[Ronald Montesano]

The retooled Kapalua Plantation course is on display this week. The most interesting, single change, is the attempt to compel contestants to challenge the right side of a particular fairway.


The 5th at Kapalua is a 526 yard, par 5 hole. There is a great revelation from Bill Coore about why they added a bunker around 170 yards from the green, found on Golf Digest's website. As the broadcast came on a bit ago, we saw Gary Woodland in said bunker, unable to reach the green.


What I find interesting, is the absolute commitment to a test run, on the part of the architects and the resort. After data is gathered this year, a decision will be made on what to do with the bunker. This is a luxury that not all golf courses have, but not all golf courses host an event that just received a 10-year commitment from its sponsor.


Is this sort of experiment viable for other clubs, resorts, courses?

[Ian Andrew]

Depends on the type of work.

Where I have done a major overhaul - implementing my own design ideas - I ask for a five years before making changes. I believe members should get used to everything first. Most clubs are fine with this approach. Lots of conversation in the first few years. But usually the controversial feature/idea gains acceptance with time.

I'll always offer to do a walk with committees after five years and indicate I'm open to changes. 90% of the times, nothing happens, because the players no longer have an issue and some have grown to like the challenge.

[Peter Pallotta]

Not an answer to your question, Ron, but just an aside:
Man, the modern pro game really is like the Borg. Even for Captain Bill and First Officer Ben, resistance is futile. Their renovation:
Green contours softened (because of modern speeds)
New back tees to add length (because of modern distances)
One new deep & penal bunker made shallower than intended (because of anticipated complaints by modern pros).
They might as well have asked *me* to renovate the course -- with so many 'inevitables' and constraints to adhere to, C&C had so little room/freedom to exercise their experience and talents that their 'choices' ended up being the very same ones a talent-less amateur with nary a day of experience would've made.
Just the way the Borg Collective wants it -- ie to crush in others what it doesn't have itself: an individual soul and unique personality!

[Ian Andrew]

Peter,


One theory out there is innovation is more likely to come out of roadblocks than a clean sheet. It's definitely embraced by Brian Eno who employed what he called Oblique Strategies. He would turn the creative process on its ear by drawing cards from a box full of cards with instructions. Each one would make a recommendation for change and he would follow it no matter what. It upset the musicians, but it also expanded the creative process. He though the risk was worth it.

The theory was that this would heighten the mind as it tried to overcome the obstacle. This would make you far more in tune with what you were doing and sharper during the process.

The greatest example of how this might work was the Koln Concert where Keith Jarrett had to overcome a sub-par piano and was forced to improvise avoiding certain dead keys and the entire upper register. While it was huge impediment to the performance, he miraculously managed to deliver something exceptional by being forced outside his boundaries.

Essentially, that was Eno's belief. Get the artist out of their comfort zone and there is a possibility of finding magic. Keep them comfortable and the performance will be pleasing, but is very unlikely to be groundbreaking.

Sometimes the best architecture comes from the most stressful moment. Being forced to overcome an unforeseen event can often lead an architect to explore beyond what they know will work.

[Thomas Dai]

There’s a very interesting portion of Derek Duncan’s recent Podcast with Brian Schneider where insights into Brooks Koepka’s thoughts on course management, potential shot outcomes and bunkering and the consequences are shared.
Worth a listen - [size=78%]https://feedtheball.com/episode-63-brian-schneider/[/size]
Atb

[David Harshbarger]

Peter,


One theory out there is innovation is more likely to come out of roadblocks than a clean sheet. It's definitely embraced by Brian Eno who employed what he called Oblique Strategies. He would turn the creative process on its ear by drawing cards from a box full of cards with instructions. Each one would make a recommendation for change and he would follow it no matter what. It upset the musicians, but it also expanded the creative process. He though the risk was worth it.

Bowie's Lodger was recorded this way.  "Boys Keep Swinging" and "Fantastic Voyage" have the same chords and changes, but musicians were asked to play other's instruments, for instance.  Not sure this worked well, as Lodger is probably considered one of the weaker albums, probably because of the jarring variations in styles.

[David Harshbarger]

Depends on the type of work.

Where I have done a major overhaul - implementing my own design ideas - I ask for a five years before making changes. I believe members should get used to everything first. Most clubs are fine with this approach. Lots of conversation in the first few years. But usually the controversial feature/idea gains acceptance with time.

I'll always offer to do a walk with committees after five years and indicate I'm open to changes. 90% of the times, nothing happens, because the players no longer have an issue and some have grown to like the challenge.

This is a really smart stratagem.  You set expectations that a.) you expect feedback, b.) you want to hear the feedback c.) you are prepared to act on the feedback and d.) you are defining a timeline that will mute the noisy feedback.  Well-done.

[David_Tepper]

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

[Tom_Doak]

The PGA TOUR's tolerance for hazards in the middle of the fairway is near zero.


Ever since players started following the Mark Broadie paradigm of aiming 32.5 yards away from hazards, they've decided that anything in the middle of the fairway is "unfair" because they can't aim away from it.


The Tour's design arm reinforces this preference, telling host sites they shouldn't have hazards in the middle of the fairway "because the players might not like it," leading to negative press for the event, or worse yet, telling sponsors the players might choose not to play the event next year if they don't like the course.


I've been working on two sites for Tour events, Waialae and Memorial Park, and this no-no has been brought up at both of them.  At Waialae, we had discussed putting a Principal's Nose hazard in the left-center of the first fairway [10th for the Sony Open], but after feedback we decided to make the bunker jut in from the left rough, instead. 


At Memorial Park, it's not even a bunker . . . I built a sharp undulation in the center of the fairway so players would be forced to choose between the left side [bad angle] and the right side [where there is a tree in play].  The TOUR has suggested multiple times that we should eliminate this feature because players won't like it.  My client, who's the sponsor, backed me up on it, so it's still there, but the TOUR officers bring it up every single time they visit; they are really not used to anyone disregarding their "advice".




I admire Ian's approach, but when you are dealing with the PGA TOUR, there is no such thing as long term.  If players don't like the feature, they will be talking about modifying it next year.  Of course, they'll still be talking to my client, so there's a chance my feature will get more than a one-year trial, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Joe Bausch]

The PGA TOUR's tolerance for hazards in the middle of the fairway is near zero.


Ever since players started following the Mark Broadie paradigm of aiming 32.5 yards away from hazards, they've decided that anything in the middle of the fairway is "unfair" because they can't aim away from it.


The Tour's design arm reinforces this preference, telling host sites they shouldn't have hazards in the middle of the fairway "because the players might not like it," leading to negative press for the event, or worse yet, telling sponsors the players might choose not to play the event next year if they don't like the course.


I've been working on two sites for Tour events, Waialae and Memorial Park, and this no-no has been brought up at both of them.  At Waialae, we had discussed putting a Principal's Nose hazard in the left-center of the first fairway [10th for the Sony Open], but after feedback we decided to make the bunker jut in from the left rough, instead. 


At Memorial Park, it's not even a bunker . . . I built a sharp undulation in the center of the fairway so players would be forced to choose between the left side [bad angle] and the right side [where there is a tree in play].  The TOUR has suggested multiple times that we should eliminate this feature because players won't like it.  My client, who's the sponsor, backed me up on it, so it's still there, but the TOUR officers bring it up every single time they visit; they are really not used to anyone disregarding their "advice".




I admire Ian's approach, but when you are dealing with the PGA TOUR, there is no such thing as long term.  If players don't like the feature, they will be talking about modifying it next year.  Of course, they'll still be talking to my client, so there's a chance my feature will get more than a one-year trial, but I wouldn't bet on it.

This is the type of post that I love about GolfClubAtlas.  Thanks, Tom!

[Marty Bonnar]

Joe,
Love and despair of in largely equal measure.
Cheers,
M.


PS thought I’d elaborate. I’m watching them play Kapalua right now and, oh no!, it’s a bit windy and rainy. Let’s only build Tour golf courses under a massive Truman Show shelter from now on!

[Marty Bonnar]

The 8th hole is getting my attention right now. The telecast started with some footage of them rebuilding it, but it still looks utterly dull. The green has been ‘simplified’ and levelled out and the bunkering has, apparently, been moved closer, but still looks really disconnected from the green.
Maybe I just need to accept that it’s a dull golf course with little or no redeeming features?
Love Hawaii, though!
F.

[Thomas Dai]

My client, who's the sponsor, backed me up on it, so it's still there, but the TOUR officers bring it up every single time they visit; they are really not used to anyone disregarding their "advice".

A big well done to your client-event sponsor.
Tour officers giving 'advice' to pamper the already extremely well pampered is very disappointing.
atb

[BCrosby]

"The PGA TOUR's tolerance for hazards in the middle of the fairway is near zero."

Appalling. John Low, Harry Colt, Alister MacKenzie, and virtually all other Golden Age architects are collectively spinning in their graves.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

The 8th hole is getting my attention right now. The telecast started with some footage of them rebuilding it, but it still looks utterly dull. The green has been ‘simplified’ and levelled out and the bunkering has, apparently, been moved closer, but still looks really disconnected from the green.
Maybe I just need to accept that it’s a dull golf course with little or no redeeming features?
Love Hawaii, though!
F.

Marty


The 8th is anything but dull.  The combination of wind and dramatic slopes on the green provide a bunch of different options off the tee and provide a bunch of interesting recovery shots when mistakes are made.   I see more players using the ground to feed the ball to the desired portion of the green on that hole than I do on 95% of par 3's one sees on television. 


I think television gives short shrift to the interest slopes and contours provide to the game.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()