This sums up what I believe to be the monumental divide between factions of opinion on what constitutes quality golf course architecture.

Be it the Lon Hinkle tree or the new ANGC. Those who seek to prevent certain people from doing certain things is contrary to the spirit of the sport, the cradle, and a fun golfing experience.

Since C.B.'s days in old Chicago, those who attempted to improve the sport with vertical obstacles have been making freshmen mistakes.

Thank goodness Sand Hills came along and re-introduced the world to just how novice and ill-conceived their additions really are.

Add lush rough in close proximity to greens and fairways to that list of mistakes.

JB- I don't know about phantom drops from the gunk. I'm sure their conscience is their guide. But lets not limit ball fudging to Sand Hills members who participate on this board. I've seen others do it and as with most things, the gods are watching and re-act in kind.

Brent, You caught me. I do not mind the occasional use of vertical hazards. But by all means, they need to be sparingly used. I'd cite Cypress's penultimate and home holes as examples of sparingly.

Where did you guys here about this lateral rule?

I've never played with a member there, maybe that's why?

What is a "poof" if not a "vertical hazard?"

Say what?!

Adam, you want the proverbial "lines of charm" vs. "dictated route" - correct?  I do think the Hinkle tree is required to cover up a poor routing at times...

JB- I don't know about phantom drops from the gunk. I'm sure their conscience is their guide. But lets not limit ball fudging to Sand Hills members who participate on this board. I've seen others do it and as with most things, the gods are watching and re-act in kind.

Adam,

I was referring to members of GCA taking phantom drops not the actual members of Sand Hills.  Even I being one to not look a gift horse in the mouth would not question how or why or where a member of Sand Hills may choose to drop his ball.  The practice of not insulting members of top ten courses is sanctioned under the HRAE...or known as the Hooray rule.

Adam,
I have almost everything to learn about this subject and little to offer, but here goes:

It seems to me that one dividing line is between those courses (design + maintenance) that i) strive to expose to the greatest possible degree the difference in “skill-level” between one player and another, and to manifest that difference in terms of scores and, ii) those courses that strive to minimize (or at least to re-prioritize) the differences is “skill-level”, and not especially in terms of how it manifests itself in scores.

The first type of course obviously aims to test, and is best-suited for, the professional game; even its criteria for what constitutes “skill” (i.e. the ability to execute almost perfectly a wide-variety of clearly-define shots) speaks to the goals and measuring-sticks of the professional golfer, especially in the context of stroke-play.  

(By the way, from what I’ve read, I think Augusta is now probably more this type of course than it’s ever been before, which, now that I think more about it, is probably okay by me: from where I sit, Augusta is there to host the Masters once a year, and this year any lack of excitement, for me, had more to do with Phil and Vijay and Ernie not being there with Tiger for the last few holes than with anything else…but I’m probably missing a lot of what others are seeing, or not seeing.)

The second type of course is the amateurs’ course, in that it aims to provide a wonderful golfing experience to a wide-variety of players of differing skills while still testing – especially in the context of match play – those skills.  To do so, I think, it has to define “skills” more broadly than the first type of course, i.e. it’s not so much about executing shots perfectly as it is about the player recognizing that he can’t, and then finding imaginative approaches to play the course and to compete on it, even if those approaches have not been “prescribed” by the architect/design (though they’ve probably been “allowed for” by the architect/design.)

The only problem I see is that the ethos of the professional game has rarely had as much influence/impact on the amateur game as it has now.  It’s just a feeling (or a guess), but never before has the professional’s definition of skill and the approaches to testing that skill (e.g. fast greens) been as important to the amateur golfer as it is now.  And the only reason I think this IS a problem is the costs involved in designing and maintaining these so-called “championship test” for courses that will never host such a stroke-play championship for professional golfers.

Peter

John,

Much of the gunch at Wild Horse is definitely playable.  Like I said, I think it is a local rule to keep play moving.

I played there last year in the fall on a Friday morning and they were moving the tees way up for the weekend play.  I'm not quite sure what the "weekend play" is like, but I'm led to believe that many of the locals come out to play who may or may not be avid golfers.  

Barnbougle Dunes has the same rule regarding balls hit into the marram grass and it's definitely not "golf."  On the other hand, without that rule I cannot imagine how long the rounds would take there, nor how many would fall victim to the Tasmanian Tiger snake, so let discretion be the better part of valor...

Mark

Quote from: Scott Szabo on April 12, 2007, 11:29:59 AM

I believe this rule is in play at Wild Horse to keep play moving along.  

Have they ever heard of a provisional ball?

If they assume that the gunch is a lateral water hazard (there aren't any other kinds of lateral hazards), does that mean a player can't ground his club or move loose impediments or do they get rid of those rules also in the name of keeping play moving along.

After a while you have to wonder what game is being played as it obviously isn't golf.

John --

My home course is a muni (Twin Lakes in Clifton, VA) where most fairways are lined with dense sets of trees (the course is not named the Oaks for nothing) and nasty underbrush. Many of these areas are red-staked hazards, I believe to speed up play.  This does force one to take a drop w/penalty, and you cannot ground your club, etc. -- though I'm sure most golfers ignore these rules (hopefully they don't keep a handicap).

Do you see problems with this policy?  I do believe it helps speed up play.

Andy, It never ceases to amaze me how subtle enough terrain movement is needed for quality gca.

Adam,
Probably true, although "subtle" is hard to define and probably varies from person to person. I would guess our opinions on GCA still would have some "subtle" differences though which may or may not downgrade me to "freshman" status by your definition  

Not that it has anything to do with the original topic, but I can confirm that _many_ desert courses here in Arizona have adopted a local rule treating the desert as a "lateral water hazard."

Tom

I am discouraged to hear that Barnbougle has such a local rule, snakes or no snakes.  (I wandered around those dunes aplenty before there were any fairways and never got bit; I hope Bill Coore has the same good fortune.)

I don't know why Barnbougle would need such a rule, we all played it several times without losing very many golf balls.