[mike_malone]

 Help me to appreciate this feature. I hate it.

[Tom_Doak]

How do you know what the line of play is going to be on the approach shot to a par-4 or par-5?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You were reading my mind     Same comment to Mike about the line of play? 


Mike,
Like any feature, if it is over used it will wear on a golfer.  But hazards parallel to the line of play definitely make sense just as much as center line hazards do. 

[mike_malone]

 There is some sense to that line of thinking but you need to be pretty far off line in order for it to work. Suggesting that it may provide an angled play for 5's and 4's sometimes admits it is weak.


Center line hazards are full of strategy. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mayday,


Not 100% sure what you don't like, but I will explain the side bunker theory as I have heard it from pros who also think about design.


-Good players don't hit short very often, but they do hit approach shots wide (10% of total approach shot width is a good 2 out of 3 estimate)


-Average players hit it short, and wide (about 15% of approach shot width, favoring the right, of course.)


-Frontal bunkers only hinder average and below players, lateral bunkers snare good players, too.  Thus, it is wiser to use lateral bunkers at the green.


Now, if you are arguing that those side bunkers should have a little angle to set up one side or the other as prime tee shot landing area, I would agree. If you say visually, a bunker parallel to centerline of play isn't as artistic as those with 10-30 deg. angles to the centerline of play, I would agree.  If you are arguing "bunker left, bunker right" gets boring, I would agree.

[mike_malone]

Jeff,
Agree with your comments. My view is that for the average player golf is played between the ears before you hit the shot and executing it seals the pleasure.
If bunkers on both sides of the green have no angling I see the only thought as " hit it in the middle of the green and miss the bunkers ".
I'm not asked to take on the bunkers either in my mind or with the shot.


  I played Waynesborough today and wondered if George Fazio studied Flynn. There was ample green beyond the green side bunkers which made planning shots a blast. I have not properly appreciated this course in the past.

[mike_malone]

Bunkers directly in the back of the green seem silly as well . Excuse my Flynn love but I experience his tendency to place bunkers partially in back of angled greens which I find challenging and strategic.


I sometimes wonder if design may have other considerations beyond playing golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Certainly visuals have come to dominate design, no?  Backing bunkers frame the hole, a goal of many architects.


Any green on an angle, with hazards left/right and/or Back/front create quite the challenge of matching distance to line.  Greens at 45 degrees are hardest by this measure.


Many of us also tend to use backing bunkers on shorter approaches under the theory that distance control ought to be challenged every once in a while, at least for a Sunday Pin, in an age where most greens allow enough depth for average players to roll the ball out quite far and still stay on the green.

[mike_malone]

 I think it has become almost all visual. Random rough with some undulating land is much tougher than today's bunkers. It seems that we can't avoid the homogenization of golf courses. Formulaic bunkering is common at the green.


Bunkers are so much less random than the natural or even manufactured land.


The course I played the other day that created this topic gathered my bunker shots down into a common lie which was rather easy. ( I holed one). 


Fairway would have been much more interesting.


Now I love creative bunkering. I love watching running shots at the Open get sucked into bunkers.
Flynn's tendency , as I experience it, is to angle at least one bunker at the green.


 Water, trees, and deep rough parallel to the line of play also seem weak to me.

[Tim Gallant]

Jeff,
Agree with your comments. My view is that for the average player golf is played between the ears before you hit the shot and executing it seals the pleasure.
If bunkers on both sides of the green have no angling I see the only thought as " hit it in the middle of the green and miss the bunkers ".
I'm not asked to take on the bunkers either in my mind or with the shot.

Mike,


I suppose I agree that a hole doesn't always need to default to a bunker to create the challenge, so in this respect, I believe we agree. However, on the statement above, in my mind, your argument only holds up if the pin is always at the middle of the green and if the green is flat. However, by adding a simple tilt to the green and placing the pin on the high-side, any golfer would consider a short-side miss into a parallel bunker to be catastrophic to making an up-and-down. In this case, you have to decide how much of the pin you want to take on. For a double-digit handicap, from 100 yards +, sure, they might aim for the middle of the green, which is a strategic decision to avoid the trouble. But how about from 60 yards? 40 yards? 20 yards? Are they going to challenge the pin and thus the parallel bunker?


Now, would the same bunker with the same tilted green benefit from some angle? Possibly, but I don't mind the clean lines of a parallel MacRaynor bunker as it lines both sides of a Biarritz!

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Unless every hole (including par threes) are set on a diagonal and/or is completely wide open, you will ALWAYS have some kind of lateral hazard (e.g. rough).  Think about a links course where the game was first played.  Most holes meandered between the dunes.  Of course they played over and around them but most often between/along them. The dunes were the original "lateral hazards".   


I am really not at all understanding what you are getting at other than the repetitive bunker right bunker left design which no one likes (Gordon did that as much or more than anyone). 


Again any feature that is over used sucks including centerline hazards but lateral ones were quite prominent on golf holes from day one. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()