Humps and Hollows at Royal Mid Surrey

[Ran Morrissett]

How short are the walks from green to tee at Easthampton?Austin Golf Club?Friars Head?

[Mike_Cirba]

TBJ,Welcome, and please do stick around and chat.  We only half as nasty and twice as crazy as we seem.   However, as Patrick Mucci mentions, there are some strong opinions and heated passions that drive this board so be prepared to take much of it with intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness, and good humor.  Bottom line; if you have a love for golf course architecture, you'll find compatriots here.Now, back to discussion...  I find it very interesting that you mentioned the USGA would not consider Merion for future events unless they did something about their bunkering.  That contention has been alluded to before, but it's the first time I've heard it stated as fact.  The fact is also that most people (including most in here familiar with the situation) recognized that bunker restoration work needed to be done and was in fact ongoing with a different architect and lots of meticulous handwork, prior to Tom Fazio's involvement.     Differences over approach and timing eventually led to a different contractor and architect.  The resulting bunker work was done in a much quicker timeframe (less than a year for 120+ bunkers) and others can make their own judgements on the results. As to the USGA, I wonder if they haven't been a little disengenuous with Merion.  Everyone knows what "USGA event" Merion is seeking; the US Open.  In past years, Merion has done a lot of work to try to curry USGA favor (including the bunker work, as per your post), yet it seems their are two unchangeable realities that the USGA has only previously hinted at;1) The golf course is too short.  Recently, a head USGA official (can't recall the name at the moment) stated publicly that pros would be approaching greens at Merion with wedges on over 12 holes.  Whether that is overstatement or not, it seems that after years of asking Nick Price and others for their opinions of the course, the USGA has come to the "too short" conclusion, despite the addition of a number of new "championship" tees by the club in recent years.2) There is not enough space for corporate tents, et.al., nor enough space for the 30,000+ paying spectators the USGA wants each day.  Best estimates are that Merion could only support about 13,000 people on the grounds.I understand and mostly support the desire of Merion to do whatever they felt they had to for another US Open given the historic nature of the club and the greatness of the golf course.  I only wish the USGA had been more forthright about their intentions, or lack thereof, in a more expedient manner.  It seems the club has done a lot of work in an effort to convince the USGA otherwise.  Perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but it seems to me that the USGA has deemed Merion as only worthy for a US Amateur, and perhaps a Senior Open.  The Amateur seems strange to me, because like the Buy.Com tour fellas, the Amateurs tend to hit the ball even further than the touring pros.  If Merion is deemed too short to provide an adequate test for one group, then I don't understand the paradox.  

[Ran Morrissett]

Chris,To answer your original question then, it appears it is the 16th hole at Lundin that inspired Macdonald's Leven hole.The reason that no one recognizes it as such is that Braid modified the 16th in 1907/1908, long after Macdonald had seen it.Some people contend that Braid is overrated as an architect and his modifying a hole that inspired Macdonald may support that contention.You'll like plenty of holes better at Lundin than the current 16th.Look forward to your report upon your return.Cheers,

[John_Conley]

Pat:Like I've told you, I think I agree with some core thought here.  You've finally been more specific in this last post.  Quite simply, people that don't think the ball is going further today are nuts.  I didn't say that it's bad, but it is hard to refute.I don't think it is just the ball, as many players seem to think.  There are a number of factors.I was meeting this morning with a former 8th place finisher in the National LD Championship and he talked about how amazing it is that Rocky Thompson can compete with a 50+" driver.  We both agree that driver length regulates itself - if it were more of an advantage you'd see more people doing it.You pretty much admitted in your last post that you didn't even attempt to make an argument based on facts.  Your are implying that this is a continuation of another discussion you had previously.  If so, I'd think you'd post it on that thread.You still have not told us if you have decided where you stand on equipment.  Is it okay with the rules in place today?  Your tone indicates that you might not be.  If that's the case, SPECIFICALLY... which changes do you recommend?END OF THREAD  -  As I thought, we agree on much of this.  Others may have agreed to disagree.  Your arguments posed above would not have convinced anyone to jump over the fence.  (Use of statistical outliers, irrelevant test data, absence of comparitive figures from previous comparable events, etc...)

[John_Conley]

I just meant end of thread for me.  I didn't intend to sound like I think I should be able to tell others when they can or can't talk!  ;(

[Oat]

If Rancho del Pueblo counts, then consider that the Short Course at Pine Valley has 10 of the best par 3's (if you play it that way) anywhere.

[paul albanese]

EYE CANDY -- I do agree that it is becoming an overused and simplistic way to "insult" a design.  Someone hit it on the head when they said "everyone's definition of eye candy is different" -- and that is the truth -- and that is what makes art and architectural discussion so interesting.  Obviously, some people believe "eye candy" to be any bunker (or other feature for that matter) -- that does not directly influence the "playability" of the hole.  And, that is a valid opinion -- that just happens to be how they like their golf courses. And, there are others who believe that bunkers that do not come into play, are  vital elements to the creation of great golf course.  Bunkers that fulfill the visual part of the golf course experience.  For those who believe that no bunker should be around except for those that come into play -- it is easy to determine "eye candy" -- it is almost scientific and the argument simply relies on a statistical analysis of "how many people would really hit it there".For the second group -- those that understand bunkers may play a role above and beyond simple playability --the task of determining "eye candy" is much less exacting and relies much more on understanding "art" and "beauty".  And, as you will often hear -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  What makes one person a better "art" or "beauty" critic than the next? May I refer you to the recent movie named "Pollack" with Ed Harris playing Jackson Pollack (the modern artist of post WW11) -- I found the movie facinating and it reinforced this whole idea about "art" criticism.  The art critic that made Pollack famous, was also the same guy that stopped liking his work, and brought him down.  Listening to him describe Pollacks work (which is very interesting) will give a clue as to how to properly describe all art -- including golf course architecture.I guess what I am trying to impart is that people have been critizing art for a long time -- and that is essentially what we are doing when we try to discuss "eye candy" -- take a look at art critic books, and I think you will start to understand what is "eye candy" and what is not.  An example of eye candy -- again too me -- is Long Bay in South Carolina -- an early Nicklaus project -- the mounding on that project is an example of "eye candy ad naseum" -- there are simply way too many mounds-- way too sweet.  Exactly how many would have been correct, I don't know -- but, I do know that when I stand on the tee or see a picture -- that there is just too much going on visually -- the composition is trying too hard to be something it is not.  When something tastes bad, you often add sweetener.  When you have a bad piece of ground -- we architects add sweetner -- but, sometimes we over do it -- knowing when to stop is the key.Well done eye candy? -- most of what Mackenzie has done -- he had a wonderful eye for "art" as well as strategy.  this is a great discussion -- look to the art world for even better ways to discuss these principles

[THuckaby2]

VERY well said, Paul.  As usual though, MacKenzie himself had something to say about this:(taken from an Editor's Note in GS' Masters of the Links, p. 125)"It is an interesting fact that few hazards are of any interest which are out of what is known to medical men as the direct field of vision.  This does not extend much further than ten to twenty yards on either side of the direct line to the hole.  Hazards placed outside these limits are usually of little interest, and are simply a source of irritation.  Hazards should be placed with an object in mind, and not one should be made which has not some influence on the line of play to the hole."Sounds like the Good Doctor was not much one for eye candy... if it exists on his courses, it surely was not intentional.TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Paul,For what it's worth, I really enjoyed some of the thematic bunkering that you and Ray Hearn placed at Sea Oaks, including the real conversation piece set of foreshorted bunkers about 50 yards from the tee on the par three 4th.  I also thought that the incredible WIDTH of that hole and green complex for a medium length par three was a cool and novel concept.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom H,Nice quote from the good doctor.  I just wonder what he would have done with a site like Shadow Creek's, or Talking Stick's, or Whistling Straits for example??  One where as Paul says, the architect felt it needed a little sweetner.  We'll obviously never know.  My guess is that he might have softened on his "line of play" definition a little bit  Mark

[Slag_Bandoon]

BarnyF, Candy does not grow on trees.Jeremy, To say that art is candy for the senses is like saying the object of golf is to score low. It may be true but there is a deeper meaning to be found beyond optic nerve vibrations and simplified objectives.

[THuckaby2]

Mark - I'm with you... but perhaps a MacKenzian scholar like Doak or G. Shackelford could weigh in here.  In any case, it's no surprise he held this principle, is it?Great topic, btw.  We have SO much "fluff" at our newer courses here in CA, one man's eye candy is another man's annoyance, in any case... I have no doubt that "superfluous hazards" (a neutral term I thought of for eye candy) could be done very well, and contribute to the "art" and the "sweetening" as Paul describes... Our problem here in CA is that we have SO MUCH of it, it's more of a constant than anything interesting...Check out Miller/Graves/Pascuzzo's Eagle Ridge in Gilroy, CA... this has to be the superfluous hazard capital of the world.  It is not good.THTH

[ForkaB]

Friar's Head is very good in this area on the flat bit, but less so when it gets into the terminal moraine bit, which is understadnable, given the topography.I fully support the nominations for Applebrook as 1st in its class for this category.I think that Stevinson Ranch is pretty good too from my one visit there (if you discount the longish walk to the 1st tee).  Can anybody our therecon firm or refute this impression?

[THuckaby2]

Chalk up another vote for Applebrook - very well done in this respect.Stevinson Ranch is indeed pretty good re this also, Rich - there are some longish walks and the hike around the clubhouse from 9 to 10 is a big one, but beyond that there's nothing too bad.  It's a fine walking course indeed.So few modern ones here in CA are... thus we do treasure these.TH

[paul albanese]

Great quote from the good doctor regarding his philosophy -- although I tend to think he was a better artist that he actually knew.That is probably why I like his work -- I am not a big fan of "superfluous hazards" (that is a tactful term for "eye candy" -- although I recognize their importance when done well.  But, my tastes in general stem from a "less is more" type of philosophy -- and, that is why I probably enjoy the visual compositions created by A.M -- In my opionion, the best visual compositions are derived from simple, yet stong gestures.(Thanks for the Sea Oaks compliment, too)

[RJ_Daley]

Going back to Ran's early post about features that are "constructed" to provide mere visual appeal and are costly to maintain, and have no meaningful effect on strategy yet boost the cost to play are not just underrated eyecandy, they are objectionable in my view.  However, if they can conceivably come into play by some level of player, like Ross said about no bunkers being misplaced is valid.  Thus, if they don't exessively add to the experience due to cost to construct them passed on to the golfer, and can conceivably come into play for someone, they aren't mere eye candy.  Examples I can think of are not only the top shot bunkers that most players easily carry - but are in the mind of the player sometimes prone to the topped shot, and the bunkers that are placed so far afield in rough areas, 300 yards from the tee that very few have the power to reach on a wildly errant shot.  Two good examples of the latter where bunkers are so far from fairways are at Arcadia Bluffs and Whistling Straits.   Watching the Club Pro Championships, I witnessed one of our local club pros who is a gorilla of a driver, actually get into a couple of those bunkers more than 300 yards off the tee and way off of the fairway.  Thus they are visual for most who couldn't possibly carry that far afield, but the rare fellow that can stray that far had a play/strategy situation to deal with.  An example of objectionable eye candy is found at the RTJ Jr course at SentryWorld.  There, we can find flowerbeds that if they were large bunkers or waste areas would be very intimidating and very possible to trap a players ball not all that far errant of a shot.  One such is the greenside flowerbeds at a par 3 (I can't think of the hole #).  The course rule is that you may not play your ball in the flowers where it lies.  If it were waste area or bunker you would deal with it where it lies.  That is egregeous eye candy and costly to maintain to boot.  If a lake has to be dug for water retention capacity, and construction feature shaping material, and gains some aestetic value and strategy to boot, it is not eye candy.  But, if a floating Buick and waterfalls from a high cap well source are built into a backdrop it evolves to become additive eye candy.  Taking out a tree to open a distant view for integration of that pleasing view, or planting one for a pleasing backdrop isn't really objectionable eye candy because it isn't a significant feature construction issue.  It is a related design issue at best.Candy is fattening, and in golf design that is the unnecessary additives that fatten cost to build and maintain, to the detriment of the broad playing public.  It is like a health issue as in Americans are perceived as too fat, like their golf courses.

[THuckaby2]

Paul - right on the mark and thanks for the explanation.  I remain fascinated by all things MacKenzie... so while I don't intend to hijack a thread (again) this is very interesting to me.Simple, yet strong gestures... what a GREAT way to put this!TH

[Tim_Weiman]

GeoffreyC:I'm very grateful that professional tournaments will never make it to NGLA, GCGC, Cypress Point, Crystal Downs and so on.But, I am at a complete loss to understand why we should "let it go" when it comes to Augusta.I doubt any club has more influence on golf in America today than Augusta.  Certainly there aren't many.Augusta is a major contributor to the groupthink mentality pervasive in the golf industry today.  This mentality involves equipment manufacturers and course owners spending ever increasing amounts of money in pursuit of length that is only relavent to less than one percent of the golfing public.I find it interesting that we expect something different from other industries.  We expect the Microsofts and Intels of this world to produce ever cheaper products so more people can enjoy their benefits.Why are we so quick to let leading golf organizations off the hook?Why are we so quick to dismiss a "consumer" point of view?Geoffrey, I don't mind anyone disagreeing with my point of view.  If my thinking is faulty, I'd rather learn why.But, I am struck by the occasional reference to shut down the discussion.  Isn't discussing matters pertaining to golf architecture why we come here?Augusta, as a private club, has every right to do whatever it wants with its golf course.  Equipment manufacturers are free to run advertisements poking fun at ruling bodies; they can even run misleading ads against the "golf architect's union".In the marketplace of ideas, we can and should also offer other points of view.  Don't you think?

[Paul Turner]

RanI agree about the trees,  but don't view the mounds as any more artificial than a bunker.Do you see Tillinghast's mounds as more natural?  I've seen those at Ridgewood and the photo of the 6th at Somerset Hills in "The Course Beautiful"; these are across the line of play and are in the rough, but the shapes, to my eye, look no less artificial.At least they aren't containment mounds.

[ForkaB]

RanRewriting and resubmitting my post regarding the provenance of the current 16th at Lundin and its (lack of) influence on MacDonald and NGLA is NOT a way to preserve the storage space on the GCA server .JohnI'm not trying to "downgrade" the view at Lundin at all, which is very good, particularly in terms of giving a panorama of the links.  Rather I was just trying to point out that there are many other views in South Fife as good or better, in my opinion.  You think it may be the best view in Scotland.  I do not.  That's fair, isn't it?  We all don't have to agree on everything, or do we.....?You are right that I do not like blind holes (see, we do agree on something!), particularly when the green is 2-3 clubs long.  I do prefer courses where the proper shot can be seen OR inferred (e.g. the Dell, the tee shot on 11 at Muirfield)).  I happen to believe that golfing skill involves being able to control both direction AND distance.  Blind holes without inference devalue one or both of those skills.  However, as Sly Stone so wisely said--different strokes, for different folks.Rich PS--Ran, I think the "new" 16th at Lundin is a great hole.  A driveable par 4 which is very much "death or glory" and comes at a critical point in the round.  I believe it can hold its own with 17 at NGLA, but I do not expect to get much support on this forum for that heretical point of view.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Tom Paul,Thanks for your response, you hit it right on the button.  It would seem the random bunkering approach has even more value in the classic courses today.Such specific bunkering that RTJ used, is basically useless today to anyone of medium length playing from proper tees.

[T_MacWood]

Tom M:Has the Golf Club been altered since the late 70s?  I played it in 1978 and prefered Muirfield Village, Scioto, and Scarlet (in that order).  How would you rate Double Eagle within this group?  I would also like your thoughts on Jack Kidwell's place in gca, and your favorite courses of his.

[Tags:]

Tags: