4 Choices-which one do you like and why?

[MainelyJack]

I prefer #4 as it is the most visually appealling to me and doesn't look tricked up or just places in the ground where someone decided to put bunkers. I believe number one is the original. It looks rather quiet and was probably done some time ago when that was the way bunkers were often done. Interesting exercise.

[RJ_Daley]

Sorry I didn't get into this earlier.  I've been in computer hell but just got my new box set up this morning.  I'll take the simplicity of #1, with feeling that it is just a wee bit too built up on far back left above the golfer wearing green jacket.  If you want to add some stylised look to the bunkers, I'll go for #2, except the one glaring sand tongue reaching up from the bottom left bunker in slightly right of middle.   I prefer the right side bunkers in both 1 & 2 on the basis of simplicity and the fact that they are not dominant bunkering on the right, but leave a chance of either a bunker blast or a ball in the rough surrounds.  I just don't like the overall context of the dominance of the left side proportion of height of the entire complex of bunker and mound, and that is why I like the top work of the #2 picture as it seems to soften the awkward height of the hump a little.  #4 is too busy in both complexes to me.  #3 is too gapping on both sides, unless the whole course looks like that and that look is then consistent throughout the golf course, but I still don't like it here in this setting.  

If like Ben says, the tee shot is set more from the left and the picture is taken right of the line of play, I think they have to trim or loose the left side tree, and I wouldn't cry if they lost the inside from right or second tree in from right side.  I also would like to know how much room is back right behind the simple bunkers.  I'd like to see a pin tucked back there.

This hole has enough going on considering Ben's suggestion that there is serious slope and you don't want to be above the hole anywhere on the green.  It doesn't need more in your face bunker look in my opinion.  

[Steve Curry]

Ian,

All four need tree removal  

I would prefer less interruption of the sand with the more raged edges of the 4th photo.

Steve

[henrye]

I prefer #3.  In the other photos, the individual bunkers appear so small it looks like it would be hard to get a good lie in the bunker or enough room to stand and swing a club.  #3 bunkers actually looks like they would attract shots into them.  #'s 1, 2 and 4 look like like the ball would bounce all around them instead of ever going in.

Don't cut down any of those beautiful trees!

[Joe Hancock]

If the trees on the right aren't in play, neither are those bunkers behind them. Those that think the bunkers on the left don't come into play apparently never pull a shot....especially a 200 yard+ shot! If the bunkers on the left don't come into play, I can't see how the ones on the right would either!

Joe

[Dr Kildare]

1 is the original.
3 is modern day.

Ian, are you using the latest Ver 7 of photoshop ?
That "healing brush" is sensational.

[ian]

Seems like a good time to wade back in. This may help.

This is from the tee. The hole is 209 and uphill (about twenty-five feet) to a two level green. That pin would be left front.

Reagarding the left side bunkers. I'm not arguing Rich and others point (because it is valid), but a ball missing left could be 10-12 feet below the green. This is more for information since the photo limits perception. Next time a description will be in order. This is a learning curve for me.

I will again stress the bunkering locations are as they were first laid out. As Tom pointed out I wanted to find out which was prettier, not to rebunker and discuss alternatives (my mistake). When I have the kahuna's, I will attempt that approach next with a well known hole.

I was suprised how mixed the response was to the holes, its more evenly split than I thought. I personally think that shows that people are receptive to many different styles and that those who profess one to be superior to all the others as
having tunnel vision.

I personally do not think the trees are in the way (and I'm often accused of being a tree hater); The trees were there on opening day and limbing the one white pine up would show the bunker on the right.

The bunker on the right is right beside the green. The green is open fronted, but has more left side than right side closed off. The ball will bounce left in all circumstance.

I will provide the answer very soon. The response has been excellent, I just need to pose a better question of choice. As I said previously, I will try a positioning excercise as the next one.

Since I have had some e-mails: The software is Photo-Paint, comes with the purchase of Corel-Draw. Corel works on all systems, and is not that hard to learn.

[ian]

Alternate 5
Trees removed from right.
No paths visible.
No bunkers left replaced with fairway on left.

[Joe Hancock]

Stunning!

Simplicity is so often the missing ingredient....

Joe

[Joe Hancock]

I should have elaborated..but I was much more taken with this last variation, and got excited...sorry.

Imagine that front left approach area shaved down to 3/8" and firm...wrong club it on the short side and your looking at a much more difficult shot, IMO. Of course, it might be the coffee...

Good work, Ian. I should send you pics of my course and let you have your way with it, you seem to enjoy this!

Joe

[Mike_Cirba]

Ian;

Throw in the front right bunker from pic #3 and we're starting to look as cool as Huntingdon Valley!  Especially if you can ramp a ball off the back end of that slope to back left hole locations!

Nice stuff, and thanks for your efforts.

[RJ_Daley]

Ian, a very clever exercise.  The one piece of information I think we would have needed, and was critical to the speculation is the dimensions and slope of the green.  It was hard to detect the space between the first tier of bunkers on the left, above the golfer's in green jacket shoulder, and the back tier ramping up the hill in the back left.  If there is indeed a significant space there, with a swale flowing or sweeping off the left side and down forward, and the green behind the first hump is canted high left to down right, and there is more pinnable space behind the right bunker and mounds, I think you have a sort of variation of a NADER, where as Mike comments, you can get a carroom off the left side just over the first nose, and/or off of the back left rear to roll down to pins tucked extreem right rear. Therefore, bunkerless on the right nose is very elegant, or a very small low profile bunker at the base of the front nose or even behind on the backboard hill up to left rear works good in my opinion.

[ian]

Just to put an end to this little thread.

#1 made up
#2 is indeed the original
#3 is current
#4 was made up

Thanks for the response.

I think Rich Goodale has given me a good idea for the next one. Give me a little time though. I will need some scans first.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

What a great excercise. I don't know why I'm so late to click on this thread. Got to go with visual memory because I don't think I can click back to page 1 and post this.

For me it was the left side bunkering that dominated for my eye. I don't really like the left side on #1 & #3 much because they just feel like man made lines with bunkering. I like #2 less because it looks to me like a jigsaw puzzle of sand and I like #4's left side the best of all (which might seem odd because it really isn't all that different than than #2 (my least favorite)).

But the reason I like #4 the best is because if I imagine a deluge of water running down that hill and tearing away at the topography I can imagine the result would look more like #4 than any of the others. I guess I just like that more random little edginess of the grass to sand faces on #4.

As for the rightside bunkering I can remember the differences that well now but I like the edgy Flynn looking one the best (whichever photo # that was).

I'm glad that you put the last photo up because I like that the best, except for the right bunker.

On all five I think the top profile on the right bunkering (every photo) is a little high and I would take that down into a much gentler top line! But I really like the leftside photo with no bunkers!

It brings up an interesting question about general bunker placement too.

Generally architects seem to look for upslopes to place bunkers in! Certainly this was Flynn's habit and certainly almost all the others too.

But here's the thing with Flynn (since Wayne and I are really studying him now)!

If he found what he called a intersting natural feature he would just use it as it is. Bunkering to him seemed to be a substitute, in many ways, for a lack of interesting natural feature or aspect or incident or situation, as C.H. Alison was inclined to say in some of his writing we've found. A great example of this inclination to substitute bunkering for lack of natural feature is Shinnecock, where Flynn used it liberally and where he didn't and what Alison had to say about that in his "preconstruction plan" analysis for Shinnecock on Flynn's plan! In other words he used it liberally with huge sandy wastes on the low lying land that didn't have much going for it for golf naturally!

My point is that apparently natural incline to the left of the green is enough to go with on its own (doesn't need bunkering because it's steep enough). I feel about the same on the right side (a gentler contour without bunkering would be OK with me!

The reasons I say that are basically two.

1. The overall "lines" of that entire green-end would flow against each other better without bunkering--basically just using their top lines to flow and twist and turn gently against each other.

2. To do it that way (without any bunkering just the slope) would force a golfer to sort of visually search out the topography and the ground to determine what it would and could do with his ball. Bunkering is only a aid in that--a complete definition and I don't like that much any more--not on a green-end like that that seems to have enough natural feature (enough slope on the left anyway) going for it!

I say these things by way of example from two holes at The Country Club of Cleveland I saw recently. Hole #2 just off the tee there's an immediate upslope (probably mostly manufactured) and Flynn used bunkering into the immediate upslope on either side just for directional purposes on an otherwise relatively blind drive but on hole #17 he found a really beautiful large and steep NATURAL diagonal ridge that was perfectly placed in everyway for a multi-optional drive.

He certainly could have placed bunkering into this ridge as it could have "transitioned" the steepness of it but apparently he just went with his precept that the ridge itself was a great natural feature and did not need the substitute enhancement of bunkering in any way.

I'd also take out the trees on your example hole both right and behind to highlight those natural looking lines of the topography more so the golfer could see them flow better against each other!

That might take away some so-called "definition" to catch the golfer's eye and help him aim and such but I like that removal of visual "definition" so the golfer has to search more and trust what he thinks he can see and find and do!

It looks like a nice green-end and even better when it's toned down by removing all the bunkering (and tree definition)!

[TEPaul]

Ian:

Again, congratulations on this thread and excercise because it certainly shows how even those on here very interested and into architecture think and feel differently about things and there's nothing wrong with that!

The more I learn about golf architecture the more I think both difference and difference of opinion may very well be golf's and golf archtiecture's biggest asset!

[Dan Kelly]

Maybe I missed it -- but where is this hole, and who designed it? Thanks.

[CHrisB]

Bringing this back up, because I too would like to know where this hole is and who designed it!

Thanks again for this thread...

[ian]

Tom,

Loved your thought, in particular.... "To do it that way (without any bunkering just the slope) would force a golfer to sort of visually search out the topography and the ground to determine what it would and could do with his ball."  facinating thought because the hole would not be an less challenging. "Bunkering is only a aid" Is very true, I would say sometimes we go overboard in telling players more than is needed. This bunkering is more about framing than strategy. The hole is more about getting it all the way there with your best iron, than working a shot into a position.

Boy I'm sorry, I really meant to post that. The course is one of Canada's great sleepers, Cataraqui Golf & Country Club. The course is in Kingston, Ontario, half way between Toronto and Montreal on Lake Ontario. The course was "mostly" designed by Stanley Thompson when he gave it its final routing in 1933. He kept a few of the original greens in his rerouting. This hole is completely Stanley Thompson and is better than the picture shows. The 15th is simply the best long par 3 in Canada (I know big statement but even Lorne Rubenstein agrees with me on that one). The course will not blow you away like some of the classics we talk about, but you will wish you were a member because its so damn much fun to play.

Some photos of the course.....1 a mid length par 4

the green site for the long par four third

190 yard 12th, no tree issue here

the great medium long par four 18th, what a green site