Dr. Katz,
I have broken my concentration and have not achieved the level of awareness I knew that I was capable of. But now, I must speak. I feel that in this period I have learned much about light, darkness, knowing, not knowing, temptation, discipline, etc. And while this coming off the mountain is a failure to achieve, I do think that it is with complete merit-I MUST SPEAK.
Congratulations Jeff B, You have done it again. But I come from this exile of sorts to challenge you to build a cross bunker. I say make it work. See if you can really make the thing work in this day and age of the "excessive, egotistical, equipment minded-long hitter" that thinks that your challenge to him would be unfair.
I think with cross-bunkering, the player has to/must be teased. He needs to see that "Line of Charm" to make him want to go for it.
"Can I make it?" "Is it far as it looks?" or "I have to hit this over that area of the cross bunker to be in the proper position to enter the green and it's pin postion," should be what they are thinking.
Tease them by letting them see a little bit of the target, or even setting the cross-bunker on an angle, where the lower portion of of the blinding rise would enable a long driver to play for that portion of fairway.
Entice them.
A prime example would be Plainfield #15. The hole has a gentle rise to it and the cross-bunker blinds the green from the second shot. This opens up a challenge to the good player that if he wants to go for the green he has much to contend with, or he can safely play over the safe-side of that bunker and then have an even easier shot in for bird. Cross-bunkering has to work with the rest of the hazards and the contours of the hole to be effective. And my belief that "Placement is everything."
While Tom Paul has more or less brought up the valid points of not using it in this modern day, I will bring up a valid point where a cross-bunker has been used not only effectively, but perfectly, even for the longest of hitters, and there is certainly a tease to go for it-Inniscrone #9.
The day we played there, I had the long-hitting professional that accompanied us, hit an extra shot to see if he could carry it. He barely did in one try, and it left him with a excellent shot into the green. But on the other attempts, they were slightly less then perfect shots that left him with in essence the same shot in, only somewhat blind. If he plays any of those shots to the higher side/right, he can actually see part of the green or at least the area where the green is at. But if he tries to drive the hazard and ends up short he required a much more demanding shot. Not to mention that the green shot must be played as a bump & run from the extreme right of the green, (go for the right of the flag pole!)where it will roll to the hole for most pin positions depending on it's strength and distance.
A look? and an awesome one at that. But certainly an architect has to, in some cases, use little tricks to bolster a less then desirable site. Talking Stick would be a prime example of this, and it is done perfectly and has it's "look," and its a fierce and impressionable one at that, with those dramatic bunkers that figure into the strategy of many of the holes, and also create illusions on others.
And I have to ask a question of Tom Doak, wouldn't Stonewall be considered having "The Look" that you describe of? I think it aptly descripts the land perfect, the tall grassess and bunkering. So much that it disguises the slopes and fall-offs such as at #11 perfectly.
In Tom's frame of work and his minimilist values, he can probably get more out of a nothing site then anybody. I'm anxious to see what he is going to do with a perfect site like Bandon, where those values may dictate a formula that many a golf architect will want to study for many years to come, but many will not have a clue how to do it simply because they will try to emulate and not study. (See the book, "How I copied Pete Dye's style of the 80's and called it my own" by Ted Robinson)
The architect then is forced to rely on gimmicks such as wonderful and beautiful waterscapes to hide their failures, and they don't even know it.
I think if one could say that he has not had to worry about the look, it would certainly be at Bandon. It's all natural, not created.
Too many architects are going for a pleasant visual, experience that has little to do with strategy of a golf hole other then the search for lost golf balls. such is the work of Bob Cupp and his incessant use of tall native grasses to frame a hole for "The Look."
When looking at his "The Reserve at the Vineyard" course in Aloha, Oregon, he was given one of he most demanding plots of ground because of it size. I think this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to create his best work ever, because he had to work at it. The topography of the land is perfect, just not a lot of room. I
Instead of reinventing himself in this situation, he stuck by his principles which require the tall grasses and the gimmicks (A triple green)and less then memorable holes. It is a failure of the worst kind, because it has a much better course, that had much more land to work with, by his former colleague, right next to it to compare it to.
For me, this is "The Look" of which Tom Doak describes.
I need a drink.