bigger’ than their actual footprint size but on parkland courses in particular with at times strong grass growth such an appearance needs time consuming mower time, often by hand mower/strimmer, and time costs money and as costs go up so do subscriptions and green fees ......
It would be interesting to know what proportion of a maintenance crews time is spent both directly and indirectly in relation to bunkers. I believe it would be a significant proportion although obviously dependent on things like the number of bunkers, the type of course, seasonal aspects etc etc.
Atb

[Bernie Bell]

Least bang for the buck:  Which architectural features have the most disproportionate relationship between costs to build and maintain and affect on playability? 

[Joe Hancock]

Least bang for the buck:  Which architectural features have the most disproportionate relationship between costs to build and maintain and affect on playability?

Tees

[V. Kmetz]

Please explain "Tees"... how come any ol bunker doesn;t take more work to build and certainly cost to maintain? 


And the tee, whose particular distance and as starting point for a hole, (which determines/inaugurates/angles how elements will function) has got to every bit as essential to a hole's character than a bunker.

[Joe Hancock]

Please explain "Tees"... how come any ol bunker doesn;t take more work to build and certainly cost to maintain? 


And the tee, whose particular distance and as starting point for a hole, (which determines/inaugurates/angles how elements will function) has got to every bit as essential to a hole's character than a bunker.

Tees can be simple, but most often aren’t. They are artificially raised above the surrounding terrain. They often have drainage systems as elaborate as a green or bunker. They get mowed as low as greens were a mere 30 years ago. Tees get fussed with often to maintain the correct mowing lines as to not misalign the golfer...as if that’s the tee’s job in the first place.


Tees could be simple landforms that already exist, or at the very most just require a little leveling during construction. If they weren’t such rigid landforms, the options to set up the course to present all those angles and strategies could be a fluid thing.


Think Wolf Point.


The cost of maintenance of any feature is up to the super/ club/ owner. Bunkers should be the least expensive maintenance item, in my opinion, but at most clubs there is more energy and money spent on bunkers than on greens. (An in depth report on this was done by Bob Randquist, years ago) Tell me how that makes any sense.

[Peter Pallotta]

Take a good golf course and give me the freedom to move all the tees forward/back and to one side/the other however I see fit and I'm sure I could mess up that course in less than two hours. But: later that day tell all the golfers who come play that it was Joe H and Mike D who've just finished a 'renovation' and those very same changes might seem brilliant instead -- 'restoring lost playing angles and strategic options, highlighting the golden age quirk, and bringing back the many half-par holes and short Par 4s the architect originally intended'.
Ha ha: that would be a funny experiment -- well, at least for me.

[Joe Hancock]

Take a good golf course and give me the freedom to move all the tees forward/back and to one side/the other however I see fit and I'm sure I could mess up that course in less than two hours. But: later that day tell all the golfers who come play that it was Joe H and Mike D who've just finished a 'renovation' and those very same changes might seem brilliant instead -- 'restoring lost playing angles and strategic options, highlighting the golden age quirk, and bringing back the many half-par holes and short Par 4s the architect originally intended'.
Ha ha: that would be a funny experiment -- well, at least for me.

Peter,


You setting up the course with fewer constraints would be far more interesting/ strategic/ option-filled than any course with small, designated tee areas that never move side-to-side or back and forth, regardless of who is setting it up.


Nothing would bore me quicker than playing the same course often, and knowing every time I play it, the bunkers will always be the same exact distance from the tee.

[Thomas Dai]

The cost of maintenance of any feature is up to the super/ club/ owner. Bunkers should be the least expensive maintenance item, in my opinion, but at most clubs there is more energy and money spent on bunkers than on greens. (An in depth report on this was done by Bob Randquist, years ago) Tell me how that makes any sense.

Good points from Joe.
Probably worth highlighting that the starting point of a hole was sometimes different in the past, and still is in some places.
atb



..... and, chuckle....

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for taking that in the spirit I intended, Joe
I hadn't thought of 'tees' in years until your post on this thread -- and only then (and again with your most recent post) realized how much of an impact they can have.
P

[Sean_A]

Take a good golf course and give me the freedom to move all the tees forward/back and to one side/the other however I see fit and I'm sure I could mess up that course in less than two hours. But: later that day tell all the golfers who come play that it was Joe H and Mike D who've just finished a 'renovation' and those very same changes might seem brilliant instead -- 'restoring lost playing angles and strategic options, highlighting the golden age quirk, and bringing back the many half-par holes and short Par 4s the architect originally intended'.
Ha ha: that would be a funny experiment -- well, at least for me.

Peter,

You setting up the course with fewer constraints would be far more interesting/ strategic/ option-filled than any course with small, designated tee areas that never move side-to-side or back and forth, regardless of who is setting it up.

Nothing would bore me quicker than playing the same course often, and knowing every time I play it, the bunkers will always be the same exact distance from the tee.

Point taken, but I spose this is one reason why folks like to play golf with a bit of wind about.  Tee width is one of the most overlooked aspects of design.  I reckon this health and safety malarky with not being able to over the previous green has often made it harder to create tee width. 

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

Does bunker style really matter except for aesthetics?

Yes. Imagine a Raynor-style bunker, with flat sand bottoms and steep grass faces vs. High flashed sand, i.e. Winged Foot. The recovery shots vary widely. Now, if you’re just referencing bunker edge treatment while all other variables remain the same, then the difference is much less.

Are rumpled fairways really more expensive to maintain?

No. I must not understand your question, because if general terrain is the same and area is the same, there would be no difference in cost.
Why don’t more courses use smaller greens?


They do, and should for variety sake. The issue of wear likely has more to do with shade or other agronomoic issues. If you’re not familiar with the 15th at Kingsley Club, check it out. It’s a terrific use of a small green in an unlikely setting and situation.


Why don’t architects angle greens to the fairway more frequently?


I don’t know. They should. It’s an effective way to create variability in both line and distance from day to day. It also is an effective way to utilize deception and create uncertainty for the golfer.


How does one learn to look at a piece of raw land and have a clue if it would make for a good course?

See Mr. Urbina’s response.
Why do fewer people curse at false fronts than at greens that cant toward the back?

They don’t recognize that the front is false. They do understand that their ball didn’t “hold” on a the back-canting green, and that is “unfair”....(bathed in sarcasm)

[JMEvensky]

The cost of maintenance of any feature is up to the super/ club/ owner. Bunkers should be the least expensive maintenance item, in my opinion, but at most clubs there is more energy and money spent on bunkers than on greens. (An in depth report on this was done by Bob Randquist, years ago) Tell me how that makes any sense.

Agree--the single most confounding thing in a maintenance budget IMO.


The members should rake them--as each of us learned as a kid, "leave the golf course better than you found it". In my experience,a few fines handed out frequently inspires the members to do better.


Plus,it's usually the good players who bitch the most about the bunkers--A) they are never going to be satisfied, B) they don't need the help. So why even bother to try and placate them?

[Ronald Montesano]

Questions for 2020


How much does a golfer wish to think about architecture, while playing golf?


How can daily-fee golfers (and club guests) be encouraged to think more about the architecture?


What will gcas restore, when all the good courses have been restored?


Might anyone ever be known as a Rees Jones restoration expert?

[JC Urbina]

Ira,

Native landscape gives the site its character. It determines the routing, it helps give the golf course a sense of time.  It helps me set the stage for what the presentation of the golf course will feel like.  Its what some of  the 70s-80s and early 90s golf course sites forgot to consider.  Everyone felt that you could just re-landscape, what they forgot to consider is the amount of time it would take the golf course to Age.

On my website I discuss,


TREAD LIGHTLY...

I consider myself very lucky to have worked on the sites I have.  With that luck I have come to understand not to destroy the landforms during construction.  I value every feature big or small. I realize from the very start, it is important to evaluate what is worth preserving and what can be transformed into something more usable.

"It starts from the very first day you step foot on the land.  Recognize the important features, preserve when possible, and restore when applicable.  It is the key to maintaining that natural look"

I could write a chapter on the importance of  the landscape as it relates to the golf course.  At  Pacific Dunes  during construction I flagged areas where traffic was allowed to travel. If you went out of bounds we were going to have a discussion.  That's how much I value the Landscape.

Make sense?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()