[A_Clay_Man]

Patrick,
I'm so glad to hear you say that. I feel much better about my decision to join my first club.
Thank you.

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat —

Since when does it matter that a hazard is "...invisible from a tee 230-300 yards removed...."?

While it may strike fear in the golfer when seen — I agree — it does not mean that such features — ridges, bumps and rolls — fail when they cannot be seen. In fact, I would argue that they may even be more effective than an overt bunker with whitewash sand.

What better way to get the golfer to begin to "see" the course than to have unexpected trouble. Things "seen" only by the trained and careful eye? Things that — Heaven forbid — a caddie might have to point out to the golfer, or that the golfer might have to learn about the layout.

[Forrest Richardson]

Come on, Adam...what club would possibly have you as a member...?!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
On other threads you have seemed to be against stiffening up the long hitters landing areas because it will impact the shorter players 2nd shots. What is the difference in using elongated bunkering to achieve this goal?

[A_Clay_Man]

A club with a tenaciously passionate driving force that instills the culture of pure golf and core principles.

They even built their maintenance building first!

[Mark_Fine]

This is not meant to be a sales pitch for our book, but Forrest and I have written an extensive section on bunker maintenance in our book.  Many top superintendents helped contribute to this section so it reflects a lot of valuable imput.  It should prove to be a great resource for Superintendents and give them some amunition for defending their positions with their Grounds Committees.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest and Jeff twins?  Jeff has my sympathies.

For the discussion; it seems to me that cross bunkers could be judiciously used to temper technology.  Have they fallen out of favor?

Bill,

Thanks for the sympathy. Now, I have both that and all the hair between the two of us......

Joe,

I was just throwing out a few examples, and anything overdone would be bad. I still agree with Forrest, and disagree with Pat.

Pat,

Are you in favor of one dimensional architectural thinking? Yes, bunkers are more visual, and for the most part, I agree that they make fine hazards.  However, in certain circumstances, I think very elongated bunkers could be too visually dominant, and too difficult.  Should every hole look like a Pete Dye creation with a beach bunker down one side or the other?

What you missed in my post was the idea that contours, while hidden (and not necessarily Rees Jones mounding that would have maintenance problems) are not as visible, and yet give the satisfaction of coming to know the course slowly and in different seasons.  Most here would say the bane of most modern architecture, including mine, is that it is too obvious, with "stop" and "don't go there" signs that tell you where you should hit the ball.

I am thinking more in terms of the domed fw at NGLA, cross slopes, and other fw dividing ridges that would place a long and indifferent tee shot to the "wrong" side of the fw", costing the player the best lie or angle of approach. Meanwhile, shorter landing areas could be much more receptive to keep play moving.

Anything wrong with that?

[TEPaul]

This notion that sand bunkers should categorically have flashed sand faces or to otherwise have the sand visible to act as a form of sentinel to golfers is a curious one. it has also become something of a "formula", perhaps even a cliche.

Obvously the idea is that they can unquestionalbly hit the players eye and signal danger areas to him.

My course, a 1916 Ross course had sand flashed faces (I'm not sure if they were exactly like that originally but they were that way for many decades). With our recent restoration project they were grassed about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way down and I like them a lot better like this. The sand is anything but obvious now and some of them have that shadowy grass look.

In my opinion, that forces golfers to visually pay a lot more attention to the golf course and scrutinize more where trouble lies. In a word our shadowy partial grassed down faces force golfers to concentrate more---to concentrate on the golf course much more and I can only think that is a good thing and going in the right direction compared to obvious visual sentinels of constantly sand flashed up faces.

[TEPaul]

Matter of fact, I was having this conversation about the formulaically sand flashed bunker faces the other night with Ron Prichard.

He was talking about it in the sense of the influences on architects or as a form of a "family tree" of architectural influence, so to speak.

He says one can so easily see the influence of the sand flashed bunker face on Flynn and from Flynn to architects like Dick Wilson, the Gordons, Red Lawrence etc. And maybe even on to RTJ et al. Ross, on the other hand seems to be known for the sand flashed bunker face but the truth is he designed and built a whole variety of bunker looks and types. His own book is more than ample evidence of that.

As a basic bunker formula it appears to have begun at Merion East with Hugh Wilson. Hugh Wilson was very definite on his ideas with bunkering and the sand flashed face was seemingly a must to him as was the idea of being able to escape a long way with the courageous shot.

I've certainly read this from Wilson and heard it a hundred times. Ron thinks this is probably to a large degree a definite trade-mark of the "Philadelphia School" and perhaps first emanating from the so-called "White Faces" of Merion. They said they would lay sheets out on the fairways to check the visiblilty of how they wanted the sand visiblilty. I don't know if that story is apocryphal or not---probably not.

The mystery to me has always been where Hugh Wilson may've gotten this idea. Maybe he just came up with it himself somehow. As far as I know, he never said.

[TEPaul]

I very much like Forrest's sentiments that there are all kinds of interchangeable "hazard" features. Sand bunkering certainly isn't the only way to go, in my opinion, and apparently in his.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat —

Since when does it matter that a hazard is "...invisible from a tee 230-300 yards removed...."?

It matters when you establish a repetitive pattern.
Visibility provides tactical signals to the eye.
The absence of those signals on 14 driving holes would seem to indicate that the architecture is lacking or unimaginative.

While it may strike fear in the golfer when seen — I agree — it does not mean that such features — ridges, bumps and rolls — fail when they cannot be seen.

I never said that they fail, onlyl that they can't be detected from the tee and as such, they lose their TACTICAL function.

In fact, I would argue that they may even be more effective than an overt bunker with whitewash sand.

I'd disagree, especially in the context of 14 driving holes.

What better way to get the golfer to begin to "see" the course than to have unexpected trouble. Things "seen" only by the trained and careful eye? Things that — Heaven forbid — a caddie might have to point out to the golfer, or that the golfer might have to learn about the layout.

Caddies are rare today.
And, golf remains a reactionary visual game.
If a feature is so subtle that it can't be detected, you have to question its useful function.

[Patrick_Mucci]

On other threads you have seemed to be against stiffening up the long hitters landing areas because it will impact the shorter players 2nd shots. What is the difference in using elongated bunkering to achieve this goal?

Jim,

There's certainly a concern for not unduly punishing the short hitter or high handicap player, but, the purpose of elongating fairway bunkers is to bring the hazards of the landing zone back into play for the longer drive, versus having bunkers serve as nothing more than window dressing, a visual Maginot Line.

Long trench bunkers, such as those at GCGC serve a wonderfu purpose and don't seem to unduly hurt the high handicap player on his second shot.

As it is today, once the golfer has flown the old bunker locations, he's in the cat bird seat, and has a distinct advantage over those players who must contend and interface with the fairway bunkers as the architect originally intended.

Creating elongated, versus wide bunkers will better serve the purpose of interfacing with the long ball off the tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I very much like Forrest's sentiments that there are all kinds of interchangeable "hazard" features. Sand bunkering certainly isn't the only way to go, in my opinion, and apparently in his.

That's pure nonsense.

What hazard do mounds that can't be detected and high rough pose to the long hitter ?

And, consider the formulaic methodology you would have to employ in order to achieve the effect you desire.

Circa 1910 CBM placed an abundance of bunkers beyond the
250 yard mark.   Was he trying to penalize the high handicap player, or place greater demands on the long ball hitter ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Are you in favor of one dimensional architectural thinking?

Why would you consider it one dimensional ?

Why would the introduction of elongated bunkers be any more one dimensional then the introduction of amoeba shaped or circular bunkers ?


Yes, bunkers are more visual, and for the most part, I agree that they make fine hazards.  

However, in certain circumstances, I think very elongated bunkers could be too visually dominant, and too difficult.  

That would depend upon the architect's presentation.
On the 7th hole at GCGC the long trench bunker is virtually invisible to the golfer.  Certainly, a keen eye knows something's happening on the right side of the fairway, but, the mystery isn't revealed until the golfer is up close and personal.

Should every hole look like a Pete Dye creation with a beach bunker down one side or the other?

That's your predisposed perception of them.
I'm certain that the architect's creativity can make them an appealing tactical hazard, in a random or formal pattern.

What you missed in my post was the idea that contours, while hidden (and not necessarily Rees Jones mounding that would have maintenance problems) are not as visible, and yet give the satisfaction of coming to know the course slowly and in different seasons.  Most here would say the bane of most modern architecture, including mine, is that it is too obvious, with "stop" and "don't go there" signs that tell you where you should hit the ball.

On the other hand, one could perceive the failure to send architectural signals to the golfers eye as a failure or short coming on the part of the architect.

And, these subtle features don't have the dramatic impact on playability that bunkers do.

I am thinking more in terms of the domed fw at NGLA, cross slopes, and other fw dividing ridges that would place a long and indifferent tee shot to the "wrong" side of the fw", costing the player the best lie or angle of approach. Meanwhile, shorter landing areas could be much more receptive to keep play moving.

Certainly a purpose of the domed bunker on # 17 at NGLA was to impede the long ball.  CBM did an amazing job of protecting against the long ball 94 years ago.

How would slopes and dividing ridges confront the long ball hitter and extract a demand for accuracy, while penalizing his failure to perform with precision ?

Anything wrong with that?

Repetitively, YES.

With 14 or more driving holes, that might not be a viable method for challenging the long ball.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Elongated bunkers might not impact the shorter players second shot but only on holes where they will most likely be taking a different route from the tee than the longer hitter.
Doglegs and heroic carries come to mind but I can't think of any others.

Would it be considered formulaic to always guard against the long ball by using bunkers? Catching the long ball hitter in elongated bunkering is fine and it has the potential to exact a stroke, or part of a stroke, but wouldn't it be just as reasonable to mix up the challenge? Let him pound away to some degree but use other ways to make his second shot something less than a given. That's where some of the other features mentioned here come into play, they increase the odds against making birdie for the Pro but don't overly hamper the average players chance at bogey.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You've been obdurate and argumentative on some of the threads you post before but this one pretty much takes the cake.

There're a good half dozen or more effective and interchangeable hazard features in golf architecture other than just a sand bunker and you seem to have essentially criticized every single one of them as ineffective or indicative of a lack of imagination on the part of an architect. In one post you responded that even the suggestion of the use of alternative hazard features is nonsense.  

You have even contradicted yourself by stating that a sand bunker that is not visible before a shot doesn't send an immediate tactical signal to the golfer and is therefore somewhat ineffective on the one hand and then on the other hand you've mentioned the bunker on GCGC's #3 and #7 that is not visible before the shot but is effective nonetheless when one gets up close and personal with it.

Unbelievable!

I'm more than aware of the occasional use or interest of "devil's advocacy" but one needs to know when to desist with that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would it be considered formulaic to always guard against the long ball by using bunkers?

Would it be any more formulaic then today, or 80 years ago ?
Virtually every driving hole has bunkers in the LZ and noone claims that that's formulaic, so why should the use of elongated bunkers in the LZ be deemed formulaic.

And, so what if they are ?
Isn't it the playability and the presentation of the playing challenge that's the ultimate goal, and not some convenient label that's erroneously connoted as bad ?

Catching the long ball hitter in elongated bunkering is fine and it has the potential to exact a stroke, or part of a stroke, but wouldn't it be just as reasonable to mix up the challenge?

I never said that they had to be universal, lining both sides of the fairway.

It might be reasonable to mix up the challenge.
Could you tell me HOW you'd do that understanding that the goal is to present a challenge that's as least as penal as the one that the shorter player is encountering in the form of fairway bunkering ?

Let him pound away to some degree but use other ways to make his second shot something less than a given.

Like what ?

That's where some of the other features mentioned here come into play, they increase the odds against making birdie for the Pro but don't overly hamper the average players chance at bogey.

One of the holes I like at Somerset Hills is # 4, which is named, "Dolomites"  I like the use of those features, but, not in an overly repetitive pattern.  # 16 at GCGC had a similar feature on the left side approach to the green, but again, that feature wears thin, in universal application, a lot faster than bunkers.

Nearly everyone recognizes the distance problem, yet, when possible solutions are mentioned there seems to be a resistance to effective solutions that are perceived as formulaic.

If you continue to use a fly swatter in an attempt to defend against a rhino, you'll never address the flogging problem from an architectural standpoint.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't understand why an unseen hazard loses its tactical function.  

Because you don't understand the premise, which I'll try to explain below

Perhaps the first time around a course this is true, but not thereafter.  

I've already disputed the flaw in that argument.
A "blind" hazard is blind all of the time and repetitive play may make you aware of the hazards presence, but not its location in relation to your ball.  Unless of course, you drive your ball in the exact same spot, every time you play the hole.

I like blind hazards so long as a lost ball is not involved and it isn't overdone (but this second proviso applies to seen hazards as well).  Contrary to your belief, I do think a blinfd bunker or ridge or hump can cause much indecision on the tee.  

First, if you read my response carefully, which you didn't, I never said that the mounds or rough were blind, I said that they were undetectable or indistinguishable from the backround..

If a feature is so subtle that it can't be detected when one is looking directly at it, what type of playing challenge does that feature present to the better, stronger player ?

Answer:  NONE, or one that's incrementally insignificant.

Especially when compared to a bunker.

So, cease viewing the issue in the context of blindness, we're not talking about blindness.  And, even if you were, are you suggesting 14-16 blind tee shots ?

If that isn't tactical what is?

14-16 blind tee shots aren't tactical.
That's where the phrase "blind luck" comes into play.

[TEPaul]

Hey, Pat, in the context of the premise of this thread of yours it would probably be more apropos if you just discussed the architecture of the formulaic tennis court with elongated bunkers in place of the doubles area.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

You've been obdurate and argumentative on some of the threads you post before but this one pretty much takes the cake.

That's good, that means I'm doing the job that Ran pays me for.[/color]

There're a good half dozen or more effective and interchangeable hazard features in golf architecture other than just a sand bunker and you seem to have essentially criticized every single one of them as ineffective or indicative of a lack of imagination on the part of an architect.

I must have missed them.

Could you list the six hazard features that are more effective than bunkers at presenting a tactical challenge and extracting a "cost" for encoutering them, that populate the LZ for long hitters ?

Then, could you give me six examples of club's that employ those six hazard features that are more effective than bunkers, that extract the same penalty for encountering them, that provide a tactical signal to the golfers eye ?[/color]

In one post you responded that even the suggestion of the use of alternative hazard features is nonsense.  

You have even contradicted yourself by stating that a sand bunker that is not visible before a shot doesn't send an immediate tactical signal to the golfer and is therefore somewhat ineffective on the one hand and then on the other hand you've mentioned the bunker on GCGC's #3 and #7 that is not visible before the shot but is effective nonetheless when one gets up close and personal with it.

You must have missed the part about having a discerning eye.
The sand in the trench bunker would not be visible, but, a golfer in tune with his surroundings can detect the footpad of the feature.  Those, such as yourself, not capable of interpolation, would only realize that it's a sand bunker when you got close enough to see the sand.

Other, more perceptive golfers would understand by the shaping of the land/feature, that that was an area to avoid.

While I don't agree with its application, it's like a golfer who sees the cattails but can't see the pond next to the 16th green at GCGC.  One should recognize the nature of the hazard by the tip of the iceberg that even you can see.

Wasn't your great great uncle the lookout on the Titanic ?[/color]

I'm more than aware of the occasional use or interest of "devil's advocacy" but one needs to know when to desist with that.

I'll let you know when that time comes.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hey, Pat, in the context of the premise of this thread of yours it would probably be more apropos if you just discussed the architecture of the formulaic tennis court with elongated bunkers in place of the doubles area.  

Ah, Yes,  PIT TENNIS, I'm very familiar with it.

But, you'll have to go to the "Tennisclubatlas.com website to see my views on that subject.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

Maybe this will refresh your memory.

Please, take the time to at least read the title post before making uninformed comments.

Have architects been sleeping at the switch ?

Surely they've been aware of high tech and the impact on distance.

In light of increased distances, shouldn't fairway bunkers have morphed to substantive vertical hazards rather than limited horizontal hazards ?

Wouldn't this have addressed or paritally addressed the issue of unpunished distance off the tee ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If one cannot "detect" a feature it is blind.  

That's absurd.

If you can't detect the break in a putt is it blind ?

Sometimes blindness is a relative matter.  

No. it's absolute, not relative.

You have now couched your answer in a shroud of "better, stronger player".  Better and stronger are comparative terms and therefore meaningless without an object(s) of comparison.

If you would have taken the time to read the title of this thread you might have been enlightened with respect to who it is we're talking about.  It isn't the inferior, weaker players who are flying today's fairway bunkers, it's the better, stronger player.   How could you miss that ?
How can you not understand the context in which the question and issue are posed ?

If you do want to talk about the best players in the game, well then, I don't subscribe to your theory of blind luck or seen luck when it comes to mounds, ridges, dunes and hollows.  The best players can learn these features and come to a tactical decision on how they want to deal with them.

I didn't offer those features as a counter position.
Please, go back and at least read the posts before applying faulty attribution.  

The 1st of Sandwich is a prime example.  Loads of pros complained about hitting balls down the middle and finding their balls kicking off a ridge on the back of the Kitchen and into the rough.  This has nothing to do with luck.  Whether or not this ridge can be seen it should be apparent to pros that they will need to carry the ball over this very subtle feature to have a much higher chance of holding the fairway than if this feature isn't carried.  

You're confused.

This thread isn't about blind features or hazards.
Please reread it and return properly informed and prepared.

I can think of a load of similar features at Pennard and Burnham & Berrow where over several plays one can learn humpty bumpty features and come to a reasoned decision on how to tactically avoid the pitfalls  and what the reward is for successfully taking these subtleties on.  True, a pitfall of a subtle feature such as hollow may mean a blind appraoch rather than a bunkered approach.  Often times this is all that is needed.  Just a niggle of doubt.

Now you're stating that a golfer's ball flight and the atmospheric conditions under which he plays are identical and that golfers can control random bounces.   Interesting theory.

[TEPaul]

"I must have missed them."

I'd say that would be a huge understatement that the likes of JeffB and Forrest would agree with.  

"Could you list the six hazard features that are more effective than bunkers at presenting a tactical challenge and extracting a "cost" for encoutering them, that populate the LZ for long hitters?"

Sure;

1. water
2. trees
3. gorse, whins, bushes
4. rough
5. slope
6. contour, hollows, mounds, berms, etc.
And there are others---

"Then, could you give me six examples of club's that employ those six hazard features that are more effective than bunkers, that extract the same penalty for encountering them, that provide a tactical signal to the golfers eye?"

MORE effective than bunkers, that extract the SAME penalty or provide tactical signals to the golfer's eye, are your words and not mine or JeffB's or Forrest's.

What we ARE saying is those hazard features mentioned above ARE effective hazard features for long hitters or any other golfer and they are alternative hazards and interchangeable with the sand bunker hazard feature.

As for an examples of six clubs that utilize them one could probably find at least twice that many in East Lothian alone.

It would probably be appropriate to just concede that point, Pat----the premise of this thread of yours in totally unsupportable. Apparently you think the entire world of golf and architecture needs elongated bunkers only to reign in long hitters. We don't think it's that one dimensional by a long shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Who do you think I'm talking about ?    Short hitters ?

And, what's the CRITICAL QUESTION ?

Let me repeat it for you.[size=4x]

"In light of INCREASED DISTANCES, shouldn't fairway bunkers have morphed to SUBSTANTIVE VERTICAL hazards RATHER than LIMITED HORIZONTAL HAZARDS ?[/color][/size]

Please, please, read the posts with a modicum of reading comprehension[/color]

Have architects been sleeping at the switch ?

Surely they've been aware of high tech and the impact on distance.

In light of increased distances, shouldn't fairway bunkers have morphed to substantive vertical hazards rather than limited horizontal hazards ?

Wouldn't this have addressed or paritally addressed the issue of unpunished distance off the tee ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()