News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« on: April 22, 2002, 02:39:14 PM »
The following is from an article by Ron Whitten on the AOTD thread, which I thought bore some wider viewing, and possible discussion...particularly Silva's thoughts on random bunkering, which I applaud wholeheartedly.

"....But if anything, Silva has been more intrigued with Seth Raynor architecture. He touched up a few holes at Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh, host of the 2002 Curtis Cup, and at Mountain Lake Club in Florida. He also totally restored Lookout Mountain GC outside Chattanooga in accordance with Raynor's original plans. (Raynor had died during construction and many of his intended bunkers were never built.) What those experiences have given him, Silva says, is a new perspective on what "vintage golf design" is all about.

"I think it means random bunkers," he explains. "No more of this functional bunker crap, where a bunker has to go 250 yards slice side, 280 yards hook side. The courses that really have a beautiful palette have random bunkers. Some bunkers at the beginning of a fairway, some at the landing area, some are approach bunkers. And there are others sprinkled in between. What they do is give the golf course flow.

"You know why the Old Course at St. Andrews is still a great golf course? Because the wooden shafts would hit over the first group of bunkers, the steel shafts over the next group of bunkers and now the titanium shafts have to hit over the group after that. It's random bunkering."

Silva's appreciation for the old-style art is reflected in his most recent work. Waverly Oaks, a daily-fee in Plymouth, Mass., sports a hunkered-down set of greens accented by steep-sloped geometric bunkers highly reminiscent of Raynor. The exquisite Cape Cod National, a private course in Brewster, Mass., looks even more retro, thanks in part to high wispy fescue grasses outlining most bunkers. Its greens are inverted saucers, toned-down versions of Donald Ross designs at Pinehurst No. 2, most flowing off into subtle chipping areas. What's more, Silva's bunkers there are scattered all over.

"They're put in where the land accepts the bunkers," Silva says. "We finished the cuts and fills at Cape Cod National, then we started placing bunkers. Where the land allowed them."

In the process, Silva utilized Raynor's trick of using bunkers to make steep transitions in elevation. The right side of the long par-4 11th, for instance, drops down into a long strip bunker, then into a sink hole. The bunker shouldn't come into play, but if it does, the player will be grateful for its existence. At the par-5 15th, Silva countered a pond on the left front corner of the green with a hidden bunker at the right front corner. Is that hidden bunker unfair? No, because it keeps a ball from bounding downhill into a wooded ravine.

"Too many architects think traditional design means not moving much dirt and not doing anything artificial," Silva says. "That's missing the point. You tell me these Raynor greens aren't artificial? There's nothing more artificial! But they're great greens. And easy to build."

"What's more," he says, "traditional golf shouldn't be boring. Donald Ross wasn't boring. You should see his original nine at Rolling Rock, and how 'untraditional' it is. Deep steep bunkers, crossbunkers, wild green contours-hollows instead of inverted saucers-where did that come from? If you went to Pinehurst and then Rolling Rock, you'd never think the same guy did both."

The same can be said of Brian Silva's work. His recent work at Captains, two new nines merged with the original 18, graphically shows his progress. His Black Creek outside Chattanooga will be his full-blown tribute to Raynor. But don't be surprised if his Bison Run north of New York City hints of Tillinghast. Silva's stuff is as varied and intriguing as any in golf today. Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to have his design critic credentials revoked.





« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2002, 03:07:04 PM »
Silva says:

"No more of this functional bunker crap, where a bunker has to go 250 yards slice side, 280 yards hook side. The courses that really have a beautiful palette have random bunkers."

OK. No more functional bunkers.  Bunkers should be random. Got it.

Then Whitten says:

"At the par-5 15th, Silva countered a pond on the left front corner of the green with a hidden bunker at the right front corner. Is that hidden bunker unfair? No, because it keeps a ball from bounding downhill into a wooded ravine."

OK.  Silva bunkers are functional.  They are placed to serve a specific purpose.

Anyone but me confused here?

Does either Silva or Whitten read their own stuff?

Bob

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2002, 03:11:29 PM »
Bob,

I think he's saying that there can (should?) be both random and functional bunkers.  

You know, it's funny Silva mentioned that, because I was thinking of starting a thread called "Left Handed Architecture", which would point out a few things that don't makes sense as more and more lefties play the game (not right-handed as they almost had to a generation ago).

The longer Draw bunker, and the shorter fade bunker is part of that stereotypical deal.

Also, just imagine the classic redan where you try to hit a low-running "fade" in there......of course, that's where the "reverse redan" comes in, but do they truly work as well?

  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2002, 03:23:28 PM »
Mike,
The high draw is the shot of choice for me when playing a Redan. That low fade just runs too much.  :)

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2002, 07:02:20 PM »
Mike
Thanks for sharing the article, I too like what he says. His comment "they're put in where the land accepts the bunkers," reminds me of Harry Colt's philosophy. Variety adds interest.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott Wicker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2002, 05:49:18 AM »
Nothing confusing here at all.  Random bunkering has a certain appeal and sometimes the lay of the land calls for a bunker that just happens to function in the golfers favor.  

Also, as a left-handed player I think the reverse redan works quite well.  Whether going to the left or right it is hard to go wrong with the shot values required by a well positioned redan.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Scott Wicker

Mike_Cirba

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2002, 06:58:07 AM »
Scott,

Perhaps it's simply my inability to hit a low running fade that's at issue here.  I doubt anyone would look at my game and say straight-faced, "he's got all the shots".  ;)

However, I was more asking the reverse-redan question of the righthanders here, because they would in effect have the same shot that we do on a regular redan.  

Somehow, in either situation, the controlled draw seems to work best on a redan style green, and their reverse counterparts don't seem to me to be as effective due to trajectory issues for most golfers.    

Don't get me wrong...I LOVE redans.  It's just that I'm usually playing my second shot from the right side somewhere, and left with that sheer downhill chip.  

Me and redans are like George Archer described the setup for the 1971 US Open at Pebble Beach after shooting 89.  "This course is built all around my game...it touches no part of it."  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Randy Van Sickle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2002, 12:59:28 PM »
I've played Cape Cod National several times and can attest to the good fortune of finding one of these "strip" bunkers.

A significant chunk of this course borders conservation land and cranberry bogs, all through hilly terrain.  As a result, as was mentioned earlier, these bunkers can be more saviors as opposed to hazards.

This can be a very strategic golf course, and I did not appreciate the nuances the first few times there. I first thought of it as "tricked-up".  It is actually not tricked up, but just tricky, in that you really have to think your way around this course, even after playing it numerous times.  I think Silva made the most of the land that he was presented.

Following is a photo of the 13th, a 239 yard 1-shotter (yeah, right), with those long bunkers along the left.  The area to the left of the bunkers is a cranberry bog, considered a lateral "environmental" hazard.  The prevailing wind is about 15mph from left-to-right.  This photo was taken to the left of and below the elevated tee

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Can't get back to RDGC soon enough

John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2002, 02:31:00 PM »
Anyone know details regarding the Bison Run project outside NYC by Silva? I checked the CSM web site and it's not current.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Integrity in the moment of choice

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2002, 07:13:47 PM »
Mike Cirba,

Come and play Preakness Hills in Wayne, NJ.

Then tell me what you think of Silva's bunker work in the context of the original Tucker bunkers on most of the holes, compared to some of the holes that were altered and modernized by Silva.

Architects like golf courses can evolve and change.
They can also produce incongruous work, sometimes on their own, other times under the undue influence of their employer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2002, 08:02:13 PM »
Patrick;

I'd love to come up and play sometime this year.  Thanks very much for the invitation.

I would certainly give you my honest and direct opinion of any work that Silva did there, just as I speculated that his decision to create grass faces on the bunkers at Seminole was probably incongruous to what Ross's original intent was for that course...high sand flashed faces emulating the neighboring breaking waves as pictured in Geoff Shackleford's "Golden Age of Golf Design", page 134.  In truth, I have never understood the commonly accepted wisdom that there is a particular "type" of Ross bunker, when the historical pictoral evidence suggest a wider, site-specific variety.

In the case of Silva, I really think he is an architect who has had a completely newfound appreciation of classic architecture, and I believe there is sufficient evidence of that in his more recent work, both original courses and restorations.  I can't claim that he has always been so inspired...I've played a number of his courses built in the 80s and early 90s that are much more modern in concept.  Still, I do have to applaud his current thinking and methodology and am happy to hear that his most recent work might be reflective of an entirely new, throwback approach.

In the case of Preakness Hills, I'm always excited to see older courses (and new ones for that matter), and would be thrilled to see more of Tucker's work.  Of course, you know the drill.  You'll have to carefully avert your eyes from my short game, lest you become similarly afflicted.  ;)

Thanks again, and perhaps we can roust our good friend Mr. Paul to make the trip, as well.  My schedule becomes much more free come the second week in June, if that timeframe is convenient for you.  

Mike
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2002, 08:19:53 PM »
Mike Cirba,

May 3rd might be a good date, I'll try to confirm same shortly.
In the meantime, get ahold of TEPaul, and see if that's good on his schedule as well.

Preakness Hills is a sporty course that I think you'll like, save for the lunatic changes forced upon the course recently,
by individuals that have a difficult time differentiating between the square 90 feet distant from home plate and the
aperture that is difficult to see and reach, located not far from their brain.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2002, 08:26:20 PM »
Patrick,

May 3 doesn't work for me, but sometime between May 15-30 might, as well as after the first weekend in June.  

Let's discuss this off-line and I'll look forward to playing with you again soon.  MCirba@aol.com
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Kelly_Blake_Moran

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2002, 06:31:50 AM »
Bunkering in its primary form should be strategic.  A bunker “randomly” placed for strategic effect in fact is not random.  Functional bunkers if meant to be framing or saving bunkers are unfortunate features that indicate a flaw in the routing, or a difficult situation such as steep land.  Random bunkering probably lies at the bottom of the list in terms of importance to a golf course.   Random bunkering can obscure the landscape.   It is not obvious as to why it exists other than as an art piece, a cute and sentimental nod to the past.  The flow of the course should come more from how well it makes obvious the beauty of the land, rather than obscuring it with random bunkers.  The beauty of the land as displayed in the picture on this thread becomes subordinate to the architect and shaper’s need to present one more long, sandy bunker, not unlike thousands you can see anywhere else in the world.  The picture could practically be from anywhere, there is nothing to it that evokes the meaning of Cape Cod.  It seems more worthwhile to sit on the land seeking an original response from the land, to be more concerned with the natural features the land offers, rather than relying always on the conventional response by adding bunkers.  Bunkers are the typical response to challenging the golfer, but the unconventional approaches to challenging the golfer by using the land’s features, even by making manmade land features, may be more interesting, and a more enduring approach as compare to the faddish use of random bunkering.

The freedom to act, to impose bunkers on the landscape seems liberating in Silva’s response, a way to break from the functional bunkering that he rightly abhors.  Yet is there not power and beauty in the act of restraint, in not countering one deprived trend to make bunkers functional with another equally deprived trend to make bunkers random, which ironically is following conventional patterns.  These random acts become formalized, codified, and are no longer random.  The premeditated need to walk the land to randomly sprinkle bunkers can dampen the architect’s ingenuity, the architect’s need to find an original response from the land, and cause the architect to only see in a very narrow way, thus limiting ingenuity and exploration.  Invoking Ross and others as evidence something like random bunkering is a high form of architecture is further evidence that there can be real harm in mob mentality.  When the mighty master is wrong, he is wrong and there is no justification in promoting his bad ideas.  The commitment to making the land more obvious seems more liberating and unconventional as compared to the freedom to act upon sentimental feelings in a random way.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2002, 07:07:48 AM »
Kelly,

Thanks for the thoughtful, beautifully-written post.

I think you've hit upon something here that is probably at the core of minimalism.  While rightfully eschewing the formulaic bunkering patterns we see only too often, you argue that by trying to create random patterns in response, we ironically become just as narrow and inpinged in our thinking.  

If I read you correctly, your preferred methodology hinges on two fundamentals;

1) The better alternative to the creation of any man-made feature is to spend enough time onsite working with the land to be sure to exhaust all natural features in hole design.  

2) That even when man-made features are deemed necessary for strategic purposes, "there is power and beauty (as well as subtlety) in restraint".  

What it comes down to for me is degrees of idealism.  Ideally, the ultimate golf course would be on such wonderful natural land conducive to golf that man-made features would be unneccesary...even intrusive.  Perhaps Sand Hills comes closest to this ideal in our lifetimes.  

Short of that, and recognizing that the hand of man is often needed to provide interesting golf, that leaves us with how much is too much, and whether such work should be done in a very precise methodology (which itself borders on strictly formulaic, even if strategic in nature), or something done with a bit more left to chance, perhaps mostly where existing landforms suggest bunkering, as Silva seems to argue.

In either case, I would suggest that whichever of these paths are chosen, it then becomes extremely important for the architect to follow lines in nature and be extremely SITE-SPECIFIC when creating man-made hazards, with the recognized intent of properly integrating those features into the natural whole.  

Put another way, I've seen holes where a single, poorly done and clearly artificial bunker looks horribly out of place and in no way minimalistic, while I've seen other holes where scads of naturally integrated bunkers appear to have just been part of nature all along.  

From a playability standpoint, perhaps this shouldn't matter, but I'm from the school of thought that believes we subconsciously react to what we see, for better or worse, and that there is no way to divorce the functional from the aesthetic.  

Would you agree, or take issue with any of my points?        
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Kelly_Blake_Moran

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2002, 07:24:08 AM »
I agree with you very much so.  Except to say I am uncomfortable associating with any isms, so I am not advocating minimialism...there is nothing minimal about what we do.  Also, Silva's random approach is a strict methodology, it is not in opposition to it.  I just think it is also a hollow methodology.  You summarized well.  My only concern is that I am totally incapable of living up to the points both you and I have made.  I fear being discovered to be an imposter, a phony.  I try very hard to live by my words but often fail.  That is the excitement though, knowing that we have the freedom to do anything we want is not inspiring, but the recognition of ideals and restraints, of the need to marry the spiritual and material is what is so exhilirating, and keeps me outstretched, in hopes of grabbing hold of the ideals you have outlined so well.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2002, 08:55:55 AM »
Mike Cirba,

Kelly has a problem with "isms", I have a problem with "formulaic".

Could you cite me five golf courses where formulaic bunker patterns are used throughout the golf course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2002, 09:17:20 AM »
Patrick,

I'm not sure a bunkering pattern has to be used throughout the entire course to be termed "formulaic".  The oft-used right hand fairway bunker at 240 from the tee and left fairway bunker at 260 is common enough.  Or, how about the architect who almost always bunkers the inside (or outside) corner of their doglegs?  

Or, how about the architects who almost inevitably create both a left hand and right hand greenside bunker.  Or, the architect who creates fronting bunkers or other forced carries to almost EVERY short approach hole.  

Or, how about the architect who designs the exact same looking bunkers and green contours irrespective if he's working on the Mojave Desert or the Rocky Mountains?  What about the architect who insists on flashy water features, even when they might be incongruous to the natural site?

By formulaic, we all have our own individual traps that we fall into.  Basically, they are usually caused by following rote patterns, or mental laziness to some extent.  In other cases, they are caused by philosophies of golf design that tend to "trap" a designer into a set methodology of design...for instance, when a designer sets out as a primary goal to challenge the professional.  

It's a formula that RTJ Sr. and Pete Dye (and others) have both fallen into over the years, as witnessed by Pete's oft-repeated pattern of watery par threes (and island greens, and cape finishing holes with water down the whole left side).

The following link is one example of formulaic bunker design, on most if not all of the holes.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?pan=e&mapdata=yNJu1Eg45fcvJ501UvHcVhELEZO7m7ckGMKHMjhXteLlHhs0sZEILKBiRHKWY%2bpDDh%2bzOo1h7PCMFcz5PzCEew%2fAvziKPSUL2rcTZwb
JtDeMVHPMJviVP5M%2bStXzoytXa%2frCrTZ1R9cSU8QrebGFNQW82jvJC32S91OvSiSH0Sgi7mROChG
L5Mi61PI9Iq5yETRUBno5j2CjSw5ZP%2b9ww2ycuG1%2byZqGImg6aC%2biSr%2bzRLXeQVPqRnCEDSM
SWTP1R6BaLqEnI8wNF%2bVoHZ9rGhEgUCsaNWQ0pQcxbKEeaehRkHivGbYmoAObqNQGSPU38%2b%2fzx
RtqDU3GPWGfKXxEuAC3VmGLCwNMU6TKBbANu2oDJjOraJW%2bRg%3d%3d

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2002, 04:08:45 PM »
Goodness, there is great danger here of falling into formal philosophies and accusing the other of being the troglodite.

The word "random" is most unfortunate, and I have occasionally winced when Silva uses it, because if anyone was formulaic in his approach, it was Raynor, whose entire repertoire consisted of 23 holes and it was only a question of which 18 you'd get on your course - but always iterated a little differently.

The problem really is in classifying that scattered style as "random." There was thought, aesthetics, strategy and a little bit of serendipity as well that went into determining much of classical era bunker placement. I think Silva does himself and the classical designers a disservice, because many of the features he restored (brilliantly) at Augusta CC are fore bunkers and short carry bunkers that illuminate visually the landforms - an admittedly severe piece of ground with holes that would have been blind or misleading if there were not some signaling going on, which is how Ross deployed his bunkers there.

Then you get to a virtually flat site like Chicago Golf where Raynor pops those bunkers up to provide avenues and parks for the ball and for golfers - a bewildering series of hazarded areas that are fascinating to play and that make sense.

There is way too much dogma in this thread, especially by Mr. Moran. His basic instincts seem helpful and a constructive form of criticism, but there lurks behind it a rather heavy handed approach. But then I'd need to see his work first before making a real judgment.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2002, 08:24:22 PM »
Mike Cirba,

Why would an architect not place bunkers at the 240 to 260 mark if he wanted them to be in play and strategic ?

How strategic would they be at 200 yards and 300 yards ?

If your intent is to present a challenge, what better place to locate the challenge then at the site where the golfer is most likely to hit his ball.

There has to be a practical side of architecture incorporating tactics and strategy, and just because bunkers come into play between the distances of 240 to 260 yards doesn't make them "formulaic" it makes them "in-play" which is what you want.

If you review many Ross, Tillinghast, CBM, Raynor and Banks work you will find left and right greenside bunkers.
Were these guys "Formulaic" or "strategic" in their design philosophy ?

Many are critical to extremes on style, features and designs.  I would like to see them design and lay out a golf course on a reasonable piece of land, to see their design philosophy manifested as a playable golf course, to see what they are capable of creating in the dirt, a course to be played by all levels of golfers, PGA pros to hackers, a course to be viewed and critically anaylized by all.

One of the first things I would do if I was designing a golf course would be to put a premium on driving accuracy, and I wouldn't achieve that by placing my fairway bunkers randomly throughout the hole, but rather it critical, strategic locations.
Is that "Formulaic"  ??
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2002, 08:40:52 PM »
Pat
How deep would those fairway bunkers be?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2002, 09:31:20 PM »
Patrick,

As an example of formulaic design methods, I provided a link to Oakland Hills South, where RTJ Sr. created wasp-waisted fairway bunkering on most of the holes, right in the driving zone.  

You see that as strategic and challenging, while I see it as penal, and yes, formulaic.  Both schools of thought are valid to some extent, but when an architect then uses that approach over and over, from course to course, it becomes both stale and unimaginative.  I believe if I also included an overhead of Firestone South, it would look virtually the same.

You ask, would you put in bunkers at 200 and 300 yards instead of 240 and 260?  Absolutely!

Why, I can think of plenty of players who would be challenged by the 200 yard bunker, and many others who would be challenged by the 300 yard bunker.  

I'm surely not arguing that there is no rationale to placement, and that everything should be as random as coins falling from a pocket, but that also requires more thought than just the...yes...formulaic school that insists on some mathematical precision as to what goes where!

Let's use Garden City as an example.  How many holes have penal bunkers virtually opposite each other on each side of the fairway in the landing zone?  How many of the fairway bunkers are at some precise, scratch-player derived distance from the tee?  

Garden City instead is a great example of what I am talking about when I think about natural randomness (and yes...I agree with Brad that the word is a poor one and not fully descriptive, but I can't think of a better one at this late hour).  Is there a bunker on the course that seems out of place or unnatural or created by rote (disregarding the 12th hole) or isn't some place that might trip up some level of player?  

"Creative placement" might be the catch phrase here...  

Taken to an extreme, the penal school would have each hole with a pond on the sides of the target, right where a drive or approach might be expected to land.  I don't think many of us would find that very interesting or thought provoking (despite the admitted challenge), nor do I think many of us would choose to play that particular game for very long, much less the lifetime enjoyment found on courses of a more strategic, imaginative nature.  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2002, 08:12:56 AM »
Tom MacWood,

They would have a general progression, deeper nearer the green, shallower nearer the tee.

Mike Cirba,

So, bunkers at 200 and 300 but not at 240-260 hmmm,
sounds rather unchallenging.

GCGC, bunkers on par 4's and par 5's with

1st hole     left and right
3rd hole     left and right
5th hole     left and right
6th hole     left and right
8th hole     left and right
9th hole     left and right
10th hole    left and right
14th hole    left and right
15th hole    left and right
17th hole    left and right

10 out of 15 would seem to be a pattern.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2002, 08:32:02 AM »
Patrick,

Please see the following two aerial views to make my point.  Both courses feature the type of varied bunkering pattern I mentioned, and the differences with the overhead I provided of Oakland Hills earlier should be pretty self-evident.

Unfortunately, the course in the second pic has had many bunkers removed over time, but I believe you have an old aerial that shows how splending the bunkering once was. I also believe you are intimately familiar with the first course. ;)

Incidentally, for anyone unfamiliar with this technology, you can zoom in and out, and move left or right to suit your purposes.  


http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?zoom=9&mapdata=ULfEtX9%2beHePUJdYHxYNJjwwMtv83w9cuPEp3YeBdsV4pG7IFp%2flq5FfTdYlLgk9JOyUYC3E%2bilAyX%2b4%2bRE9Z7UjH2Z%2b1kTw
85nlNo6HevTm9xcSgVBOfXdHctLfthVYb03iEDAWfRM4yQHBh1CZ02gK5ix0R5c%2fUPGkpoJFGXShsk
61piWCHz8fOP7jnaVBSU2Gvn6pA9LAwTFogdsdeIAsCM2X%2fk7FCDSi8DT3g5VFPK0UX7lLbAWjsTjV
L6VieR8zXd07Y1JMQBI28GF1zh%2b6ieVD%2foOFbZwRLhUH%2bNO3wCMhoS3Khp89K87WKSF0l91b6E
Xq10fGhhaUoq4x5Gb1NHxSTvjHYseAuVYwgrUrm9sKNuZlbw%3d%3d

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?mapdata=cbPRZSKSHGS7dIwi3FEmqQUE9iSDll2OMjwYTMowV%252fwj2TOlBxTsAQ5s15KyxzN%252foM1%252fOHwbf7tLMB48iiq2cUAFmsAmHiO9VaWfbiY
ZGcjjEWIjrmQZnnx51l3CK8xbFVQNd4x7P%252buU9Qi8OznT1scuZ%252bG1aVVWsTrSLad4AEYU4t%
252b1fX4XtPksdkyBXP2fGNMEoeZkdbC6B2ZhbhS4tBXzBRkrG9w5wwD5J70jPoWrBG31sGgZzP6Ghaz
aEi8biZvWlQyPJbRoWVAR37jkdP7BlQjUbTJw7Og%252b8iGXkYsbe0fMLtniy7WjdwhUOao33i308fE
XgZ4r6hNB6myfQw%253d%253d&click=center&map.x=142&map.y=253



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Brian Silva on Classic Architecture
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2002, 04:46:02 PM »
Mike
That is an excellent illustration of the formulaic approach vs. the non-formulaic approach. Although it can not be seen in those photos, I'd bet those Travis fairway bunkers don't follow any depth formula either.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »