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.

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

TEPaul

Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2005, 08:23:26 AM »
It would not surprise me at all if the prevalence of those water hazards around that golf course has something seriously to do with the almost incredible manner in which they got that course to drain and remain firm following some very heavy rain during that tournament. That course has some super sophisticated pumping mechanism (they kept mentioning) and it would not surprise me if those prevalent water hazards are part of it. After-all is it not a no-no to suddenly pump massive amounts of water off the property of golf courses today?  ;)

Pete Dye the clever golf architect has been discussed on here but very little discussed is Pete Dye the ultra clever hydro-engineer!  ;)
Logged

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2005, 11:35:02 AM »
Forest,
I just now got around to reading your post #16, and it is excellent.  Thanks for taking the time to write so thoroughly.  I agree that Sawgrass is a course that was not being designed with a normal member clientele in mind, and that in some ways, that changes the demands and/or possibilites of the GCA.  I also agree with you that too much of anything on a golf course is too much of anything, be it water hazards, or holes without hazards.   I wouldn't want my course to fall to either extreme, and I don't think I would enjoy a course fully that didn't incorporate multiple possibilities.

I would still contend, though, that #17 at Sawgrass is a hole that makes great theatre for the Players Championship, but isn't great architecture otherwise.  I agree that it induces tremendous anxiety in ALL players; hell, I get nervous playing it on Tiger Woods 2005!  However, the fact that I would get anxious if there was a possibility of pygmies shooting poison darts at me as I walked down the fairway doesn't make pygmies hidden in the trees of a golf course good GCA.
Logged
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2005, 03:57:02 PM »
I see no reason that pygmies hidden in the trees of a golf course would not make for good golf. Alice Cooper, a Phoenix resident and avid golfer, and I often discuss a course with fire pots and haunted fairways...perhaps a clubhouse with haunted sounds. Why not.
Logged
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2005, 04:59:12 PM »
Bob Crosby:

Your story is the ULTIMATE description of "Resistance to Scoring", which of course is one of the primary attributes of a great golf course (according to some magazines).

I did not see the tournament on TV this weekend, but New Orleans is all about two feet above sea level (if that), so it's pretty obvious that to drain the golf course there have to be a lot of water bodies relatively close to the fairways.  

If you build up the fairways eight feet, go down three with a catch basin, and run the pipe at 1%, there has to be water within 500 feet of that catch basin ... so there could be water in front of every tee and green as Mr. Jones used to build, or every other hole lined with water from tee to green as Mr. Dye prefers.  [Dick Wilson used a combination of the two.]  This is why Pete Dye uses a force-main drainage system that's a pretty sophisticated bit of engineering, as Mr. Paul alluded to.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2005, 06:09:57 PM »
Quote from: BCrosby on May 02, 2005, 08:05:57 AM
Every time the 17th at the TPC at Ponte Vedra comes up I feel obligated to repeat the story of my outing there several years ago. I was with a group of bankers. Delightful guys. Unfortunately, about half of them had handicaps of 18+.

Of our group of 16, about half were unable to post a score on the 17th.

I would assume our group was neither the first or the last to have players forced, after countless mishits, to carry a ball directly from the 17th tee to the 18th tee.

How good can a hole be when that happens?

I think it can be great.

Is every hole on every course required to accommodate every level of golfer? I don't see why it should be. If you do, tell me: Why?

I would assume that your group, like similar groups before it and since, walked to the 18th tee knowing that if they were better players, the hole was not impossible.

Did failure on 17 ruin their day? Or did the hole's thrilling demand -- even if it was not met -- enrich their experience?

I'll give the old hear! hear! to Mr. Richardson: "Occasionally it is refreshing to face a hole of 'Death or Glory' qualities—one which says to the golfer, 'Here I am, my creator has outlined one—and only one—perfect shot. Your job is to find this shot within your skills and execute it. Now. And, by the way, it is not a shot which requires much power or macho quality. It is a simple shot. More than a putt, but not by much. Now have at it. Take your best shot my little golfer. My flag is waiting for you to perform.' "

Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2005, 07:49:12 AM »
Dan -

Great holes ought to require the execution of difficult shots for low scores. They ought to confront you with tough choices. And yes, there is a thrill in all of that.

But great holes also ought to allow weaker golfers a way to post a score.

The rules of golf break down at a hole like 17th at the TPC at Sawgrass. People can't finish. The hole would work only if golf had a "skunk" rule. Which is, in effect, how many people deal with the 17th and get on to the 18th tee.  

Bob
« Last Edit: May 04, 2005, 08:10:40 AM by BCrosby »
Logged

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #31 on: May 04, 2005, 10:34:00 AM »
Bob—

The problem with your reasoning is that, like many, you assume stroke play is the game. In match play the 17th becomes merely one loss or one win...it is not necessary to hole out if a few balls are lost to the drink. You move on.

Also, even in stroke format, the 17th has a designated drop area from which the shot is 99.9% manageable.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2005, 10:34:55 AM by Forrest Richardson »
Logged
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2005, 12:23:59 PM »
I cannot resist in passing along this most fascinating new product invention. You will not want to miss this one:

http://www.pawvision.com/aqua-web.html
Logged
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2005, 12:48:58 PM »
Quote from: BCrosby on May 04, 2005, 07:49:12 AM
But great holes also ought to allow weaker golfers a way to post a score.

As mentioned earlier, "11" is a score !

Perhaps that hole is for the few who rise to the challenge. They are granted the right to remember it forever, and when watching the pros take their shots to say "Ha! I was closer than that guy!"
Logged
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up