Ran's new home page photo

« **Reply #25 on:** November 13, 2007, 08:22:24 AM »

Thank you Tom Paul.

In all seriousness the two photos that have been posted on this site #2,16 share some characteristics.

They both overlook the Hudson with some first class views.

and

they are perhaps the two most manufactured/angular looking on the golf course.

I do not have the ability at present to show this but 2,16 are very close together and one of the first things Gil had objected to was the "break-up" we had between so many tees and greens and other greens. They could have been cart-paths, bushes, trees, Rees mounding.

What we now have is #16 fitting into the hillside perfectly angled as it runs from one of the higher spots above the Hudson at #17 tee. that angle of descent continues through #3 tee and finally #2 green as it plunges down the hill.

I think is is wonderful that we have a photo taken from a strange angle >200 yards away that still shows how perfectly the actual flow of the hill was maintained/restored in this area. The caddies in the background are probably 70 from the green.

Clearly what happened at Sleepy was not a restoration in a golf sense. But by tying in all these angles they did restore what God had left.

« **Reply #26 on:** November 13, 2007, 08:32:14 AM »

All in fun, Corey. It's got to be the biggest and most beautiful green custard on a plate of milk I've ever seen in my life! Macdonald and Raynor fancied green custard on a plate of milk. You didn't know that, did you? This architecture is always a learning thing, you know?

Do you mind if I bring Wayno up to piss on that green? There's not much better to make it play firm and fast.

« **Reply #27 on:** November 13, 2007, 08:42:33 AM »

Obviously, the major problem on the project was do we blend or do Macdonald or do we do Tille. At the beginning it was probably 5 people within the club who favored Macdonald(plus our architects that we consulted). Most everyone wanted WF/Tillie. I expected once the project was complete we would still have %50 who did not "like the look" like Wayne. It would be a fair arguement and I have no reply. The fact is we have had virtually nobody who has complained about the aesthetic look of our new bunkering.

I have no problem with someone who does not like a look of something "classic". In the case of #2, #16 however, I strongly disagree with their view as I believe the archticture is most appropriate. Strong angles allow you to see the hole, otherwise with the monster panorama in the background the greens would even look more tiny.

I never thought about it but are stronger angles and a more angular look more appropriate on a property with a large scale?

« **Reply #28 on:** November 13, 2007, 08:59:13 AM »

"I expected once the project was complete we would still have %50 who did not "like the look" like Wayne. It would be a fair arguement and I have no reply. The fact is we have had virtually nobody who has complained about the aesthetic look of our new bunkering."

Corey:

Of course nobody is complaining but maybe it would be different if you guys at Sleepy Hollow would let the people who might complain out of the dungeon in the bottom of your Vanderbilt mansion clubhouse.

Seriously, maybe Wayno Morrison really doesn't like the straight line engineered look of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks et al architecture and maybe he's sort of kidding.

For me, though, I'm fascinated by it and it's been growing on me over the years.

The reason I'm so fascinated by it is I just think it completely represents the pinnacle of a most interesting era and aesthetic in the entire evolution of golf course architecture, and it's pretty hard to deny it plays great.

There always will be, I'm sure, a real dynamic between how much or how little evidence of the "man-made" or the "man-made" look there should be in golf course architecture, and there's no question where Macdonald/Raynor where in that dynamic.

The real question to me, though, is why they were where they were in that dynamic, and that's just interesting to me. Frankly, I think I know most of the reasons for that.

But in the final analysis I just like "Difference". I think it makes the art form richer.

« **Reply #29 on:** November 13, 2007, 09:06:47 AM »

Quote from: corey miller on November 13, 2007, 08:42:33 AM

I never thought about it but are stronger angles and a more angular look more appropriate on a property with a large scale?

Interesting observation. Holes 1-5 at The Creek are viewed as the weakest compared to 6-18. Always thought it was due to the views, but maybe also due to the tiny footprint of property for those holes 1-5?

Southampton has been softened over the years, but it sits on the smallest property of any Raynor course that I can think of. Is it overshawdowed by its neighbors or by its smaller piece of land?

Yale, Fishers, National all have much bigger scale, but then again this website almost always favors courses with bigger scale.

Once again, iteresting observation, just not sure.

« **Reply #30 on:** November 13, 2007, 09:07:24 AM »

Corey:

On the subject of whether to try to leave some Tillinghast with the Macdonald/Raynor architecture is a tough one and I do know the risks one runs and the type of criticism it can evoke.

Probably the most common and expected criticism would be that various holes on the course would be "out of character" with one another somehow.

Personally, I don't buy that while always understanding that most probably like and want some consistent style or look.

At GMGC we went through that too. If I hadn't stepped in our project may've tried to remove some of the Perry Maxwell from our Ross course and Ross restoration. Thankfully, I convinced them otherwise and it wasn't hard to do for the simple reason that even if the membership didn't realize it some of the holes they've always respected the most are Perry's holes.

So we have both and will always have both. It's not unobvious to the studied eye either. Bill Coore, without being told, picked out all the Maxwell in a heartbeat.

« **Reply #31 on:** November 13, 2007, 11:12:37 AM »

This is not particularly pertinent to Sleepy Hollow, but what I like about Ran's photographs in his Courses by Country reviews is that the photos are so clever at revealing detail. One specific exampole is the 15th green at Alwoodley. His is the only picture I've seen that shows the severeity and the nature of the contouring at the front of the green. He did this by getting me to stand at exactly the right spot to give the whole thing definition and scale. His are always the first photos that I seek when looking for something which tells me what playing at a particular course would be like. I am happy that Frank Pont's excellent wed site is expanding - try his Swinley Forest, for example.

I don't know how the update of this site is going, but it would be immensely useful to have an index of links to specific photographs - there are so many fabulous pictures on here.

« **Reply #32 on:** November 13, 2007, 11:20:51 AM »

Mark

It sounds like you're setting yourself up as the world's first "greens model." Ranging somewhat afield on this, with today's news that beginning next year English cricketers may well have pink balls, does that increase or decrease their desirability as greens models?

(I think we all know what it means when the Aussies get ahold of this news...)

Mark

« **Reply #33 on:** November 13, 2007, 11:35:21 AM »

Whoops, I made a mistake! Ran's photo is from the side of #3. The short hole below is #17. Sorry!

These photos have been posted before, but here are other views of the hole, circa Macdonald-Rees-Hanse:

« **Reply #34 on:** November 13, 2007, 12:25:40 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on November 13, 2007, 08:07:54 AM

That green looks like a big green custard on a plate of milk. It doesn't do a damn thing for me except make me hungry.

Tom, Remember the old Holstein picture we debated? How about this stretch of holes at Pancake Dunes GC? It's a tough maintenance meld, too. (Inspiring or nauseating?)

« **Reply #35 on:** November 13, 2007, 01:55:38 PM »

I loathe syrup surrounds. It acts like long rough steifeling the balls ability to go anywhere.

Great pictures, Thanx Bill.

The Rees Jones version sure must've raised a good deal of debate upon removal.

« **Reply #36 on:** November 13, 2007, 02:04:32 PM »

Adam

I think you grossly overestimate the ability of a country club membership to discern between good and bad.

« **Reply #37 on:** November 13, 2007, 03:35:10 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on November 12, 2007, 09:54:07 PM

Pat,

In fact, I prefer form and function.

Why can't people accept that acclaim need not be universal?

I think they can, but, there's a difference between accepting and rejecting the architectural principles and play of the hole.[/color]

If you must know, I find the combination of a steep grassy bank and an almost laser leveled sand floor does not appeal to me at all.

In ligh of budget constraints, how can bunker floors be maintained other than flat ?

A steep grassy bank sends a clear architectural signal to the golfers eye. It presents a tactical challenge that can't be ignored.

Flynn must have loved that signal since he created so many of them at Shinnecock.[/color]

They are unnatural in appearance and undoubtedly more expensive to maintain than natural angles of repose.

I disagree[/color]

The recovery from a flat bottom compensates for the steep grassy bank. I would much rather face the challenge of an undulated floor in a bunker.

Gravity, rain and normal maintainance practices preclude that from happening.

How do you keep consistent sand depth on a bunker floor that undulates ?[/color]

There is less predictability and sameness. That is a serious flaw in my mind. I recognize it is not in yours and don't question your right to feel this way. I ask the same.

Except that you can't ignore the impracticality of the maintainance issues with respect to your preference.
You have to address them, and unless you have an unlimited budget, don't get much rain or wind and have members that don't complain, you can't achieve your objective, it's just not feasable.[/color]

« **Reply #38 on:** November 13, 2007, 03:39:46 PM »

Pat,

I thought bunkers were hazards...do the guys at your course mow their creek bed grass to a consistent height?

« **Reply #39 on:** November 13, 2007, 03:40:18 PM »

stunningly beautiful!

« **Reply #40 on:** November 13, 2007, 03:45:17 PM »

Corey Miller,

What most don't understand, and can't extropolate from the photos is the nature of the hole from the perspective of playability.

It has a skyline quality to it, a sense that anything hit beyond the green is in deep trouble, and thus golfers desperately fear going long.

Since the green slopes from back to front, that's correct, back hole locations are frightening, and for the conservative golfer, shots well below the hole are faced with difficult putts.

Front and side hole locations present their unique challenges, on the approach, recovery and putts.

It's a wonderful little hole IF you like playing golf.

If you just like looking at pictures, it's pretty good too.

The hole, and green, sitting high above the ground behind it, is also subject to the vicissitudes of the winds.

« **Reply #41 on:** November 13, 2007, 03:51:43 PM »

Quote from: JES II on November 13, 2007, 03:39:46 PM

Pat,

I thought bunkers were hazards...do the guys at your course mow their creek bed grass to a consistent height?

JES II,

Now that your kids are getting older, have them read these posts for you, since your reading comprehension skills are suffering.

Wayne referenced laser leved sand floors in bunkers.
When I last examined bunker maintainance, an inordinate number of clubs were using mechanized Sand Pros to groom them.

Sand Pros, gravity and rain tend to flatten bunker floors.

Undulating bunker floors sound interesting, but, in fact, they present a unique set of maintainance problems not easily remedied, save for flattening them.

Have you tried, "Hooked on Phonics" ?

P.S. How do you suppose they mow those steep banks at
Shinnecock ?[/color]

« **Reply #42 on:** November 13, 2007, 03:54:39 PM »

Why would you worry about consistent sand depth in bunkers?

« **Reply #43 on:** November 13, 2007, 04:59:22 PM »

Quote from: JES II on November 13, 2007, 03:54:39 PM

Why would you worry about consistent sand depth in bunkers?

It's been a problem at a great number of clubs.

Depending upon the grooming pattern, Sand Pros tend to take the sand from the center of the bunker and push it to the perimeters.

This makes the perimeters more prone to plugged lies and leaves the core of the bunker with little or no sand between the ball and the floor of the bunker. This can be a safety issue and a playability issue.

Members generally want consistancy in the bunker.

They don't want one area of the bunker to be 12 inches of sand and the other areas less than 1 inch. They want consistancy.

The problem gets compounded when bunker configuration along with the surrounds feeds water into the bunkers leading to further redistribution of the sand. This is especially true in areas like South Florida in the summer.

In theory, you can't test the depth of the sand in preparation for your shot. You can take a "firm" stance, but, you can't dig in, building a stance, which would give you a feel for bunker sand depth.

Most golfers want to know the depth of the sand, especially the better golfer, because it can affect the way they play the extrication.

Thus, the marching orders to Superintendents are usually along the lines of providing consistant depth with their bunker sand.[/color]

« **Reply #44 on:** November 13, 2007, 05:07:12 PM »

But how do you feel about it Pat...not what club members want...how do you feel about inconsistencies in sand depth in bunkers?

I am sure, now that he is a bit older, your youngest child will be able to tell you if you've answered the question yet...call him from his homework before you hit [POST]...

I think this is one area that addresses your frequent questions about combating the distances todays top level competitive golfers hit the ball. Return the bunkers to being real hazards that good players want to avoid at all costs...then, if the green is firm enough you can provide a real reward (via playing angle) for ball control and positioning...

« **Reply #45 on:** November 13, 2007, 05:22:46 PM »

Quote from: JES II on November 13, 2007, 05:07:12 PM

But how do you feel about it Pat...not what club members want...how do you feel about inconsistencies in sand depth in bunkers?

I still feel with my hands.[/color]

I am sure, now that he is a bit older, your youngest child will be able to tell you if you've answered the question yet...call him from his homework before you hit [POST]...

Since I attend school with him, we're both doing our homework at the present time.[/color]

I think this is one area that addresses your frequent questions about combating the distances todays top level competitive golfers hit the ball.

Return the bunkers to being real hazards that good players want to avoid at all costs...then, if the green is firm enough you can provide a real reward (via playing angle) for ball control and positioning...

I've made my position clear many times.

I'd prefer to see bunkers maintained on a needs basis or on a much longer cycle. I find daily maintainance unnecessary in many to most cases and expensive.

But, I don't call the shots, the memberships do, and the memberships want consistent sand depth.

Wayne's promotion of undulating floors is insanity, something he must have picked up from TEPaul. I'd advise keeping far away from those two.

Try draining bunkers with undulating floors.

Or, try building them and keeping them dry.

It's a problem.

Bunkers should drain properly if they're to function properly, and you can't do that with undulating bunker floors.

In addition to lack of drainage, rain, wind and gravity will defeat undulating bunker floors. Think about it.
[/color]

« **Reply #46 on:** November 13, 2007, 05:33:51 PM »

Pat,

What drains better, a flat surface or a graded surface?

Think about it!

Also...it is possible to keep the large majority of water that enters a bunker out of the bunker without looking unnatural or contrived...see the link below...not the best photos for studying the drainage flow around the bunkers, but at least a taste...love to have you down some time next year.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/huntingdon000166.html

« **Reply #47 on:** November 14, 2007, 11:04:19 AM »

Pat, take a deep breath and relax.

In fact, I prefer form and function.

Why can't people accept that acclaim need not be universal?[/color]

I think they can, but, there's a difference between accepting and rejecting the architectural principles and play of the hole.[/color]

Yes, Pat. I accept the play of the hole and reject the architectural principles that manifests the play. That distinction in particular seems to elude you.

If you must know, I find the combination of a steep grassy bank and an almost laser leveled sand floor does not appeal to me at all. [/color]

In light of budget constraints, how can bunker floors be maintained other than flat ?

A steep grassy bank sends a clear architectural signal to the golfers eye. It presents a tactical challenge that can't be ignored.

Flynn must have loved that signal since he created so many of them at Shinnecock.[/color]

That is an astounding statement that makes absolutely no sense, especially given that you may have no idea about the budget constraints of this particular club and certainly do not as regards other clubs in general.

Since when is a clear architectural signal the ideal design?

What exactly are you saying that Flynn did so many times at Shinnecock Hills? Steep grass faced bunkers with flat sand bottoms? Are you sure about that?

They are unnatural in appearance and undoubtedly more expensive to maintain than natural angles of repose.

I disagree[/b]

You are stubborn. What is natural about steep grass faced depressions, straight lines and flat sand bottoms?

The recovery from a flat bottom compensates for the steep grassy bank. I would much rather face the challenge of an undulated floor in a bunker.

Gravity, rain and normal maintainance practices preclude that from happening.

How do you keep consistent sand depth on a bunker floor that undulates ?[/b]

What does gravity, rain and normal maintenance practices preclude?.

I agree with Sully. Who wants predictability, sameness and fairness in a bunker? You? That would be a shock.[/color]

There is less predictability and sameness. That is a serious flaw in my mind. I recognize it is not in yours and don't question your right to feel this way. I ask the same.[/color]

Except that you can't ignore the impracticality of the maintainance issues with respect to your preference.
You have to address them, and unless you have an unlimited budget, don't get much rain or wind and have members that don't complain, you can't achieve your objective, it's just not feasable.[/b]

You are hammering a large square peg into a small round hole.[/color]

« **Reply #48 on:** November 14, 2007, 12:41:12 PM »

Quote from: Charlie_Dusic on November 13, 2007, 06:19:51 PM

Just to defend my position on moats or lack thereof. That bunker was already there so I would not be thinking of adding an additional moat around it.

Charlie,

You are wrong! That bunker was not already there. It had been replaced by some ugly Japanese bathtubs.

News:

corey miller

TEPaul

corey miller

TEPaul

Mike Sweeney

TEPaul

Mark_Rowlinson

Mark Bourgeois

Bill Brightly

Norbert P

Adam Clayman

corey miller

Patrick_Mucci

JESII

PThomas

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

JESII

wsmorrison

Garland Bayley