[Garland Bayley]

The only information I have been able to search out on this site is "Forward kick from barely carrying the fronting bunker/s".

Do you consider that criteria?
If so, do you play shots to find the kick point?
If so, should the kick send the ball onto the green?
Doesn't the bunker being blind make this criteria sketchy (after all there are alps holes without the bunker)?

Is it generally advisable to make a completely cross bunker?
if so, why is the bunker on Old MacDonald not a cross bunker?
If you go the long way around, should you have access without a bunker?
Or, if it is safe to go the long way around, does that suggest the bunker should be on that route?
If you risk the short way, should there be the added risk of a bunker to carry?
Or, If you risk the short way, should the absence of the bunker be part of the reward?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


I have only done one Alps type hole, at Sand Creek Station in Newton, KS.  Your question intrigued me, so I emailed the DOG.  Here is his response:


[font=]. In regards to the high fairway on 12, it really doesn’t come into play and in fact most players don’t think about this as an option to navigate their approach shots to the green. In my own experience and the group I play with if anyone does use the high fairway on 12, it’s more of an accident or a miss-hit. That said, it does offer more appeal to the course. [/font]


I guess it is sort of as I would expect, modern golfers don't understand it and don't play alternate shots.  As to appeal, their website calls the hole "uncertainty" because you can't always see the flag.  Of course, he probably plays with other top end players.  I play it that way every time I am there (but granted, only a few times in a dozen years now) and it seems to hold if I drop a shot just over the top.  I think it takes quite a bit of back to front slope on that portion of the green to do that.



As far as how far I put the slope back, I built it all on flat ground, and think I just captured the aerial as it was at NGLA and used similar dimensions, and the start of the fw is about 40 yards from the front of the green at about 20% reverse slope.  The first few yards tip back towards golfers so they can see a fw is up there to aim at (I mean, ignore the fact that there is a fw up there to aim at, LOL) so the reverse slope is probably 30 yards. 


https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0158036,-97.3598088,278m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

By high fairway, does he mean the fairway bit extending back from the left side of the green towards fitting between the two bunkers. I can't tell what would be high or low on the google view.

Are there bunkers that have been returned to grass on the hole? Actually, I see from their website that one of the three that appear in their diagram there is now grass in the google view.

Does "it seems to hold if I drop a shot just over the top" mean just over the bunker? just over the top of the hill? hold the green?

"The first few yards tip back towards golfers so they can see a fw is up there to aim at" sounds like players can see that fairway from the landing area for their drives. That seems to imply that the bunkers up there are visible too. So you don't actually have the cross bunker that is found at NGLA. Correct?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


 The left (upper on Google photo) fw is indeed the high one that bounces down to the green, as per the NGLA Alps.

The first few yards of fw to show to the golfer.  I felt like you had to let them know there was an option up there to encourage them to use it. The site was flat (not all Kansas is flat as some surmise, but this site fit the common stereotype) so the left side bunkers and raised fw were artificially built up, at least 20 feet.  The bunkers are visible as they are in the front face of that hill.

I did a bunker reduction plan there a few years ago and you can see some they have filled in on the aerial.  I think the original one on the 12th was sand, but filled in earlier.  I think it had too much slope to maintain as sand on a public course, and the smaller bunkers were an artistic choice, but I think they function as a cross bunker, while allowing circulation for those walking up there to find their shots.


As to what rolls down, as I said, I have only played a few times.  I guess whether it could bounce forward from the upslope front portion of the fw would depend on irrigation.  That said, they have unlimited water from their sewer treatment plant, so I doubt it's dry enough and it takes carrying over the crest of the hill to bounce down on the green.

[Tom_Doak]

Regarding Old Macdonald, I was the one who suggested moving the cross bunker to the side to allow an approach from the left to bounce down onto the green.


I have to admit that while I love the audacity of the 3rd hole at The National, it never made sense to me to have an alternate fairway that only served to deliver shots into the cross bunker.  As The pro on Jeff's course describes it, what's the attraction for taking the chance of going over the hill?


Mr Keiser is not a fan of cross bunkers in general, so he was quick to endorse the idea of modifying the hole for his retail golfers.  Charlie Macdonald would be spinning in his grave over that decision, but he is the guy who added a cross hazard to the concept of the Eden hole, so let's just call it even. 😄


P.S.  It looks like I may soon be building another version of this hole, and if so, it's the right place to do it faithfully to the Macdonald version, even if I don't totally agree with it.  The true Alps hole does have a cross bunker, but not an alternate fairway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,



I guess I left out what Tom mentioned.  I have no idea if 100+ years (or more, if going to the original) ago without irrigation, if they figured a ball would hop the bunker onto the green?  I think I recall that happening at Prestwick when I played there.  Either way, as design thought has emerged, I agree with Tom, no one would take a chance on a shot that has even a 50% chance of ending up in a bunker, probably better explaining the answer to your questions.


TBH, I also left out the 2 bunkers on the right of the green, as it was a public course.  I wonder if those frontal bunkers blocked the approach from the right if the up and over alternative would be stronger?  I doubt it.  Carrying bunkers you see is still less risky than playing a blind shot, especially the first time or two you play the course.


Thanks perhaps to participating on this site, I bump and run approaches, just because, and would play the blind shots just for fun, but anyone concerned with score at all probably would not.

[Garland Bayley]

The Evangelist of Golf shows bunkers in front of the hill at NGL. Clearly these would limit the length of the drive for those attempting to get as close as possible for the blind approach, and being able to drive the ball onto the upslope would aid getting the ball into the air for clearing the cross bunkers and stopping the ball on landing. George does not mention the intent of these bunkers in his text. Are they an important part of the strategy of the hole at NGL?

Many people would be able to drive the ball to the position of these bunkers at NGL. However, at Old MacDonald, the hill is farther removed from the tee and there is a dip before the hill. Does that dip serve the same purpose as the bunkers at NGL? I.e., if you crest the rise before the dip and end up with a slight downhill lie, it becomes more difficult to loft the ball over the hill. Therefore, it might be wise to play a bit short of the dip, as it is wise to play short of the bunkers at NGL. It has been several years since I played Old MacDonald, so if my memory is faulty please advise me so.

[Tom_Doak]

The Evangelist of Golf shows bunkers in front of the hill at NGL. Clearly these would limit the length of the drive for those attempting to get as close as possible for the blind approach, and being able to drive the ball onto the upslope would aid getting the ball into the air for clearing the cross bunkers and stopping the ball on landing. George does not mention the intent of these bunkers in his text. Are they an important part of the strategy of the hole at NGL?

Many people would be able to drive the ball to the position of these bunkers at NGL. However, at Old MacDonald, the hill is farther removed from the tee and there is a dip before the hill. Does that dip serve the same purpose as the bunkers at NGL? I.e., if you crest the rise before the dip and end up with a slight downhill lie, it becomes more difficult to loft the ball over the hill. Therefore, it might be wise to play a bit short of the dip, as it is wise to play short of the bunkers at NGL. It has been several years since I played Old MacDonald, so if my memory is faulty please advise me so.

Your memory of the two holes is correct.


At Old Mac, it was not really a deliberate attempt to give you a downhill lie for the second shot over the hill; that slope is natural and we just didn't modify it.  I never really thought of its similarity to NGLA before.  The bunkers that cut off the fairway at NGLA are at the base of a very steep slope, and serve more as a transition than anything else . . . no one can drive it up on top of the hill and there is no point in winding up in the rough on the way up.


Both holes give you the option to hit a long drive to the right further down the fairway, instead of laying up on the left to avoid the problems a long hitter might reach.  At Old Mac, a really long driver can get to where he can see the right side of the green; you can, eventually, at NGLA too, but no one ever drove it that far until recently.  Going way down the right side would make certain hole locations harder, in both cases.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()