[Patrick_Mucci]

With all of the concern about the ongoing lengthening of golf courses, the return of strategy and options, does Hoylake present the tutorial for future design ?

Is the placement of penal bunkers in the long hitters LZ part of the solution, in concert will allowing corridors of play for the shorter or less skilled golfer ?

Does the combination of penal bunkers and doglegs offset the tendency to flog away, while at the same time allowing the average or shorter hitter to maneuver around the golf course ?

What lessons can architects take from Hoylake and the recent British Open ?

[JSlonis]

Pat,

The one lesson architects and golfers as well could learn, is that bunkers are supposed to be "hazards".  Hazards...from the word hazardous.

Unfortunately our prevailing mindset here in the US is that bunkers are more an annoyance, or in the worst of cases, a refuge from the high surrounding rough.  You don't see guys trying to blast the ball into greenside bunkers on links courses like Hoylake, but you do see that at Winged Foot, Baltusrol, etc.  For tour players, our Americanized "hazards" are now perfectly manicured havens that usually offer little resistance to scoring.

It's a totally different outlook.  Too often bunkers are viewed more as window dressing for the course as opposed to an integral part of the design, and something to be certainly avoided.  Even on this site, there is constant talk about the "look" of bunkers, but far little talk about their overall difficulty. With the way our courses are designed and the fact that very few American golfers actually believe that bunkers are supposed to be penal, nothing is going to change anytime soon.

[John Kavanaugh]

With all of the concern about the ongoing lengthening of golf courses, the return of strategy and options, does Hoylake present the tutorial for future design ?

Is the placement of penal bunkers in the long hitters LZ part of the solution, in concert will allowing corridors of play for the shorter or less skilled golfer ?

Does the combination of penal bunkers and doglegs offset the tendency to flog away, while at the same time allowing the average or shorter hitter to maneuver around the golf course ?

What lessons can architects take from Hoylake and the recent British Open ?

Pat,

Isn't the above a formula for RTJ 1960's architecture...

[Mike_Sweeney]

Patrick,

You are forgetting Mucci Lesson #2, architects implement what Greens Chairmen tell them to install. The question should be posed to the guys who write the checks!

[john_stiles]

Hoylake was a tutorial for the players.

Would the architectural tutorial be to provide open greens but with greenside hazards so that pins can be tucked under fast and firm conditions ?   So that in this manner, the postion in the fairway for a shot that had to be 'bounced in' would be meaningful.  

So one of the most powerful hitters played short of the hazards all week, while all the others (equally powerful hitters) pretty much pounded away flying by the hazards but perhaps in the rough, or too close to play a wedge short and bounce it in.

Woods only won by a few strokes. If pins had not been tucked behind bunkers and at green edges, scoring would have been much lower and others would have had more chances if chosing to 'pound' it.

If your home course were that brown, and the greens spotchy brown and green,  how long would the superintendent or the  'club powers to be'  last at 99% of the courses in the US ?

It was a tutorial for players to THINK about course setup.

[Paul_Turner]

Less is more.

Often just a single feature can dominate strategy i.e. the green side bunker on 10.

[ForkaB]

Bravo, Paul!

Both of your sentences are spot on.

Rich

[RJ_Daley]

It is a tutorial for spectators from the States.  

The sights of the links in its' brown glories, with bunkers popping up and penalizing whereas the mundane tee shots and approaches in U.S. style golf pose no great anxiety and sometimes see players beg to get in them.  On the Links, like Hoylake,  while watching the ball soar through the air, wondering what outcome awaits the bounding ball is a spectator thrill.  The regular U.S. spectator is taught that there is a different game.  One hopes that would translate to their imagination of how it could be here.  

But, the conventional wisdom of fair and soft conditions, fairly placed and maintained bunkering as an ideal, is a high hurdle to overcome, and perhaps many more tutoring sessions are in order...

Let's face it, you can't do this sort of random/varied penal bunkering-strategic-design everywhere... can you?

[ForkaB]

Let's face it, you can't do this sort of random/varied penal bunkering-strategic-design everywhere... can you?

Why not, Dick?

As long as you have fast and firm fairways (ideally with a bit of wind from varying directions) and gathering bunkers, well Bob's your Uncle!

[Jeff Taylor]

Tutorial maybe, but it certainly is a reminder that risk/reward (strategic) is still the best philosophy for golf course design. The Old Course is famed for multiple avenues of play. Linksland sets up for that kind of design more so than other types of topographies.
It is good that the Open helps us remember where golf came from and that more choices are better than fewer choices.

[Philip Gawith]

Much has been made about the difficult pin positions during the tournament, including on this thread, but it bears repeating that this was only because of the extremely benign weather conditions.

It is a shame that the wind did not blow hard at least once because Tiger would then almost certainly have had to change strategy and hit driver on some holes,  because otherwise some of the par fours eg one and seventeen, would have been out of range (assuming the prevailing wind off the sea). And some of the holes that appeared relatively simple eg three, would have been absolute brutes.

I am not saying he would not have pulled it off, just that it would have been nice if the demands  on him and other players had been a bit more varied.

[JSlonis]

Let's face it, you can't do this sort of random/varied penal bunkering-strategic-design everywhere... can you?

Why not, Dick?

As long as you have fast and firm fairways (ideally with a bit of wind from varying directions) and gathering bunkers, well Bob's your Uncle!

"Bob's your Uncle"?  This is the second time I've heard this in the last two weeks.

I was recently at Hidden Creek GC helping out my friend Ian Dalzell.  One of his assistant professionals, Scott, is from Gullane, Scotland and I heard him use this expression a couple of times.  At first I didn't catch what he said, so I asked him to repeat it, and he gives me..."and Bob's your Uncle."

My first reaction was, "what the hell are you saying?"  He told me to think about it and figure it out.  I love those cheeky UK sayings!

Eventually, I came up with:  If "A" leads to "B", which in turn leads to "C", well then Bob's your Uncle.  Am I close?  It's a great phrase...

Is Millie my Aunt?

[Kirk Gill]

For what it's worth:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bob1.htm


Honestly, though, if the lesson of Hoylake is to design courses that reward long irons from the tee to stay short of trouble and in the fairway, and thus necessesitate long iron approaches to nastily placed pins..............where's the fun in that?

[JSlonis]

Kirk,

Thanks for the info.

Hoylake didn't make everyone play the same way.  That is what the guys on this site are pleased with.  It is the design coupled with the conditions that allowed for a variety of strategy.

The greatest player in the game chose to take the fairway bunkers out of play and rely on his other wordly mid/long iron play.  I don't think he was neccessarily rewarded for this, it's just that he was playing at such a high level, he made those long approach shots seem a lot easier than they actually were.  The fun for Tiger was getting to smooch the Claret Jug for the 3rd time.

If the conditions were different, I'm sure Tiger would've adapted to whatever he felt played to his advantage.  Remember, not only is he more gifted physically than his competitors, he outhinks them as well.

If you analyze his play for the tournament, his strategy was quite simple:

*Keep the ball in play, out of the fairway bunkers.  Doing this, kept double bogeys out of the equation.

*Play to the middle of the greens on the majority of longer par 4's, and rely on his excellent touch with the putter to either two putt or make an occasional birdie.

*Kill the par 5's.  Which were basically playing as 4 1/2 par's all week.

[ForkaB]

Jamie

You got it!  It's a way of stopping a bunch of blether where you can't really finish the argument, so you just say "BYU."

Kirk

You don't got it!

Last week you watched a master at his trade, showing the rest of his fellow tradesmen how (relatively) inferior they were to him.  If anybody else in the field had the imagination and ability to consistently hit 200-240 yard approach shots to the middle of those greens, they might have taken irons off the tee too.

The most amazing thing about this Open is that up to it we were all moaning about Smashball and how the game had turned into a Driver/Wedge birdie fest, and yet Tiger won arguably the most prestigious tournament of all by banishing the driver and wedge.

The more I think of it, Tiger's approach play with long irons last week was probably the greatest exhibition of ball striking skill I have ever seen--including Hogan's in his match on Shell's WWOG vs. Snead, which really says something.

[Mike_Cirba]

I thought they were talking about that grand gentleman of this site, Mr. Huntley.  

[Kirk Gill]

Understand, I'm not belittling Tiger's achievement in mastering Hoylake the way he did. I couldn't agree more that Tiger gave a master class on handling a golf course. It took both imagination and consummate skill.

I'm just saying that for ME, a course where I am asked continually to hit long irons off the tee short of trouble followed by long-iron approaches just wouldn't be much fun to PLAY. As a tournament test for the best in the world, well, maybe so. Fun to watch, perhaps. But Patrick Mucci asked if this strategy presented a "tutorial for future design." If it does, then it's true - perhaps I don't "get it." But I'm larnin.'

[ForkaB]

Kirk

Got it, however...

Just remember that everybody but Tiger hit driver off the tees.  Unless you are a better player than Ernie or Sergio or Chris, you could blast away with impunity at Hoylake.

[James Edwards]

Rich,

Nicely put... exactly my take on the week.

65's were shot by Woods hitting long Irons and long irons and Cabrera hitting Driver and wedges everywhere... That says everything to me!  Strategy wins this time around//

Analyse the course for its strategy, its flow, its brilliance, its fun, its horror and we have something close to what I would class as a golf course fit for the best players in the world...

[Tom Huckaby]

Question re Hoylake, hopefully to be taken in the right light now that the furor has died down at least a little...:

Is it any FUN to play?

I've never been there.  All I know is from what I read here and elsewhere, and see in pictures and on TV.

Before the Open, all the talk was pretty much that it's a VERY difficult course - the oft-used "dentist reaches for the drill" quote was trotted out quite a bit.

After the Open, well... I can see that is in indeed a wonderful strategic test for the best players in the world - it's incredibly cool that the winner could play it primarily with irons while all the contenders primarily used drivers.  The shots into the greens did seem to require great care.

I just still don't see anything that would get me to change the view that for us normal golfers, it is a painful test and not much more.  See, there's no way on earth a guy like me hits anything but drivers unless I play VERY short tees.  As Rich says, there's plenty of room to blast away.  And I'd need to hit drivers to get to places I'd have a chance on the approach shots - I can't hit the soaring 200 yard 7irons Tiger does... That's a low burning 3iron for me.  I need to get to where I could get some loft, spin, control....

Then looking at the course in a view sense, well... I too dig brown colors every once in awhile, but outside of that, there really isn't all that much visually interesting, is there?

Then re the approaches, well... is anything there really all that special or unique in the world of links golf?

I have zero doubt Hoylake is a great golf course and belongs in the rota.

I just find myself less than itching to jump on a plane and play it, as I sure as hell am re St. Enodoc, pictures of which were just posted...

Hoylake to me still looks like a lot of work and not much fun - for us mortals anyway.

So where do I have this wrong?  Set me right.  I want to love this golf course....

TH

[RJ_Daley]

What will it play like the day after tomorrow, or next month?  Will they cut back the already browned out rough?  Will they pull back the FW edges another 5-10 yards on each side?  Will the surrounds be made even more generous with cutting back some of the native?  Of course there won't be grandstands everywhere either.  I'm thinking that with the areas trodden by the spectators, the places where the grandstands were, and cutting deeper into the native rough by widening FWs some, AND moving up to play it at about 6400-6800 yards... it might be a pretty fun course.

Rich, BYU is it sort of like ending the blather with; 'on the other hand she had warts...' (or Shwartz if you are OTF ) ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kirk Gill,

Do you equate the average golfer's game, or your game, with Tiger's game ?

I wouldn't view the question in the context of a golfer who hits his 2-iron 280 to 300+ yards.

[Kirk Gill]

Mr. Mucci.

I most certainly do not equate my game with either Tiger's game, or with the game of any tour pro's. I don't equate my game with that of any quality competitive player.

That said, I can play golf. I do play golf. The design of a golf course affects the way I play. Like Mr. Huckaby, I generally have to hit driver on most 4's to give myself a chance on the approach. If I'm faced with a host of penal bunkers where I would typically hit my drive, am thus nudged towards hitting long iron or the like off the tee, and am then left with a similar-length shot to a well-protected green.........then gir's won't be very likely. A solid chance at gir is something I find to be fun.

I would not presume to speak for you, but perhaps in your original question you were suggesting that Hoylake could serve as a tutorial for architects to design tournament courses for the best players in the world. I would not disagree with that assertion.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mr. Mucci.
I would not presume to speak for you, but perhaps in your original question you were suggesting that Hoylake could serve as a tutorial for architects to design tournament courses for the best players in the world. I would not disagree with that assertion.

That's how I see it as well.  Hoylake works wonderfully as a championship test, masterfully so.

But my questions remain - is it any fun for us mortals?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

The design of a golf course affects the way I play. Like Mr. Huckaby, I generally have to hit driver on most 4's to give myself a chance on the approach.

If I'm faced with a host of penal bunkers where I would typically hit my drive, am thus nudged towards hitting long iron or the like off the tee, and am then left with a similar-length shot to a well-protected green.........then gir's won't be very likely. A solid chance at gir is something I find to be fun.

But, your driver can't reach the penal bunkers that are reached by the PGA Touring Pro's drivers.

I would think, that if Tiger hit his 2-iron 280 to 300+ yards, safely, that your driver, at best, would be in the same LZ or shorter.

Remember too, that they're playing the Championship tees.

I doubt that you'd have to lay up ala Tiger, and thus, the golf course would present a different challenge since your game would integrate on a different level with the architectural features[/color]

I would not presume to speak for you, but perhaps in your original question you were suggesting that Hoylake could serve as a tutorial for architects to design tournament courses for the best players in the world. I would not disagree with that assertion.

No, I wasn't referencing designs solely for tournament courses, but for courses that could accomodate play for the best players in the world AND the average golfer.

Too often that task would appear to be conflicted.

Hoylake seems to have provided an architectural mold for accomplishing the dual purpose.[/color]

Tom Huckaby,

If you play from the tees commensurate with your game, as opposed to being macho in your approach to playing the golf course, I would imagine that Hoylake is a joy to play day in and day out, especially with the wind.

And, I believe that you would be precluded from playing the championship tees by the club.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()