[Kelly Blake Moran]

Kelly Blake Moran,

Do you think that the cost to reconfigure the irrigation lines might be an impediment to inserting them on existing golf courses ?

It could be one reason used to shoot down the proposal.  Depending upon the course location and time of year, the most expensive aspect of doing the project will be the sod.  The irrigation would consist of trying to somehow rearrange the displaced heads with consideration for the exisiting heads that remain.  Introducing such a feature throws the whole head layout out of whack.  Also if you are doing a grassed faced bunker then you must irrigate the face of the bunker unless it is the type of course that has the stressed out fescue look.  Even doing all of this the irrigation is not that expensive.  The problem is you can never get the head spacing as good as it should have been on the original hole so you may end up with some wet or dry spots.  So I do not think irrigation is the biggest impediment.  Change, fear of change and old entrenched ideas that some of the members have are the biggest impediments.  you have an old friend that has fought me every inch on a renovation, putting down every single proposed change, but once the project gets under way most everyone else see the changes as refreshing and necessary and the opposition tends to get ignored.  However, as Tom pointed out I am smart enough to know the honeymoon won't last forever and there may be a revolt down the road once the good warm fuzzy feelings wear off.  what did someone say a wife is like a hurricane, she comes in all wet and wild, but when she leaves you don't have a car or home.  

[BCrosby]

Tom D. makes a good point. If you like centerline features, you have to like Nicklaus. I had forgotten he has done so many of them. More than any other modern I'm familiar with. (CC of the South, New Course, Melrose, Colleton) With a few exceptions, I think they work well.  

How has Nicklaus been able to build them while everyone else seems to have trouble selling the the idea? Is it because you don't say "no" to Jack Nicklaus?

Bob  

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I grew up at Piping Rock although by the time you and Dye redid Piping Rock I was out of Long Island. I never actually saw your "Principal's Nose" bunker on #10 but when I heard about it later I just loved the idea. I always thought that tee shot was just not interesting and certainly light on options. However, to put in that "principal's nose" bunker in the middle of that fairway I sure would've taken that stupid tree(s) down on the right side (and maybe the left too). With those trees on the right and the left that tee shot and the "Principal's Nose" bunker in the middle would feel a bit too cramped to me. But with those trees out of there and the bunker in the middle the golfer on the tee would feel a whole lot more freedom. Anyway, trees or no trees I'm real sorry they didn't keep that bunker. You should've gotten Woodie Millen's father Doc Millen to endorse it and I guarantee you no body would've taken it out.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Do you feel that the perception, that the feature is too severe, is the almost universal reason that the centerline bunker complex is not embraced in America ?

It's hard to imagine the members of Piping Rock opposing the concept and feature, especially when it follows one of the most severe green complexes anywhere.  The 9th green is severe and the 8th green is a pretty good "road hole" green that's been enhanced by the new tee on that hole.  And, the previous two green complexes and the bunkering and ground features could also be deemed severe, as could the 3rd hole, the Redan.

If the insertion of a centerline bunker feature can't make it at Piping Rock, it confirms my belief that the golfing culture, or country club culture in America won't accept these wonderfully, strategic features.

Are there any centerline bunker complexes or diagonal cross bunkers at Sebonack ?

TEPaul,

What hole at GMCC had a centerline bunker complex inserted during Gil Hanse's renovation-modernization project ?

[Sean_A]

I generally like the idea of narrowing fairways at a certain distance or running out of fairway on a gently legging hole.  However, it works better if there is a natural feature (or very well done man made feature) which narrows the fairway.  So in this respect it is similar to the Ben Hoganism.  You shouldn't use the driver off the fairway more than once a game because one gets a lie which can accomodate a driver only once a game.  

For those that think narrowing the fairway at 300 yards or whatever prohibits the average player from making the carry in two, whatever happened to the forward tees?  If pros have to be deadly accurate at 300 yards, the average guy need to be deadly accurate at 200 yards.  Since when did the average guy play the pro tees?  If folks play the right tees, there is no problem with narrowed fairways.  A bit of a no brainer really.  

I also like the idea of centerline bunkers, but I am not sure the general golfing public on either side of the pond approves of them.  Again, this should not be overdone.  

I don't even mind trees being utilized, so long as they aren't out of control.  A couple times a round is plenty and if there is a lovely old tree being used, I readily appluad this.  However, the hole still needs to have merit when the tree eventually disappears.  

I also really enjoy diagonal carries (creeks are particulaly good), especially when the safe carry is the worst position to be in if a shot is played too conservatively.  

Contouring of fairways is also very clever.  However, most of the man made humpty bumpty I have seen doesn't look right.  Also, I tend to think that pros generally don't struggle much with this situation unless it is windy.  

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
What hole at GMCC had a centerline bunker complex inserted during Gil Hanse's renovation-modernization project?"

#18. Not a bunker complex, just a single sort of pot bunker surrounded by fairway right in front of the green. It's debut had just the right amount of controversy in my opinion but the members are into it now, obviously recognizing its architectural value. It made an otherwise bland approach to the green really interesting for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which was the removal of two "add-on" bunkers on either side of the green front and the restoration of Ross's excellent arcing bunker surrounding most of the back of the green.  

Was it Ross or Ross's basic style? Not in the slightest but it only proves that with some real thought golf holes of even the most notable architect can be made better than they ever were before.

But of course there will probably be those who've never seen the course before or since who will claim otherwise for whatever their reasons.  

The proof is almost always in the pudding---it's called the "test of time"--eg in play!

[Patrick_Mucci]

#18. Not a bunker complex, just a single sort of pot bunker surrounded by fairway right in front of the green. It's debut had just the right amount of controversy in my opinion but the members are into it now, obviously recognizing its architectural value.

It made an otherwise bland approach to the green really interesting for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which was the removal of two "add-on" bunkers on either side of the green front and the restoration of Ross's excellent arcing bunker surrounding most of the back of the green.  

Was it Ross or Ross's basic style? Not in the slightest but it only proves that with some real thought golf holes of even the most notable architect can be made better than they ever were before.

The problem with that thinking is: When do you stop the tinkering that can result in the disfiguration of the hole and golf course ?

It takes a special chairman/club in conjunction with a special architect to recognize whether or not an added feature truely adds value to the hole.

If you look at every renovation ever undertaken, I'd venture to say that the chairman, committee and architect thought it was an improvement, irrespective of the result.[/color]

The proof is almost always in the pudding---it's called the "test of time?---eg in play!

While I agree with the "test of time" in theory, sometimes a disfiguration isn't undone because of budgetary and other considerations, including the memberships reluctance to put shovels in the ground again.
[/color]

[TEPaul]

"It takes a special chairman/club in conjunction with a special architect to recognize whether or not an added feature truely adds value to the hole."

Patrick:

Truer words have not been said. There's always a risk involved. But the thing is if a hole is just not making it in some way that becomes pretty obvious over time to a membership. How to fix that and make the hole better does take thought and experience from all involved obviously. And after it's done with anyone it still has to run that "test of time" in play to tell if it really was a success or a failure. No golf architect or others involved ever escaped that reality. In our project I think enough time has passed in play now to recognize what was successful and what wasn't. And of course all of us involved must accept the responsibilities for all of whatever was done.

"If you look at every renovation ever undertaken, I'd venture to say that the chairman, committee and architect thought it was an improvement, irrespective of the result."

That's true and like all others time will tell if they succeeded or failed. Otherwise what could you possibly mean by "the result"? Basically, there is no other way no matter who you are. That's the reality of golf architecture in a nutshell.

The other reality of golf architecture, at least on a website like this one, is no opinion is as good as one's own opinion!

The trick is always in how to get others to agree with you and stay in agreement through that "test of time" in play.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()