Do you like this Bunker in the Sky?

[Bill Brightly]

"How long is the shot from under the tree?"


200 yards. (I have to play a shot from there about once each year)  

[JESII]

JES II,

What's wrong with the 2nd bunker ?

Pat,

I don't like "pinching" fairway bunkers...I like e them staggered...

Do you mean that you don't like the holes at NGLA like # 1,
# 7, # 8, # 14, # 15 # 16 and # 18 ?

# 1, # 4, # 5, # 6, # 8, # 9, # 11, # 14, # 16 and # 18 at GCGC ?

# 2, # 6, # 8, # 9 # 12, # 15 and # 17 at Pine Valley ?  

Don't shorter holes need more in the way of defenses ?[/color]

Pat,

Would you add a bunker in the left rough on #13 at Shinnecock?

Do you agree that without the property line where it is, #6 at Seminole would be a slightly improved hole without the right bunkers?

I have never been to Oakmont, but I don't love that picture...Is Oakmont the model you would use for your ideal golf course?

[Noel Freeman]

This is Banks' Hackensack CC no?

[Joe Hancock]

I don't mind the tree. I think the hole could be more interesting if the left fairway bunkers were shifted to the right by 10 yards, and then some tree removal and fairway expansion to the left of the new fairway bunker  positions. Of course, the green shapes and contours would dictate whether or not there was any reason to make that kind of a change. It would look better, and play more interesting as a short hole if there was a left or right option vs. a high and straight dictation. With the big forward tree on the right, and the big tree further down on the left as the only trees in play might be pretty cool.

Joe

[mike_malone]

 Does the tree add choices or substract them ?

[Joe Hancock]

Mayday,

Presently, it adds. If the tree isn't there, the thought process on the tee is limited to "hit the middle of the fairway". At least with the tree there, one has to decide how to negotiate the tree to achieve that middle of fairway status.

Joe

[Bill Brightly]

This is Banks' Hackensack CC no?

Yes, 14th hole

[Dan Kelly]

I think the hole could be more interesting if the left fairway bunkers were shifted to the right by 10 yards, and then some tree removal and fairway expansion to the left of the new fairway bunker  positions.

Now you're thinkin'! (You just keep thinkin', Joe. That's what you're good at.)

And as for the tree: Bill B's testimony that he has to hit from under it about once a year makes me like it even more. Seems to me that's about how often a sky bunker needs to come into play on the ground to make it come into play in the head the rest of the year.

[mike_malone]

 Then it is fine but also it still is a weak way to create strategy because it changes over time or dies.

[Sean Leary]

If that hole wasn't at Oakmont and was on a Rees course, it would get killed here....

[Bill Brightly]

I think the hole could be more interesting if the left fairway bunkers were shifted to the right by 10 yards, and then some tree removal and fairway expansion to the left of the new fairway bunker  positions.

Now you're thinkin'! (You just keep thinkin', Joe. That's what you're good at.)

And as for the tree: Bill B's testimony that he has to hit from under it about once a year makes me like it even more. Seems to me that's about how often a sky bunker needs to come into play on the ground to make it come into play in the head the rest of the year.

That's fine, Dan, and my buddies get a good laugh when I thunk the tree and have to line up the shot from 200...but the higher handicaps and women hit the tree far more often than I...

But there is NO way I would ever dare cut it down! I might remove the lightning protection...but I'd NEVER cut it down!

[Dan Kelly]

the higher handicaps and women hit the tree far more often than I...

The higher handicaps SHOULD hit the tree far more often than you. That's why they have higher handicaps.

As for the women: I have some sympathy, as the father of a pretty good girl player who has seen many badly placed "women's" tees. Are the women's shots that hit the tree bad shots? Do the better women players hit the tree *often*? Is there a good way for average women to play the hole, skirting (pardon the pun) the tree?

[Bill Brightly]

Dan,
Well, I hear from my son (a caddy) that a bunch of them play UNDER the tree!

And there is a new red tee planned on the left, about halfway down the hill. To me, it will make the hole SO much better for the women and seniors who choose that tee...Even the better women who can really hit will now have the traps in play off the drive. The tree will be there to look at, but not as an obstacle.

But gues what? A bunch of them are ticked, they want "the challenge" of dealing with the tree! (You can't win...)

[Doug Siebert]

Then it is fine but also it still is a weak way to create strategy because it changes over time or dies.

Yeah, where's the backup tree for that tree?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill Brightly,

What most can't relate to is the extreme elevation of the tee on this hole.

If you had a ground level photo taken from the left side of the fairway, or a photo from the green taken back to the tee it might provide a different perspective and different conclusions.

[ChipOat]

No, I do not like it.  No, it is not good design.  And to Tom Huckaby: I am not tired of saying so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't like "pinching" fairway bunkers...I like e them staggered...

Would you add a bunker in the left rough on #13 at Shinnecock?

There's no need to, the substantive change in elevation on the left side rough and that slope take care of that.[/color]

Do you agree that without the property line where it is, #6 at Seminole would be a slightly improved hole without the right bunkers?

If the property line wasn't where it is the hole would probably have been designed differently.  I think the existing right side bunkers function well, visually and physically.[/color]

I have never been to Oakmont, but I don't love that picture...


I think you'd love the hole and the way it plays.[/color]

Is Oakmont the model you would use for your ideal golf course ?

It's certainly ONE of them.[/color]

Sean Leary,

I agree 1,000 percent.

If I showed that hole and asked who the architect was, I'd venture to say that a high percentage of the respondents would have said Rees and would have proceeded to excoriate the work.