Is this lazy architecture?

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:  I said "reverse psychology 301", not architecture 301.  I don't necessarily think it represents good architecture.  But you'd be amazed how many players get fooled by that stuff time and time again.  They aren't trying to carry the bunker to set up a more difficult approach, as Brian suggested; they aren't thinking about the next shot at all.  They're just smashing away and showing they can.

[Andy Hodson]

Since the green is a reverse redan, by definition doesn't that make the proper approach come in from the left side of the fairway/rough. (Remembering Tiger (Woods, not Bernhardt) saying something to the effect of "its all about angles into the greens" when a reporter mentioned he hit it into the rough many times off the tee).

If so, isn't it better to allow a golfer to find that strategy by "luring" him to the right (disadvantageous) side with lush green fairway, instead of a quite hazardous bunker that screams "don't go here". The bunker takes away the experience of the golfer discovering the beauty of the redan, except maybe now on his third shot after he wedges out of the bunker.

Tom Doak, the hole that most comes to mind is #6 at PD. Three times this summer I hit terrible shots off the tee because of the angle required into that green. It would be tragic if those right side bunkers on #6 were instead on the left side, forcing the player  to the better side. There is an eternity of fairway left on that hole, but because of the angle (which is so evident from the tee...a great attribute of the hole) and one of the most gawd awful greenside bunkers, I could not make myself play down the left side (which may be the easiest tee shot on the golf course, if so chosen). BTW, my three scores on that hole were two numbers and one letter. All on a, what?, 340 yd hole.

I like your idea of reverse psychology...but i like when things are simpler, but not easier.

I vote no bunker. It ruins the discovery of the attributes of the green.

[ian]

Does not the ideal route depend on what type of shots a player perfers to play.

I am a lefty with a draw, why would I not want to be on the right off the tee. I take the biggest penalty, OB, out of the equation; and I don't mind hitting a draw into a reverse redan, since I can "feed" my shot in.

I don't think the answer to this is quite so simple; and I also agree with the notion that this all depends on what has come before or after this point in the round.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Ran,

On principle and experience, I'd have to agree with your brother and dad.  

[A_Clay_Man]

From Rans description, the hill the bunker resides on, is the key.  I'd say without the bunker the approach shot from that right side is made easier. Easier because, if it is a significant enough hill, the tendancy is to pull/hook the approach shot left, which to this green, seems like the required shot.

I like the aspect of the bunker being perpendicualr, and into, the line of instinct.

[Mike Hendren]

Most modern architects would put the bunker there just so they "did something" with the tee shot, instead of relying on a boundary as a principal hazard.

What would I have done?  It would depend on the rest of the course, and what we're trying to accomplish.

Tom,

Did the owner/developer at Quail Crossing insist on the quail habitats down the left side of the 14th hole?  Combined with the OB right, this was the most penal hole I played this year.  I did not like it - oh no I did not.

Fantastic fall-away green, however.  Did you design the left side thereof to be linear, or is the super getting creative?

In fact the greens at 12 through 15 were collectively as good as any "stretch"  I saw this year.  

Mike

[ForkaB]

Even though I find the description a bit unclear (i.e. what exactly happens to the 250-260 carry shot if executed successfully--is there much reward vs. the 250-260 carry shot hit to the left?) I like this bunker.  From the back tees, it narrows the target area (because the bunker is so penal) but also creates a couple of risk/reward options for the better player (bomb it over the bunker, hit 3-iron/rescue club to the gap, or try to bomb it down the left bottle-neck).  Presumably these same options would also be available for the shorter hitters from the forward tees.

Options are good.

With no bunker it becomes a one-trick pony.  Maybe fool the player the 1st time, but then it's play the same tee shot time after time (depending on ability and  memory).

[Dan Kelly]

I like the bunker because it's not an issue for the longer player...

What philosophy of GCA is that?

[ForkaB]

I like the bunker because it's not an issue for the longer player...

What philosophy of GCA is that?

It's the shivas "If I keep telling myself (and others) that I am really long, maybe someday I'll really be long and be able to carry those 250 yard bunkers" philosophy.

[BCrosby]

What philosophy of GCA is that?

It's called the "If I can fly it, I don't care" rule.

Guys, this is a Redan green that opens from the left. As Ran notes, any approach from the right will be damn hard to hold. Right side apporaches are penalized already by the shape of the green. But shots to the right ought to be an option for those wishing to bail away from the OB. The bunker on that side dilutes the value of that option and forces shots down the middle.

It's lazy architecture.

Bob

[A_Clay_Man]

250 uphill is different than 250.

[Dan Kelly]

BTW, Dan, I hope you don't take half of a sentence and quote people in your journalistic endeavors like that.  There were 2 reasons I said I liked it, not just one.  

Only the first half was interesting to me!

How about this for a GCA philosophy: If a bunker isn't an issue for the longer player, it shouldn't exist.

[ForkaB]

Sorry, Dave

If I'm aggressive it's only because I just came back from an all day/all night wedding with 250 Glaswegians, where if you didn't have an attitude, you'd never get served at the bar.....

Nevertheless, I'm still waiting to see you carry the ball 250....

[JESII]

The generalities of the hole are: par four, 430 yards, the playing corridor itself is through trees and is mostly straight with out of bounds down the left. The green is set at a ~ 30 degree angle to the fairway and runs from front left to back right. The green complex is a modified reverse redan with the usual bunkering. In short, the closer one drives toward the OB, the better the angle into the green.

So far, so good.

Now the plot thickens. Protruding in from the right edge of the rough is a bunker that cuts the width of the fairway in half at approximately the 250y mark from the back tee. It fits the terrain well as the architect built it into the upsweep at the crest of the hill. The tiger can try and carry it but on a direct line, he still wouldn't have the best angle into the green. Conversely, if he can carry it slightly uphill 260y, then he probably has a short iron into the green anyway and may not care much about playing angles.

As the bunker is cut into the hill, its lip is 4 feet or so and many a golfer has to wedge out and most golfers relinquish the idea of reaching the green in two if they get in it. To the credit of the architect, the bunker is a hazard and should be avoided. A great drive for a mere mortal playing from the right set of tees is to be to its left, leaving a mid to long iron into the green.

My question is: would the hole be better without this (seemingly vital) bunker?


Cheers,

 

There is one thing missing from the description that I think will shed new light on the best angle for approach, and therefore the value of the bunker.

Is the green surface sloped the way Redan greens typically are? Reverse Redan in this case.

That would mean a significant front-to-back slope and canted towards the front right bunker. Assuming that is the case, I leave the bunker and give the player the option of challenging a two-stroke hazard (OB) on one shot and no hazard on the second or facing a lesser hazard off the tee as well as into the green. There is a certain degree of risk and reward associated with both choices, the reward of challenging the OB left would seem to be less than the risk (if in fact the green is running away and difficult to run up to) so I would be left with the challenge of carrying a ball 260 uphill or laying back to leave 190 into the green.  

I don't think many peolpe capable of carrying their ball onto the green of any of the Redan par 3's in the world (I am most familiar with Shinnecock #7) would elect to move further right than the current tee angle to improve their approach angle, this would leave a green so severely sloped away that it would be near impossible to hit. Carrying that argument to this particular hole, and assuming a significant slope from front left to back right with a cant to the right, I would prefer the approach from the right.

If the green does not have enough slope to be mentioned, than I would think the bunker is a little to suggestive as to the ideal line off the tee.

Jim

[Doug Siebert]

I wonder if that hole might be a bit more interesting if the bunker on the right had a turbo boost function that kicked you forward and to the left?  The shorter (and hopefully more accurate) players can just play down the left and be unconcerned with the OB.  The longer hitters, if they can gauge the distance properly (hitting less than driver if necessary) to carry the bunker but not overcarry it, get to take a safer line off the tee with a kick into position A.

I like this because it is a bonus conferred on players for being long, but only if it is accompanied by distance control.  I like tee shots that encourage me to something other than pick a line and hit it as far as I can, without being of the "ravine starts at 270" variety that forces layups.  With my suggestion, the long hitter has three (four if you count "you suck today, so layup with your 240 club") quite reasonable options to play the hole.  Much better than the usual "if you can carry it this far, you get a huge advantage".

I'm with Shivas in the correct way to play the hole as described though.  If Rich just wants to see a 250 yard carry, I could have showed him that 20 years ago with persimmon and balata

[MikeJones]

Lets consider that the hole was probably built before 260 yards wasn't such as easy carry for a quality player.

I like the bunker, here's why.

The high handicaper probably can't reach the bunker. Being a high handicaper he probably won't look at the course planner to see how far the bunker is from the tee. As he tees off he'll have one eye on the OB and one eye on the bunker and should he keep it in play under such self inflicted pressure he will no doubt pat himself on the back and move on!

The player for whom the bunker is within reach but not carryable has the toughest choices. He knows that with his limited power the best angle is from the left but he can see the OB. He also knows that if mid-swing he bails out, the deep bunker is going to make him pay for his lack of fortitude!
Hopefully after thinking about it for a while he'll reach for his 3 wood knowing that he may have to hit an extra special second to the angled green should he not dare to take on the OB.

The long hitter isn't thinking about the OB, he has no intention of playing close to it on a hole of this length. He's looking to aiim at the left edge of the bunker and to give it all he's got to make sure he carries it. Given any sort of headwind and the fact that the shot is uphill, that isn't a sure thing. He's hoping for a good strike knowing that a miscue is going to cost him at least a shot should he find the waiting bunker. If he's nervous about the carry he might consider playing left of it or laying up short of it. He has options.

For each of these golfers and all the ones in between these stereotypes, the bunker adds an extra dimension to the hole visually and for the better golfers it complicates their strategy and gets them thinking.

Without the bunker it sounds like it would still be an interesting and challenging hole but every now and again it's good to throw a joker into the mix.

[SPDB]

Ran - Although I know this is not the hole you are describing, it sounds an awful like Yeamans Hall #10, only on a shorter scale.

Shouldn't the player who skillfully executes a drive into the slot be rewarded, and the player who either mishits or challenges the bunker and fails (despite the undesirability of its angle) be punished with either the obstructed view over (or from) the bunker or the poorer angle? I'm with Lester, this seems like Architecture 101? IWhat is it that I am sure I am missing?

[tonyt]

From the initial description, I'm getting the impression that the bunker is located in a zone where an archie might have looked from a staked out teeing area and thought that the topography lends itself to a cool looking bunker.

I often also find myself falling into a trap of being so formula driven, that I look harshly upon any bunkers located around the less advantageous line in to the green. We can't be so driven by rigid standards. If every hole on the planet was fairway bunkered or done so more heavily around better positions, we would see an oasis of fairway as being dangerous like a swimmer sees overly calm seas as a dangerous rip to drag him out. The formula would then create a dumbed down mindset of never having to figure out the better line off the tee.

I agree with the original premise that without the trap, we have an excellently executed subtle premise of OOB guarding a good line and a lush and welcoming right half with no trap would allow the mindless or spineless to bunt it down the fairway before waking them up when standing over their second shot to the reverse redan. In the ficticious holes I imagine, there is often a vast and welcoming playing area that is so much easier to attain than another line, and yet provides for a far less promising attack from there. It not only admonishes the good player who missed or bailed out, but another advantage is it still happily tips its hat to the hacker who can rack up his high score from poor position without pain, suffering, slowing him down or laughing at him.

What I don't like about the bunker for the average player is that it either stands in front of their second shot, or they have to play close to OB. There is no area offered, regardless of difficulty, that gives them a safe route that allows them to quietly take their 6. They have to frown along the way some. Given that the green complex already does an admirable job of testing (and finding out) the average player, and it is fun and lacks the boredom of many other green complex options, why must more of this be added to the tee shot?

Worse still, the bunker gives the second shot a look that takes away from the already perfectly exciting and intimidating look for this player of their second shot. Why have a potentially gorgeous reverse redan, and then stick an enormous bunker in front of the player so that its visual highlight and visual playability confoundment are diluted?

I haven't seen it, so my view is extremely hypothetical, and subject to immediate change if I saw the hole. Just thoughts.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba said;

"Don't you think the type of "fool me once" strategies you mentioned in Arch 301 are only effective once?  In the case of a resort course, I guess that might be ok but you could spend your single client visit pissing off the player with deception but in any other case where the course would have a regular clientele, doesn't that trick only work "once", by definition?"

MikeC:

Absolutely not. I can call it "fake out" architecture or you can call it "anti-strategy" architecture or someone can call it anything they want to but the point is just as Tom Doak said the best of it continues to fool players endlessly!

I don't know about the hole Ran's asking about this way but you should see our little #8 at GMGC. It's been seducing long players into taking a big risk of trying to carry a pond off the tee just to get as close to the green as possible for years and they still apparently haven't figured out that an approach to that green from 50 yards or less is one helluva a lot harder than an approach from 100 yards.

Why do they continue to do that and continue to get suckered into a "fake out" risk? Probably because as Tom Doak applied most players don't really think strategically in the sense of connecting one shot to what might make the next shot easiest. Most players just think in single shot increments in the sense of just taking on the most apparent problem on the shot at hand first and then thinking of all the ramifications of the next shot later. This type of mindset is basically "whole hole" strategy in a vacuum and a good architect can play this tune to the hilt.

#10 Riviera probably has a number of these little nuances and they've been seducing and conning even good players into all kinds of indirect mistakes for decades!

It seems to me Flynn did a number of "reverse doglegs" all over the place, which is one of the most effective and uncomplicated examples of "fake out" architecture, in my opinion. He'd bunker the inside of a dogleg and seduce the player into taking that risk and somehow many fail to see that the green and its bunkering scheme really isn't set up to reward a shot from there, often just the opposite in fact---it's set up to reward a shot from the outside of the dogleg where there is no architectural danger on the tee shot--or the second shot for that matter!  

Hopefully, we're going to restore this type of deception on our hole #13. Basically remove a bunker on the inside of a dogleg and seduce the player to drive the ball right at the flag down the easier right side where we hope to expand fairway area. From there the approach to the green is much harder although it may be a little shorter but it's very hard to see why it's a much harder approach. On the outside of the dogleg the player doesn't have the approach shot problem he does from the right side.

In my opinion, the best architecture, in a strategic sense, will always be a riddle inside an enigma wrapped in a conundrum!

[Forrest Richardson]

Ran — You've got great comments about the positives and negatives...and even some suggestions. But, isn't the primary question to be asked whether the course, as a whole, stacks up? Individual holes, while always easier to pick apart, do not usually make for great golf courses or experiences all on their own.

It takes a village.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think we would mostly agree that a player with "all the shots" would tee the ball on the left of the tee, aim to the right edge of the fairway, and play for at least a straight shot, or a gentle draw, depending on his confidence.  This doubles his margin for error.

Despite many of you parroting golden age principals, is hitting into the depth of the green and with a frontal opening a universal strategy anymore?

I wonder whether the preferred angle of attack to a reverse redan would be from the right of the fairway? If the same principle applies on the tee shot as the approach, wouldn't the all shots player want to aim at the left of the green (assuming OB isn't too close) with a slight fade, which approximately doubles his chances of staying out of the bunker?  It might depend also on the slope, as perhaps a draw into a Shinnecock sloped Redan might require hitting into the slope to have any chance to hold it.  But, even under normal conditions, the high fade is probably just as likely to stick on a gentle reverse slope as a shot from the left of any kind.

At a level where a player could play well enough to utilize strategy, has good distance control, and isn't hitting ground balls, is the frontal opening really the preferred angle of attack in modern golf?  I do agree it is a factor for handicap players, even ones with fairly low handicaps, since we often come up a wee bit short.

I think Golden Age thinking was somewhat flawed in that courses, like NGLA, where virtually every tee shot offers the same option of a heroic carry to get an open look at the green may have been a bit repititous.  Modern design breaks away from some of those ideas, even allowing that until recently, there may have been repitition of flanking fairway bunkers at prescribed distances - a result of not thinking about design too hard......

In these times, we can visualize many different players, who don't have all the shots playing this hole differently.  A fader would tee right of the tee, and would also allow for a fade into the green from wherever, for example.  

Thus, this bunker, while apparently naturally sited (and how many here favor "random bunkering" as opposed to some formula for putting them near the "expected" drive zone, whatever that may be) may very well confuse or challenge a certain portion of the golf population, and it looks good doing it.

Generally, I believe that a non recoverable hazard, like OB or water, requires openess on the other side.  A few holes can have fw hazards both sides, often, but not always, short 4 and 5 holes.

[Matthew Mollica]

Looking at the hole in isolation - it sounds better without the bunker. Why further penalise the golfer who is on the right side, when the angle into the green in clearly less than desirable? I agree than the hole is not as visually striking without such a feature though.

Interesting end to the 2004 Australian Masters recently. The leader after 71 holes faded a drive away from the left side fairway bunkers, towards the right half of the fairway, which gave a less than optimum approach angle, especially considering greenside bunkering, green contours and the hole location for the day.

The course had recently undergone some 'upgrading' and changes included the planting of some tall thick clumps of grasses in sporadic clusters on the right side (first cut of rough and deeper) at the length of a typical pro drive. Suffice to say Brad Hughes' drive ended up in the grass, from where he took a drop, chunked it a few times, and lost the lead.

The notion of planting the grasses to "strengthen" the hole, at a point where there was already a penalty of sorts, with such a horrible angle to the flag, was a topic of some discussion in creditable golf circles.

Almost exactly the same type of hole anatomy Ran discusses...

Matthew

[ian]

"Looking at the hole in isolation - it sounds better without the bunker. Why further penalise the golfer who is on the right side, when the angle into the green in clearly less than desirable?"

Matthew

I would draw (I'm a lefty) around that fairway bunker to get "my" ideal position, which would be a another draw into the reverse redan (this is a receptive angle for a lefty with a draw - the land helps feed the ball in). You say the angle is less than desireable, but in my case I don't agree.

[Matthew Mollica]

Ian,

Sorry for thinking of it as a right hander.
I'd not looked at it from your perspective.

It's interesting as I regularly play with a lefty, and we have different opinions on what holes are better and what holes are worse. I'm sure that it's because of the left v right difference.

Matthew

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
What exactly is "Golden Age thinking"?

Is the 4th at Woking an example of Golden Age thinking? Pinehurst #2, ANGC, Engineers, Morfontaine and Yale had relatively few hazards off the tee. PVGC, NGLA and Bethpage more heroic. Riviera, Jasper and Olympia Fields somewhere in between.