[JESII]

This question occurred to me while reading Tom Pauls thread on the 14th at Merion about a week ago.

Should a centerline bunker (such as TomP's proposed on the elbow of #14) make all players consider it?

During that thread there was some mention of it being "weenie-sized" and since I'm Irish that seems awfully small.

How many players would actually have to consider it from the tee?

Would it make sense, when building center hazards, to let them grow to a point at which they demand consideration from virtually all players on that hole?

If we are designing enough width into the hole, do we force everyone to one side of the hazard or the other and sacrifice the laying up in front of it option? Or is that option a significant part of the concept?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

In the mind of and the writing of Max Behr on this subject, there are some answers to your question. He felt that it was OK to use the occasional hazard feature that was small within a massive expanse of fairway.

In his mind making them small COULD serve two purposes;

1. Even if they were small they'd still make the player think (a psychological feature) which was the ultimate purpose (of the architect and the golf course).

2. If they were small enough and the player still got in them the fact that they were small would more readily lead him to blame no one but himself for getting in it.

Behr felt if some feature was considered to be natural or look to the golfer like Nature made it somehow it would lead to less criticism from the golfer and what he was less critical of would become more permanent.

By the way, the bunker on #14 I proposed on Merion's #14 is not my idea, it was Flynn's.

[paul cowley]

Tom...I know this is slighty OT, but, how or did Behr address the Raynor/MacDonald paradox?..... did he dismiss them or were his writings a response in a sense to their style...were they social?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sully:

In his mind making them small COULD serve two purposes;

1. Even if they were small they'd still make the player think (a psychological feature) which was the ultimate purpose (of the architect and the golf course).

2. If they were small enough and the player still got in them the fact that they were small would more readily lead him to blame no one but himself for getting in it.

Now, that is some deep thinking on the mind of the golfer.  I think most gca's today would think more of the visual scale of the bunker in proportion to its surroundings, and not in the golfers mind.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Principal's Nose on TOC and their look-alike at Woking (#4) are not large, but very effective.

[TEPaul]

"Now, that is some deep thinking on the mind of the golfer.  I think most gca's today would think more of the visual scale of the bunker in proportion to its surroundings, and not in the golfers mind."

JeffB:

That's one of the reasons Max Behr and what he wrote was so interesting.

"Tom...I know this is slighty OT, but, how or did Behr address the Raynor/MacDonald paradox?....."

Paul:

I doubt Max Behr was aware of something called the "Raynor/Macdonald paradox". I believe Tom MacWood thought that one up and I don't think Behr was aware of Tom MacWood either.  

[TEPaul]

"I think most gca's today would think more of the visual scale of the bunker in proportion to its surroundings,"

JeffB:

Do you figure when sheep helped create some of the original natural linksland bunkers by nestling into the lee of the wind, or do you figure Mother Nature with her wind and rain and erosion made natural bunkers they were thinking of the visual scale of the bunker in porportion to its surroundings?    

I've never been a real big fan of some of the so-called "art priniciples" in golf course architecture, at least not in "natural" looking golf architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()