JES:

There was a great battle about almost this issue many years ago here... back when the great David Moriarty used to participate.  It's not exactly what you are asking, but close.

The hole:  #10 Pasatiempo

DM:  the trees on the right are stupid and should be removed - doing so allows more strategic choice, more choice of angles into the green.

TH:  the hole plays better with them (as does 17).  In each case, removing the trees takes away most if not all of the pressure on the drive.

I guess you have to know Pasa to give this any relevance... and if you do know the principles, you know also that we never came to anything close to agreement.

 

LOL
Yeah, tough to imagine, eh?

I do believe the trees were added after MacKenzie's time... as I recall this was part of DM's point.  My counterpoint was something to the effect of most times I am with this - hell at Pasa there are instances all over the course where added trees and/or those that grew up made holes lesser - just in this case, the trees made both holes better... Mackenzie after all not being God.. was he?

 

Thanks Jason,

Would firmer greens add to the interest and challenge of the tee shots on any of those examples you cited?


TH,

Interesting about MacKenzie...I think as a rule I'd fall in line with you about true preservation of what was built versus what's better today...if it's clear cut, go with what's better today...

Thanks Jason,

Would firmer greens add to the interest and challenge of the tee shots on any of those examples you cited?

Windsong - no - they are already as firm as possible - ballmarks are rare

Saguaro - no - was pretty firm when I played it

Bearpath - probably.  I have tended to play the course in the spring when it is pretty wet.

Sully, That was me that thought #8 would have more freedom if the entire LZ was short grass. It would also illustrate perfectly how short grass could be a hazard. Especially on the far left side on this photo.
Watching the final day of Q-school today, behind the 18th, there is a low mowed ramp that all the aggressive players seemed to find. Completely a function of an ideal maintenance meld since the course was considerably drier than on previous days.

To answer your orig q... Narrowing to pinch points is refreshing variety on a strategic option filled golf course. The over-use of narrowness is a major drawback on too many of the repetitive mediocre designs built over the last century.

Hard to come up with an answer on that one...

Thinking about it, maybe weak holes can be made better with narrower (and smarter) mowing lines or trees...

under specific circumstances a good hole can be made slightly better by narrowing it

but

I doubt you can turn a hole into a great hole by narrowing it...

It just depends what you're aiming for

I can think of many holes with wide fairways that I would prefer if the short grass was narrowed at one or two carefully placed "necks," particularly some par 5s. The necks would challenge longer tees shots or preferred lay up landing zones.

#1 at Tobacco Road is a great example of this as it has very wide landing areas that are semi-hidden and semi-separated by sandy hillocks.

Shivas, I agree With your discription of #1 at Seven Bridges. Can't say I cared much for this design. Played it once-so many other great tracks in Chicago-so little time.

Other than #17 at the TPC Sawgrass... no.  

I can't believe no-one has yet attempted the ritual slaughter of one of our sacred cows.
Don't make me resurrect the Case for the Prosecution thread on y'all.
TOC 1/18 could easily do with a strip of rough down the middle and/or the complete and total re-instatement of the Shivas bunker.

love,
moi.

Chiming in a little late on 10/17 at Pasatiempo.  I'm pretty sure that the trees between 10 and 17 did exist at the time MacKenzie designed the course...if you go to Pasatiempo's web site and look at the historical photos, you can see the trees on the left looking back down the 17th fairway from the 17th green.   There were  a fair number of trees on the back nine, even back then.  There's a better angle from the 10th tee in a picture that's hanging in the clubhouse, I'm headed up there tonight and I'll confirm.   And I agree with Tom, the trees put pressure on your tee shot (and provide some protection to players coming up 17)...so in a number of respects, the trees are an important part of the hole and help it play better.  But I don't think that the hole would be better if the fairway were narrower.  

There was an interesting article in The Weekly Standard this past October where Dean Barnett made a strong case for wide, playable fairways, pointing to courses from the Golden Age of golf architecture, and to Tom Doak's work, as examples of great courses that were fun for everyone to play.  He attacks narrow fairways and tight courses built from the 40s to the 90s this way:

"But there followed several decades of golf architecture dreck. Architects like Robert Trent Jones and his regrettably prolific scions dotted the American landscape with courses that were difficult and unpleasant to play--largely because they deviated from the tradition born in St. Andrews. Instead of letting each player figure out his own route from hole to hole, they funnelled all into a single narrow path.

Rees Jones, Robert Trent Jones's son, is still one of golf's most prominent architects. He describes his theory of golf architecture as follows: "My style emphasizes definition. I work hard at giving the golfer a concept as he stands over the ball. I want him to see the intended target and be able to visualize the shot." What Rees Jones omits from his reckoning is that some golfers, indeed most golfers, may be incapable of pulling off the shot that he compels them to see. Golfers have enjoyed finding their own way around St. Andrews for over 500 years. Speaking on behalf of the modern golf architecture establishment, Rees Jones in essence insists that he has discovered a better way: He will officiously preside over each and every golfer's each and every shot."  

Rob

Quote from: Andy Troeger on December 03, 2007, 06:19:18 PM

Jason,
I think the width at Saguaro is part of what separates it from so many of its other desert neighbors. It actually gives one the opportunity to play. Could some of it be maintained at rough length to add a little more challenge? Sure, but I wouldn't want it to all be desert.

Andy - my impression was a first impression so I do not know if that change would be for the better.  I would need to play the course a few more times to have an opinion.

Jason,
You're certainly entitled to your original thought, I just wanted to add another viewpoint. I appear to have thought more highly of it than the rest of the GD panel!