Tom Doak and 'fierce' bunkers.

[Doug Ralston]

Tom;

Since my question appears unlikely to be addressed no matter how often and in what form I reiterate it, I think I must go to you directly.

In the thread on 'individual fierce bunkers', you comment on others, then add some of your own. It definitely seems like a bit of bravado.

On the other hand, in another thread, you seemed in agreement that American's are obsessed about scoring rather than golfing. "What did you score" vrs "Did you enjoy your game".

So which is it? Should we "Be gracious in victory and defeat, and treat those two old imposters the same"; which we attribute to our R & A counterparts, or is "I shot 73 on Tom Doak's tough course with all those fierce bunkers" what we want to think of when designing? Old English School or Modern American competition?

I ask it again: What is the virtue of 'fierce' bunkers?

I am not being denigrating, I assure you. I can imagine possible answers. Perhaps a hole is simple too easy to score on, so a really nasty bunker assures that with the parade of birdies will come to occasional double bogey; raising the hole's handicap.

Or perhaps your assignment IS to create a monster tough course intended to test only low handicappers and pros.

Is it that way with you?

Doug

[Tom_Doak]

Doug:  My clients sometimes have different mission statements for us.  Most of them want the course to be playable; a handful have specifically asked us to make it hard.

But as to the fierce bunkers, generally my thinking is geared toward match play instead of medal play, where a fierce bunker can only cost you one hole in the scoring, and doesn't ruin your entire day.  

At the same time, I rather like the fact that our philosophy allows us to leave a couple of ticking bombs out there for the card-and-pencil minded low handicappers who just really have to avoid those hazards if they don't want their precious score to go up in smoke.  (Lord knows I saw a lot of examples of that the year I lived in the U.K.)  I realize there are some low-handicap golfers who dislike my courses for just this reason.  Maybe someday they'll see the light of day, that the game is about more than just your score, that getting out of one of those awful bunkers could be the highlight of your year.  But, some never will see the light.

It always amazes me how many severe natural hazards we were able to incorporate into Pacific Dunes and how few people actually complain about them.  There are a bunch of places on that course where you can get absolutely screwed over ... and yet it's wildly popular.  Must be the ocean views, I guess.

[Doug Ralston]

Indeed Tom;

Perhaps you have heard me talk about an obsure course in Eastern kentucky called Eagle Ridge, which is the course I most wonder why i am leaving as i go. It is indeed a golfwise struggle, sloping 144 [153 front 9...whew!]. Yet, the majestic beauty of those mountains and panoramic views definitely play their part in making it really exciting to play. Besides which, knowing I will fail a lot, I am inclined to want to try to make those demanding shots. Too much fun.

Pacific Dunes, i suspect, must be like that for the loyal returnees. I imagine a lot of tough courses are played by we high handicappers, just because it's exciting.

When my regular playing partner and I look for courses in a new area, we use golfcourse.com and it's advanced search feature to find courses over 130 slope and rated by users on the site at 4.2 or higher. This rarely fails to turn up some fun.

BTW, I like the reasoning of 'mining' the course for matchplay. I never play for money [I am poor enough as it is] but many of my friends do, and I gather that it is most common that the regular guys you see on publics are indeed at least making a few wagers along the way. Interesting to see who are the pragmatists [play away from such hazards] and the chargers [play OVER the hazards, if they can]. Betcha the 1st win more money, but perhaps the second laugh more {or why play?].

Doug