News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2009, 06:00:19 PM »
dislodges most golfers from their comfort zone ?

Which AF dislodges YOU from your comfort zone.

OB is not to be considered as it's not an architectural feature within the confines of the golf course.

As a corollary, what green speed takes you out of your comfort zone ?

Pat

I don't know what dislodges me most form my comfort zone.  That seems to change on a weekly basis. 

However, I will mention a feature which isn't used much these days, but was once a very prominent design concept.  I suspect the use of front to back greens has lost so much favour with archies because golfers get uptight about it.  More is the pity.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jaeger Kovich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2009, 06:11:53 PM »
1. I think centerline hazards in the drive zone off the tee drive make most golfers uncomfortable. (Just played a hole like this today and my home course has one as well. They don't know what to do! Q: "Where do I aim?" A: "Pick a side, or aim down the middle and hope you dont hit it straight!")

2. Greenside bunkers that are set 10 yards off the green. They are great for maintenance crews because you can get bigger mowers in there to take care of the rough, but I hate that mid-range bunker shot!

3. Slow greens kill me. I just switched from a custom short putter to a belly putter because I am not good putting from long distance. PS: worked great today, even on slowish greens!

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2009, 06:41:52 PM »
Putting up or down a two tiered green.

Down hill lies to a green that is above you.

Hitting from a bunker with another bunker between you and the green.

Hitting from a bunker with another bunker on the other side of the green.

Jason Connor

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2009, 08:38:38 PM »
As despised as they may be here, if you really want to take the average golfer out of his comfort zone, I'd say build an island green.

Not that I'd ever do that.

We discovered that in good company there is no such thing as a bad golf course.  - James Dodson

Trey Stiles

Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2009, 09:23:07 PM »
Par 3
Early in the round
Short Iron
Down Hill
Narrow Green
Cross Wind away from the water
Left Water / Bulkhead all the way to the green surface

Yes , I'm thinking about a specific hole .... The bad news is that it's on my home club and it's got my number



A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2009, 09:29:33 PM »
A midlength dogleg (especially right) that requires driver but slopes to the outside of the dogleg.  Especially if there is serious trouble to the outside.  (I'm sure this is because about half of my driver fade attempts are double-crosses.)

As to green speed, I don't mind fast unless the greens weren't built for the speed they are playing.  I don't like slow greens; it exposes my putting stroke for what it really is.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Wade Whitehead

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2009, 09:46:26 PM »
Complexities in the layup area of an unreachable par five always put me on the defensive.  Smartly placed bunkers or hazards or even sidehill contour can really make that shot a challenge and can cause a great deal of uncertainty on a shot many players take for granted.

It's interesting to observe how many folks say slow green speeds give them fits.  I've read many times that slowing down greens on the PGA Tour might make them more of a challenge, and might bring new players into the mix.  This thread might reinforce the notion.

WW

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2009, 11:21:31 PM »
Random tall "fescue" (which is more like thick rye grass) that border both side of the fairways.

Nothing ticks me off more than a ball that barely trickles into this stuff. Especially when it is blind from the tee as now you need to walk BACK to the tee (but i doubt that most people do).

Paul Carey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #33 on: August 25, 2009, 11:46:59 AM »
You may think I am crazy. :-\

I believe a hazard (water) behind a green with a back pin is a more uncomfortable shot than over a hazard to a front pin.  I find I am sure of how much I can carry a shot over a hazard but I get very uncomfortable with a back pin with a hazard or trouble behind.  I usually hit the shot well short of the back pin...afraid to be too aggressive.

Obviously it is more relevant with a club shorter than a six iron.

PC

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2009, 10:45:03 PM »
I'm shocked.

Other than Jeff Brauer, no one seems to feel that water flanking one or both sides of a hole gets golfers out of their comfort zone.

How can OB be that objectional and a lateral hazard in the same position acceptable ?

Jason Walker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2009, 10:51:30 PM »
Pat, you asked for what architecural feature most takes golfers out of their comfort zone.  I can't think of anything more than a forced carry off the tee over water.  I didn't see anything posted that in my opinion would offer more of a challenge for the AVERAGE golfer.

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2009, 10:55:05 PM »
I'm shocked.

How can OB be that objectional and a lateral hazard in the same position acceptable ?

Because of stroke and distance.

Of course any situation which could cause a lost ball should cause equal strain (e.g. dense forest undergrowth, impossibly thick "gunsch" etc.)
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Buck Wolter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2009, 10:59:02 PM »
For me partial blindness is often worse than completely blind. Seeing part of the fairway or green and having to guess what is lurking is harder than just picking a spot on a hillside and trying to hit over it.
Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience -- CS Lewis

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2009, 10:13:24 AM »
I'm shocked.

How can OB be that objectional and a lateral hazard in the same position acceptable ?

Because of stroke and distance.

What's that got to do with acceptance, it's a penalty, far more of a penalty than bunkers, blind shots, etc., etc..


Of course any situation which could cause a lost ball should cause equal strain (e.g. dense forest undergrowth, impossibly thick "gunsch" etc.)


Water flanking the entire hole is far more dangerous than dense forest flanking the entire hole.
I've hit lots of balls into the woods that bounced back out into the fairway and/or rough.
I've never hit a ball into a pond/lake that bounced back out into the fairway and/or rough.


Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2009, 10:28:10 AM »
I'm shocked.

Other than Jeff Brauer, no one seems to feel that water flanking one or both sides of a hole gets golfers out of their comfort zone.

How can OB be that objectional and a lateral hazard in the same position acceptable ?

One is drop and re-load, the other hopefully you have a much closer next shot!!

Thats why the long carry over gunch/water/whatever is the worst because effectivly its just as bad....and unlike OB, you have to challenge it as opposed to just keeping your ball straight.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2009, 10:40:30 AM »
Kalen,

You  wouldn't like The Medalist, especially with a wind out of the west.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What architectural feature
« Reply #41 on: August 26, 2009, 10:47:00 AM »
Kalen,

You  wouldn't like The Medalist, especially with a wind out of the west.

Pat,

As a high capper right now, there are probably a fair amount of courses I "wouldn't like".   ;D  But that being said, I'm sure there are plenty of tough courses that I would enjoy getting my butt handed to me, especially some of the classics like a Oakmont or PV.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back