[Bill Brightly]

I think it's fine if you out for a fun round of golf with your buddies.

But if you are playing in a medal tournament or match play event, I think it adds too much of the "random" element for my tastes.

Miss the green short by 2 feet and you may lose your ball or have an unplayable. Miss it short by 5 feet or more, and you have a fairly simple bunker shot. I think that is backwards. If the junk was not at the top of the bunker, all the shots would end up in the same place: the bottom of the bunker, and I could live with that.

I'd rather not win, or lose, a golf hole to such a random outcome as losing a ball 2 feet short of the green.

And I'll bet you this: the A players will tend to agree with me, while the naysayers will mostly be middle-handicaps and above. They think randomness is funny, A players are willing to rely on their skill to recover from mishits, and feel cheated when that opportunity is taken away by randomness.

[George Pazin]

This thread is more about the growth around the bunker. It always concerns me when I see growth of shrubs & grasses that grow in unnatural places. On many courses, this type of growth is encouraged by the fertilisers used.

Forgive my ignorance here, but could such growth not be the result of lack of maintenance practices? Maybe they let things go for awhile, then trim it back periodically, rather than the constant vigilance of a place like Augusta?

If so, then this would be the exact opposite of the maintenance standards of Augusta.

If not, well, it won't be the first time I'm wrong, not even the first time today!

And I'll bet you this: the A players will tend to agree with me, while the naysayers will mostly be middle-handicaps and above. They think randomness is funny, A players are willing to rely on their skill to recover from mishits, and feel cheated when that opportunity is taken away by randomness.

That's some high opinion you have of lesser golfers.

[Mark_F]

However there is no backstop on the right half of the green and a severe downslope on the back of the bunker meaning that that many balls hit at a pin in the middle right of the green over the bunker scurry through the back of the green.

David,

Isn't this part of the puzzle of Gunnamatta?  There are a number of greens where to hit straight at the pin is inviting the contours to shunt the ball aside.

Simply playing a lovely fade in from the left, as you did last time, solves the problem of scurrying balls quite well.

I don't feel as if there is anything wrong with the particular plant you have pointed out - the problem is that there is just too much other grass planted around the bunker, which hides its beautiful shape.

By the way, who let that refugee from an Avril Lavigne video on the course?  Have standards slipped that far?

Most of you are missing the point. The 3rd photo shows that the architect did not plan on those shrubs being there.

But there was something there BD.  Paddock grass.  Which didn't look much good,either, and was just as unnatural.  

I am sure the architect(s) would have wanted something around there - just not as much, and obviously not foreign objects.  

[Kyle Harris]

To each their own.

Adam, thats a gross simplification.  But the picture above does raise the question as to the asthetic and practical purpose of the plant on the right of the picture.  

Maybe the spray tech missed an MSMA application for oh... 5 months.

[Dan King]

Bill Brightly writes:
And I'll bet you this: the A players will tend to agree with me, while the naysayers will mostly be middle-handicaps and above. They think randomness is funny, A players are willing to rely on their skill to recover from mishits, and feel cheated when that opportunity is taken away by randomness.

Yep, I've found the better the golfer, the less ability they have to handle the mental aspects of the game. I'm kind of curious why anyone would see that as a fault of those that handle the mental side rather than a fault of the A player who can not.

Cheers,
Grandan King

If a course needs to be in great condition to be played effectively, then the design strategy is flawed.
 --Tom Watson

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is this good architecture or bad architecture?  Or neither?  Why?  Will be interested to hear what people think.

David,

I think it's unnecessary EYE CANDY.

Unfortunately, it's the eye candy that many prefer.

I'm with Rich Goodale in that its existance and function impede play at a reasonable pace.

Playing from those "hang ups" can be dangerous and destructive to the bunker.   Taking an unplayable, which is what they pretty much dictate, is overly harsh.

I think it's an unnecessary feature.
The bunker functions perfectly well without them.

They are nothing more than EYE CANDY

[Dan Kelly]

I thought EYE CANDY comprised pretty (in whomever's eyes) features that do not affect the play of the golf course.

[Mike Hendren]

Would the player's predicment be less objectionable if match play ruled the day at this course?

[Bill Brightly]

Yep, I've found the better the golfer, the less ability they have to handle the mental aspects of the game. I'm kind of curious why anyone would see that as a fault of those that handle the mental side rather than a fault of the A player who can not.

Pretty funny. Wrong, but funny.

Everyone knows that golf is largely a "mental game" to start with, so A players obviously have mastered it far better than non A players. And the A player can "handle" randomness, he can get over it by the time he gets to the next hole. Rebounding from negative results is another A player trait.

But the A player has also probably spent two or three times as much time practicing than the non A player, thats one of the reasons he got to be an A player...so when a random event causes the loss of the hole or a match, or a missed cut in medal play,  the A player feels more cheated. After all, the A player invests a ton of time practicing for the event, and wants to win or lose based upon ablity. Don't equate that with not being tough, with not being able to rise to a challenge, because those are also traits that A players possess.

Put differently, if you invest ZERO time practicing, and you lose a ball in the gorse on the top of a trap, it is easy to laugh it off because you really haven't invested much effort in your game, so you really have no right to be annoyed.

[Dan King]

Bil Brightly writes:
Everyone knows that golf is largely a "mental game" to start with, so A players obviously have mastered it far better than non A players. And the A player can "handle" randomness, he can get over it by the time he gets to the next hole. Rebounding from negative results is another A player trait.

Pretty funny. Wrong, but funny.

Your A player is the one constantly whining about the game's unfairness. They want to take away the part of the game they are terrible at, the mental game. That is because he/she is ill equipped to handle breaks that aren't of their own making. I've found they are more than happy to accept unfair bounces that work to their benefit, but bounces that work against them are treated as if it is the golf courses' fault. I really think if it wasn't for the chance to brag about the courses they have played, most A players would be happy playing inside a golf simulator rather than out where messy Mother Nature decides things.

Who is it, when sitting on greens committees, is constantly trying to change the course to fit their game?

Put differently, if you invest ZERO time practicing, and you lose a ball in the gorse on the top of a trap, it is easy to laugh it off because you really haven't invested much effort in your game, so you really have no right to be annoyed.

Or maybe rather than spending all that time at the range, they've spent as much time preparing mentally, while your A player has spent no time. It is just as likely he/she isn't annoyed because he/she recognizes they got a good break on the previous hole. Your A player doesn't recognize good breaks, thinking they are all of his/her making.

Cheers,
Grandan King

Excessive golfing dwarfs the intellect. Nor is this to be wondered at when we consider that the more fatuously vacant the mind is, the better for play. It has been observed that absolute idiots play the steadiest.
  --Sir Walter Simpson  (The Art of Golf)

[George Pazin]

Everyone knows that golf is largely a "mental game" to start with, so A players obviously have mastered it far better than non A players.

If everyone knows this, everyone is wrong.

[Michael Dugger]

Good bunker.

good design.

totally fair.

Sure it pisses you off, but hazards are suppose to be hazardous.

It's no worse than playing out of a Muirfield bunker backwards.

Unplayable is still one stroke last time I checked.

[Tom_Doak]

John K:  Sorry man, I'm not cutting off my ear, and I hope if I die poor that it's a long time from now and I enjoyed it.

Otherwise:  There is a severe natural slope into which we built a severe bunker.  I'm surprised that a ball would plug there, that usually doesn't happen in the sand belt.  There are too many plants on the top of the bunker, which were planted by the superintendent after the last time I saw the hole.  Since they owe us a lot of $, we are out of the loop there or I'd go remove them myself.

[John Mayhugh]

No problem at all with the bunker.  I think most of the plants on top need to go.  If there's a plant that isn't too thick and you can find your ball, then that would be OK with me.

A difficult hazard is reasonable, but a lost ball so close to the green isn't.

[Mark_F]

I'm with Rich Goodale in that its existance and function impede play at a reasonable pace.

Playing from those "hang ups" can be dangerous and destructive to the bunker.   Taking an unplayable, which is what they pretty much dictate, is overly harsh.

Patrick,

Do you consider the above applicable because the bunker is carved into such a severe upslope,necessitating an awkward lie and/or stance?

If the bunker was built into flatter ground, isn't much of the above redundant?

[Bill Brightly]

I did not know this was a Doak hole, but it was so nice to read Tom explin that the junk at the top of the trap was added by someone else!


Dan King:

You wrote this: "Your A player is the one constantly whining about the game's unfairness. They want to take away the part of the game they are terrible at, the mental game."

This may be the single most foolish statement I've read on GCA. Congrats!

Who is the best player in the world? Tiger Woods. Who is the most mentally tough? Right, same guy: Tiger Woods.

A players may whine a bit louder when something bad happens, (including Tiger) but they get over it by the next hole. We just care a little more. You sound like a frustrated middle handicapper...I can't imgine an A player making such a statement.

The junk at the top of the bunker is both crap design and unfair. If I were Grounds Chair there, I'd want it gone for those reasons; how a condition effects my game is meaningless. Most importantly, the ARCHITECT wants it gone!

Your statement that A players on the Committe do this is the SECOND most foolish statement I've read on GCA. I imagine that a small percentage are bad committee members, they meddle to help their own game, but they could be A, B, C or D players, and they all should be removed from the committee.

Lastly, A players see ALL the breaks, good and bad. Being observant is one more trait that helps you get to be an A player.


 

[Andrew Summerell]

I'm just a little weary of the fiction that there's a "party line" (for lack of a better word) here -- and that "this site" has a point of view.

I don't believe this site has a 'party line', but this type of bunkering in fashionable at the moment & I see many poor renderings of this style given a pass mark when a pass mark is not due.

Of course, you do realise there is a 'party line' at this site. We are all interested in golf course architecture  

[Andrew Summerell]

This thread is more about the growth around the bunker. It always concerns me when I see growth of shrubs & grasses that grow in unnatural places. On many courses, this type of growth is encouraged by the fertilisers used.

Forgive my ignorance here, but could such growth not be the result of lack of maintenance practices? Maybe they let things go for awhile, then trim it back periodically, rather than the constant vigilance of a place like Augusta?

If so, then this would be the exact opposite of the maintenance standards of Augusta.

If not, well, it won't be the first time I'm wrong, not even the first time today!

I'm more concerned about what fertilisers do in these cases. Some plants that are use to poor conditions don't handle fertilisers & others thrive. Either way, in some cases, the average golfers love of beautiful fairways often changes the architecture of the course.

[Dan King]

Bill Brightly writes:
This may be the single most foolish statement I've read on GCA. Congrats!

This is indeed and honor coming form someone like yourself.

Who is the best player in the world? Tiger Woods. Who is the most mentally tough? Right, same guy: Tiger Woods.

Your basing this on what? How do you know there isn't a physically inferior golfer who is much better at the mental game than Tiger Woods? How do you know there isn't thousands of them? Since the tours Tiger plays on concentrate primarily on testing the physical game, it is hard to imagine a mentally superior, but physically inferior, golfer ever getting a chance to compete.

The PGA TourŪ is a prime example about physically superior golfers who insist on playing on courses that do little to test their mental game. This is because they are afraid mentally superior golfers would then be able to compete against their shot making.

You sound like a frustrated middle handicapper...I can't imgine an A player making such a statement.

You sound like someone with very little imagination.

Your statement that A players on the Committe do this is the SECOND most foolish statement I've read on GCA. I imagine that a small percentage are bad committee members, they meddle to help their own game, but they could be A, B, C or D players, and they all should be removed from the committee.

But for some reason the Tigers do most of the complaining about the course when they are on Greens Committees. It's been true since the days of the feathery and it remains true today. Pretend it is universal all you want, you just end up looking more foolish.

Cheers,
Grandan King

The least thing upset him on the links. He missed short putts because of the uproar of the butterflies in the adjoining meadows.
  --P.G. Wodehouse

[Tim Bert]

These pictures are from two world class golf courses, both easily in my personal top 5 that I've played.  I consider these two shots on par with the original photo in this thread.  Certainly not the reason I think either has great architecture.  My only point is that I don't think this stuff is going away any time soon.  Best to assess where the really nasty stuff is and avoid the heck out of it!

[Rich Goodale]

Grandan

Firstly--congratulations on the grandsprog.

Secondly--grandanism seems to have affected your brain.  Bill Brightly is right regarding the direct correlation between mental strength and golfing ability (assuming that ability is inverse to the mean number of strokes played on any hole, whether in match or stroke play).  If athleticism were remotely involved, Corey Pavin would be a mild-mannered accountant and Tim Herron a Senior Vice President at Wendy's

Rich

PS--the ability to putt a a ball into the hole with a driver from 30 yards off the 18th green to deprive another golfer of a small modicum of pride is an example of impiousness, not mental or physical ability.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm with Rich Goodale in that its existance and function impede play at a reasonable pace.

Playing from those "hang ups" can be dangerous and destructive to the bunker.   Taking an unplayable, which is what they pretty much dictate, is overly harsh.

Patrick,

Do you consider the above applicable because the bunker is carved into such a severe upslope,necessitating an awkward lie and/or stance?

It's a combination of factors.

I didn't know it was a Tom Doak Bunker, but, I'm glad to see that we're in harmony on the issue.[/color]

If the bunker was built into flatter ground, isn't much of the above redundant?

I don't know what you mean by that.[/color]

While it might be a difference of degree, irrespective of whether it was match or medal play I think the trimmings and presentation are excessive.



Dan King,

It's good to see you back on site again.[/color]

[Adam Clayman]

Congrats GranDan!

Impiousness to one, maybe righteous to another. Especially off Kikuyu.

There is no doubt, had Rihc won a skin that day, it would not have been as heralded, or remembered.(fondly)

[M. Shea Sweeney]

The PGA TourŪ is a prime example about physically superior golfers who insist on playing on courses that do little to test their mental game. This is because they are afraid mentally superior golfers would then be able to compete against their shot making.

Dan King-

In my opinion and you may disagree, call me wrong etc.

The level that the tour players are on, no golf course is really going to test their 'mental games'.

Test their course management, and imagination? then i will agree with you and say the PGA Tour, Nationwide Tour, Gateway Tour, etc. does not test this.


However their mental game is being effected by alot of other things. I do not know what level of golf you play at, or have played at. But I know many fine players who are not playing at a certain level because of their 'mental game', and it isn't the golf courses they are playing that is causing that.

My first 2 years of college I did not play on the team because I am a F-ing nutcase during stoke play competition. My school as a course on campus that I have shot many rounds in the 60's on. However I couldn't  put 4 rounds together in the fall and spring tryout on the exact course I had been playing the entire year. I can assure that its not the golf course. I have hit the same exact shots with a alot of money on the line.

-Mike

[John Kirk]

But if you are playing in a medal tournament or match play event, I think it adds too much of the "random" element for my tastes.
...

And I'll bet you this: the A players will tend to agree with me, while the naysayers will mostly be middle-handicaps and above. They think randomness is funny, A players are willing to rely on their skill to recover from mishits, and feel cheated when that opportunity is taken away by randomness.

Huge remark here, relevant to another recent discussion about "randomness".

Bill,

First of all, I have no intention of inserting myself in any active disagreements you may be having in this thread.

My experience is that "A" players, or at least guys with handicaps between +2 and 4 or 5, do quite a bit of complaining when they are subjected to an unlucky result.  Some of them lose their composure, or their focus, and fall apart temporarily.  That's my experience.

The problem is I spend most of my time playing with "A" players, and am not that qualified to comment on the mental toughness of mid- to high-handicappers.  It makes sense that better players should know better how to shake off adversity when it occurs, but I'm not sure, as they also have a greater emotional stake in their golfing ability.

I fall apart sometimes...I get a bad break, double bogey a hole, and the wheels will fall off for a while.  But I am a strong proponent of "randomness", and believe a great course yields a wide spectrum of results, and believe well executed shots should not always yield a good result.

I see Tom D. said the plant was planted there, but if it were me in that predicament, that would not make me curse the course.  I'm just trying hard to shake it off, hack it out sideways and try to make bogey.  Then I'll take the thorns out of my leg and try to play the next hole better.

After all, plant or not, this is a ball plugged at the top of a big steep bunker.  What is wrong with that?  It was a bad shot.

Dan,

I do think Tiger, as well as all of those PGA professionals, are tough as nails.  I don't think it is reasonable to separately evaluate physical and mental abilities, they are largely the same.  There are lots of scratch guys up here in Portland who bitch about randomness.  And sloped greens, too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()