[A_Clay_Man]

Speaking of blind bunkers, How about the "Tarantula" Tillie used on the third at SFGC. While the virgin has no idea that there is bunker beyond the hump, Tillie clearly intimates that the approach from the right is preferable.

Don't you think a good archie who uses blind penal features should give the astute nose a subtle sense that that area ist verbotten.

[John L. Low]

Pat,

I'll stop having fun here at your expense. It is not in the holiday spirit, it's too easy when I have the full authority of the Rules of Golf on my side and, afterall, it is not like I am trying to defend the game of golf against, "Pat Mucci, World Golf Dictator" (you'd tell me if I was wrong wouldn't you TEPaul?   )

Avoid the hazards in life, play directly into them, play a mulligan if you like. Do what YOU feel is best. And I'll play the game the way I see it and take my lumps as I invite them in with poor play.

And I'll give you the last word on the subject, because that's just the kind of guy I am. What say you Mr. Mucci? (By the way, now's your chance to put in that order for Agent Orange!  Just kidding, one last innocent jab is all. )

Happy Holidays to all!

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Are you really contending that on a downwind 325 yard par four, with the last 40 yards "protected" by a flat, sandy area (and the one steep-faced fronting bunker seen in the pic), that it be maintained as just clean sand so that everyone can fire away without fear of penalty?  So that anyone who ends up in the bunker can just clip a spinner off the firm sand and stop it around the hole?  

I know you're a great admirer of Walter Travis, but I certainly don't see him being too soft on bunker crime.  One needs go no further than the 18th green at GCGC and look at the surrounding bunkers to see the type of punishment he liked to mete out to offenders on his courses.  I have a hunch that if he saw the 9th hole bunker "cleaned up", he might be out there the next day with a Burpee's catalog, to steal Rich's analogy.  

Still, I agree with you that it would certainly be interesting to see it from the 30s, or even earlier to have a better idea of what he had in mind.    

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Is it possible you’re studying the strategies of boxing at the same time you’re studying golf architecture? It seems you’re always trying to bob and weave and steer clear of the points of the discussion at hand.

At first, this thread which you started, was about bunker grasses and the degrees of penality of same, even if near a green surface. You didn’t appear to get much agreement regarding whatever point you’re trying to make (was it possibly some are too penal?), so you then entered some other points into the discussion, like blindness and water features in close juxtaposition to green surfaces. These additional points, I suppose, were intended to prove that if there are few if any blind water hazards near greens in golf, then there should not be any very penal grasses in bunkers near greens either. To me, that sort of extraneous logic, Pat, is really nothing more than specious reasoning!

You then just recently asked me why I advocate total blindness if some holes have directional markers. Did I say I don’t advocate directional markers anywhere on golf courses? What I did once say is I think GCGC would play even better if it didn’t have directional markers on its blind fairway bunkering but if they want to use it anyway (even if for traditional reasons) then fine, I have no problem with that.

Then you brought in water hazards very close to blind greens. Who brought that into this discussion, except you? Most of the old architects didn’t really advocate water hazards anywhere anyway and Ross mentioned having one or two at the most. Water hazards are all over the place on many modern courses but if there happen to be few of them next to greens that are blind to approaches, so what? What does that fact really have to do with penal grasses in bunkers next to greens, unless someone is trying to establish that that condition does not belong in golf at all, which apparently you are trying to establish. Are you going to ask next that since no one can point to man and ball eating alligators next to blind green approaches that that proves that penal grasses should not be in bunkering next to a green?

All this attempting logic on your part is too formulaic for me but you seem very interested in establishing various formulae into what should and shouldn’t be part of architecture. In this case with natural grasses within bunkers you don’t seem to be establishing that point.

Ornamental grasses (whatever the definition of that is) in golf architecture? Personally, I don’t like those much because of the artificial appearance of them but you commented in your first post that you didn’t want to discuss aesthetics, so I won’t.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Threads, like golf courses, can evolve.
If you can't follow this one, I suggest that you have someone drive you to the get together on January 11, 2003.  
Either that or leave your house a week early, guaranteeing that you will not be more than two (2) hours late.  

My position on this thread has been consistent throughout, perhaps you should carefully reread my initial post to help you clarify matters and my position on dense undergrowth in greenside bunkers, especially when the bunker and/or undergrowth are hidden.

With respect to rub of the green, neither you nor John Low addressed the issue as to why the Scots have chosen to intervene with respect to rub of the green at Prestwick, and why the same act of intervention has been enacted at NGLA and GCGC.  You may also recall a similar criticism that I had with respect to the blind, second par 3 at Spanish bay, where water was a factor and the location of the boundaries of the green could not be determined, even though the pin was visible.   I've been informed that the reeds blocking the view of the green have been removed to eliminate that feature.

Have you ever thought, that perhaps there are situations whereby rub of the green is excessively penal, and that amelioration is desireable, to possibly make up for an architectural mistake or inadequacy ?

With respect to blind shots into greens with adjacent water,
I thought John Low mentioned that there were many courses in Florida with this feature in his post of 12-24-02 at 11:19pm.
Perhaps you need to go back and reread this thread a dozen or so times such that you can understand what is being said, and by whom.  

Mike Cirba,

Your game must have improved drastically over this winter.
So now, a 20-40 yard bunker shot is easy pickin's, just a little spinner ?  And, to get to hit that little spinner, all you had to do was hit a tee shot 290 yards at an angled fairway, threading the eye of the needle with disaster to the left and right of the fairway, over the large berm covered in deep rough to that flat, expansive bunker that's so easy to recover from.  Wow, these guys on GCA are good.

Travis believed in penal golf.  To assist him in achieving that end, he designed many deep, steep faced bunkers, a great number of which were hidden.  However, missing from his design on similar cross bunkers on holes # 4, #10, #13, #15, and # 17 are any semblance of islands of undergrowth as evidenced on # 9.  I suspect that those islands may have been someones afterthought.  I will look into it and let you know.

John Low,

I have a long history of playing by the rules, casually, wageringly and competitively.  But, that doesn't mean that I totally agree with all of them, their creation and applications,
like continuous putting for example.
  
The rules have never been absolute or static, and this issue really isn't about the rules, which come and go and get modified, it's about architectural features and their inter-relationships.  Look at the architecture for the answers, not the rule book.

I didn't want to bring this up again, but I noticed that you didn't list any greens with water immediately next to them that required blind approaches.  The absence of that feature or architectural configuration is core to the issue.

Greens with bunkers immediately adjacent to them, hidden or visible, with hidden underbrush in them are tantamount to the water/green/blind configuration and represent the same bad architecture.

You've also made a terrible miscalculation, asking TEPaul if he would tell you if you were wrong, or right.  For that to happen, doesn't he have to know the answer first ?

Lastly, what makes you think that I haven't had even more fun at your expense ?

Your perpetual homework assignment is to forever search golf courses in the hope that one day you will be able to name five blind greens with water right next to them, and to report back to this site upon discovery of the fifth and final green.

If you can do that before "old TE" and I are residing in that fairway in the sky, we'll show you how to play the 8th at NGLA and improve your course management and powers of observation skills.

A Happy and Healthy New Year to you and your family as well.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I'm sure you well recall my accursed, possessed 60 degree wedge?

Well, I made an interesting discovery this past year.  Although it still accounts for 65% of my total shots from "grass", the sucker is amazing from the sand!!  I can explode 'em, pick 'em clean, and make 'em dance.  Gary Player has nothing on this GCA'er from the sand at this point.    

Back on point, do those other cross-bunkers front greens of short par fours?  I don't recall that.  

I'm really interested to hear what you might find as to that particular bunker's history.

Thanks,
Phil Mickelson

[John L. Low]

Everytime I think I'm out, Pat keeps pulling me back in. You didn't want to bring up the example issue?

Pat, the five example thing is your hangup. Your discussion style is, as TEPaul said, to ignore many questions asked of you and many answers given to you, to dismiss good answers flippantly and introduce new issues as if they somehow support your position. My original point was to compare a feature that would render one's ball unplayable--a creek, a pond, the Pacific Ocean--to the tomb that is the bunker you abhor. You didn't seem to like that. It didn't represent what you were looking for. I then asked you for just one example of this Fountain of Age bunker you detest. Still, though this thread is going on toward page 6, you still have no examples for us. Earlier, you mentioned to Dunlop White that you hoped someone would post a picture of what you are imagining. Guess what Pat, that looks like that might just be YOUR job. Your response now, due to your inability to shore up your own position is to ask for five examples of a water feature near a green with a blind approach. You won't accept #15 at Augusta, though Sarazen only knew he had a double eagle from the roar of the crowd. Just because you have never played a golf hole on a flat course and stood on a fairway the contours of which blocked you view to the pond near the green, doesn't mean those situations don't exist all over the place. You even admitted that some Florida courses might "employ" this feature. Guess what Pat, it isn't even a case of someone employing a feature. Sometimes you just hit the ball in a place where a mound is located between you and the green complex. Lo and behold!

I really think I summed things up very well in my post on Dec. 24 at 9:11. It addresses the whole issue of rub of the green and what makes for good architecture. And it wishes all kinds of good things for you too. Notice how MacKenzie mentions doglegged holes in that quote. He is talking about cutting a corner, risking the hazard of cutting that corner. Can you always SEE around a dogleg? Because the golfers at #13 at Augusta cannot see around the corner on their tee shots, is that unfair? What happens if the golfer hits a great hook around that corner and finds himself with an unforgiving lie with the ball above or below his feet and his stance askew, one foot higher than the other because of the contours of the fairway? Is this an unfairway Pat because the contours were blind to the golfer from the tee? What if golf is like that?

Anyway, in lieu of providing your one example just reread that post. In fact, reread the whole thread Pat. All the answers are right there if you choose to accept them. (And by the way, I can imagine a bunker next to a green that the golfer cannot see because of his/her location on the hole--just as you describe--I am just not bothered by it. I am not bothered by it any more than I am bothered by the irregular creekline at #13 at Augusta or the long arm of a contour that grabs hold of a shot and drains it into a hazard or standing on a fairway in Corpus Christi unable to see the entire green complex, which is to say, not bothered at all.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

I addressed your issues, but I refuse to equate the creek on # 13 and the pond on # 15 at ANGC the same as I do a visible or hidden greenside bunker with a hidden island of dense undergrowth in its midst.  Everything about those two holes, and the land they're on, sends the appropriate tactical signals to the eye.   I refuse to accept your ASSUMPTIONS, because they are flawed, as are your resulting conclusions.

I think the story you related on Sarazen's double eagle on
# 15 might be a myth or enhanced for legend's sake.
From 220 yards in the fairway, the water and the features surrounding it are clearly visible, especially the further left you look.

With regard to the view on the tee shot on # 13 you can clearly see through the trees on the corner, the creek and the severe slope of the fairway at the elbow and beyond.  You can see the substantive difference in elevation at the far and low side of the fairway at the elbow and beyond as well.

I now see why you hit your ball into the front green side bunker at # 8 at NGLA.
Your course management skills and powers of observation need improvement.  When you were standing on the 12th tee waiting for your turn or after your turn, all you had to do was look over your right shoulder and entire 13th hole is wonderfully visible, telling you all you need to know about your tee shot and more.  
And, if you missed that opportunity, when you were walking off the tee toward the 12th green you had another opportunity to drink in all of the wonderful sights and signals offered by the architect who designed #13  

You've used two examples that are inaccurate, yet you want me to agree with them,
I can't because your examples are flawed.

I have no problem with hidden bunkers, I actually think that they are neat features and the deeper and steeper the better

You have a problem in accepting that the rarity of greens with water adjacent to them on blind approaches is for one, rock solid reason, it's bad architecture, and designing a feature of this nature has been avoided for hundreds of years
by vitually every architect designing golf courses.

Why is it such a quantum leap to make an similar assessment regarding a visible or blind greenside bunker with a blind island of underbrush lying it its midst ?

This isn't about a debating stlye, it's about an architectural feature, and its relative merits.

You're willing to accept the concept/feature as rub of the green, without being critical of the architecture,
and I see it as poor architecture and/or eye candy.

Irrespective of our differing positions, you're going to have to work on your course management and powers of observation

[John L. Low]

Pat,

You are correct. I am not bothered by the as yet unseen bunker that you rail against. You are at least comprehending that much. That is the main point I have been trying to make. So I at least know that I have been able to get that point across to you. Must have been all the references to rub of the green.

Regardless of our differing positions, you are going to have to work on taking responsibility for your golf shots and stop blaming the architecture. Or if you ever do encounter this mysterious bunker type that you lambast, make a note not to ever play that course again. As I have already said a couple of times, do what's best for you Pat. Here's hoping all that I wished for you comes true in that Dec. 24th post comes true so that this horrible unplayable bunker lie never actually happens to you.


TEPaul,

You are correct. I took a look at my new Golden Age of Golf Design book and it is full of photos of some really nasty lies at Pine Valley. In fact the whole book is scattered with photos of tangled and menacing vegetation just off the fairways and greens of some of the most notable courses in the history of golf. Tom, if you get a chance take a look at page 146--the ninth green at Cypress Point. Notice that dark plant life in the bunker in the photo just a few feet away from the left edge of the green. That stuff is right in line with an approach shot to the back left pin positions. Imagine that. Just a mere four or five feet off the green, certain unplayability. But there you have it. Leave it to MacKenzie to scatter all that eye-candy around the course for no architectural purpose. Hopefully those that play Cypress Point and Pine Valley and all the other demanding courses in the world will be up to the task of either living with the results of their shots or they will realize that they might have more fun playing a course where there is no uncertainty of result. Either way, the object of the game is to have your best go at it and to have fun. Pine Valley looks like fun.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci writes;

"My position on this thread has been consistent throughout, perhaps you should carefully reread my initial post to help you clarify matters and my position on dense undergrowth in greenside bunkers, especially when the bunker and/or undergrowth are hidden.

With respect to rub of the green, neither you nor John Low addressed the issue as to why the Scots have chosen to intervene with respect to rub of the green at Prestwick, and why the same act of intervention has been enacted at NGLA and GCGC"

Pat:

As you said somewhere else on this thread; "Threads evolve like golf courses."

I'm sure they do but you're doing more than "evolving" on this thread. What you're doing is some serious bobbing and weaving and basically you're just all over the map on this discussion.

I thought we were trying to talk about penal bunker grass within a bunker but now you're talking about "rub of the green" and you're over in Scotland mentioning something about #17 at Prestwick and something about the Scot's must know something about "rub of the green" for something to do with that hole.

Now for some odd reason you've launched into "outside agency"! I have no idea why that would be Pat. Is there some connection between "outside agency", "rub of the green" and penal bunker grass?

Maybe what you should do is step back and reread your initial post, as I have. And while you're at it why don't you read the definitions in the front of the rule book to get a better handle on some of the things you're grasping at now.

What does penal bunker grass within a bunker have to do with "rub of the green" and "outside agency"?

[John L. Low]

TEPaul,

Pat has seemingly insulted you here on this thread when he said to me that "The key to how wrong and how illogical it is, is that TEPaul agrees with you." Now I don't know how well you two know each other and maybe he is kidding--if he is it is hard to tell. In the event that you actually know Pat, maybe you can help me here.

I think I see what is going on here, but tell me what you think. The title of this thread is "Ornamental Bunker Grass, friend or foe". I think Pat wants everyone to say the answer is "foe". I don't think he will gracefully accept the answer "friend" from anyone. When I say friend or foe, I am talking only about playability, for as you rightly pointed out, Pat does not want to talk about aesthetics. He wants everyone to say that these bunker grasses are bad architecture and not "friendly". He does not seem to respect that I can have an opinion that says they are just the rub of the green. Play it as it lies. He insists that these are examples of bad architecture. As you pointed out to him, "tough s&$!"

Now here's the interesting part of all this. Even if I were inclined to agree with Pat that a specific bunker grass is too penal, I really can't. Why? Well, in order to say that some bunker with grass is specifically and in fact too penal, I would have to know what that specific bunker looked like wouldn't I? I would have to see how it truly affected play wouldn't I? I would have to know if there was anyway to avoid that horrible grass or if the hole demanded that I end up there on a mishit. Wouldn't I? But we don't have any actual case studies here. Pat has not given us an actual bunker to study. So how can we determine if it is a case of bad architecture? Tell me if I am wrong, but don't we need an actual bunker filled with gnarly grass to take Pat's thread any further? Otherwise, are we not just speculating about something that is in Pat's mind? Do you think Pat will ever give us an example so that we can really study it or will this just be a purely theoretically discussion?

[TEPaul]

John Low:

Don't worry about a thing, Pat is not insulting me. We know each other very well and this kind of thing goes on all the time. It's not of the slightest concern to me or to Pat.

Pat is simply the type of man who seems to like to explore various odd lines of debate and dialectic as well as the outside edges of logic!

As for me, as you can tell, I'm firmly grounded in fact and commonsense. Pat is one of those people who believes if you throw enough darts, eventually one will probably hit the dart board. All I do with him is continually point that out! But we don't ever get insulted over it.

[TEPaul]

JohnL:

I hadn't finished reading your last post but to answer some of the quesitons in the latter half of it, one doesn't really have a discussion with Pat. At least not in the way most of us think of a discussion as a give and take to try to reach some mutually agreeable conclusion.

With Pat one hears a premise, that one should probably just agree with totally to prevent the ensuing monologue from Pat that one has not read what he says, that one can't read properly, that one is not getting his point, followed by a series of confusing and nonsequiturial questions that no one could ever answer, much less follow, after which other extraneous points are introduced by Pat to effect bobbing and weaving and other obfuscating techniques, and on and on ad infinitum.

If one is ever inclined to read one of the posts that Pat introduces from beginning to end (if there ever is an end) one would see a verbal labyrinth almost beyond compare.

You know that 12,000 page weapons declaration the Iraqis just sent the UN JohnL? That thing is like a first grade primer compared to some of Pat's threads!

[John L. Low]

TEPaul,

That is good to know. It sort of sounded like that to me, but it is difficult to tell. Not a lot of smileys passed back and forth between you two! But if it works then great.

Back to architecture. There doesn't seem to be a case study coming from Pat on this subject for us to study. Without that, I'll head over to another thread, hopefully one less subjective.  

[John L. Low]

TEPaul,

Beyond compare is right! In fact, I am heading over to the Liberal Media thread for a more grounded discussion right now. Double yikes!

[TEPaul]

JohnL:

Don't you dare go over to one of those "social engineering", ANGC/Burks, US Constitution, Whaley, PGA Tour/LPGA Tour  threads! There're some people over there who've been on about a month-long twit and they have to be some frustrated politicians, dictators and pontificators etc. I know because I was over there myself trying to defend Motherhood and apple pie, and getting into arguments and barroom brawls until the cows almost came home.

You haven't been on this website very long, have you JohnL? Before you go much further, you'll probably need to get to know our ephemeral Dr Katz! He definitely helps some on here but personally I think he's a quack.

[John L. Low]

TEPaul, I will try to avoid that thread. I just said that for effect. I am looking to stick to more architecture related threads, not social engineering threads.

[A_Clay_Man]

It does appear that Pat Mucci is completely BIASED against most forms of plant life on a golf course. I recall the problem he had with Par 3 8th at Spanish Bay. He felt that those unplayable reeds growing out of the water hazard that made the bottom of the flag invisible ergo bad design. Poopycock!

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

You're incorrect, and your memory is fading, my concern was never with the bottom of the flagstick.  My objection was that a hole had been designed with water left, right and short of the green, and that reeds had been allowed to grow unchecked blocking the golfers view of the boundaries of the green and the water.  Hence when a golfer stepped on the tee they didn't know water was there or where the land ended and the water began.  There was no way to tell if the flag stick was ten feet from the water on the left, or ten feet from the water on the right, or ten feet from the water in the front, and as such, that is terrible architecture.

Subsequently, YOU told me that the conditions had been changed, eliminating the problem.

TEPaul,

You must work on your reading comprehension.
Go back and see who brought up "rub of the green"
Hint, it wasn't me, so stop railing that I brought it up.

John Low,

I have a long and exemplary history, in State, Regional and USGA competitions of taking responsibility for my own golf shots, just like I take responsibility for my own posts by posting under my own name, not a phony or anonymous name.
Since you seem very concerned about responsibility, perhaps you should take some responsibility by posting under your real name, that would be a good, HONEST start.

I've called penalties on myself that noone else saw, that cost me a tournament, so I'd worry more about your own game, and work on your shortcomings in course management, as evidenced in your posts.

With respect to page 146, you may be looking at debris piled for removal during construction.  Look at pages 147-148-149-150 and 151 when people are actually playing the golf course to see that no such features/configuration exists.

I'm glad you're bonding with TEPaul.  It's wonderful therapy.
In order to insult someone, they have to have the capacity to understand that they have been insulted.  Likewise, in discussing golf course design and features, the other party has to have the capacity to understand architecture.
Since TEPaul understands neither, no insult has taken place and I continue to pretend that I understand his positions relative to architecture, no matter how convoluted they seem.
This too, is wonderful therapy for him.  And now, he has you, a comrade in arms, to share his distorted views on architecture, what could be better ?

Has he told you of Spock and the "maintainance mind meld" ?
 

The concept of no excessive penalty in close proximity to a green on a blind approach has merit irrespective of the configuration or substance of the features and hazard.

[A_Clay_Man]

Patrick- As I hoped to point out to you then, All water is short of that green. Not right of, or left of but all short.

I thought as I do now how wierd it is to have it all of a sudden acceptable because they removed the reeds.

[John L. Low]

Pat,

Is this thead about blind approaches or bunkers with grass that are not visable to the golfer? Or is it about blind golfers? Has your thread evolved or just simply mutated? At any rate, will there be any case studies of this bunker type coming along soon? If not, I can't answer the question you asked in the thread title. In lieu of that case study to change my mind, I am still a staunch advocate of rub of the green.

When you stop telling people what to worry about, people will stop telling you what to worry about. Take your own advice.

Concepts regarding architecture are what they are regardless of the identity of the person opining.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

YOU were the one admonishing me to take responsibility for my golf shots, to take responsibility for bad breaks, but....
you're a phony, a fraud, afraid to take responsibility for your own posts, by using a pseudo-name.

How can you be taken seriously if you don't believe enough in your own positions, thoughts and concepts on architecture to post under your own name ?  Will the revelation of your name harm or betray your position or motives, or just make you look foolish ?  What are you afraid of ?  Responsibility ?

You were the one responsible for claiming that water was found next to greens with blind approaches, I merely asked you to cite five (5) examples and you couldn't do it.
And, as I indicated, the absence of that relationship was germaine, if not core to my discussion, relative to blind grasses or undergrowth being in bunkers adjacent to greens.

Had you not continually told me to take responsibility for myself and my actions, your anonymity might not have become an issue, but, you chose to make responsibility an issue, so live by your own advice and tell us your real name.
Try to be responsible about it, if you can.

[John L. Low]

It is futile to tell the paranoid that they are being paranoid. Nonetheless, Pat, you are being paranoid. I have reread this thread and fail to see what anyone in their right mind could imagine is my alterior motive for anonymously advocating a belief in the "rub of the green." What do you think, that I have some sort of trademark or intellectual property associated with the concept? Wake up. John L. Low was the first person credited with saying, "There is no unfair hazard." Stop sending up red herrings Pat. An idiot savant or just a plain idiot can remark on architecture. It is an open discussion. There's no espionage here Pat. TEPaul is absolutely correct, with all due respect to you. You would rather introduce anything you can instead of focusing on the subject at hand. Where is the case study? If you want to examine case studies of water adjacent to greens, then start a new thread. I introduced that concept to help round out your thread. You then took it in another direction as a way of deflecting attention, in my opinion. Now you refuse to even go back to your orginal concern.  Everyone reading this can see how you work. And I have learned in one thread that everyone should beware that if they introduce something in one of your threads, even if it is meant to help round out the thread, that it will likely be used to, as TEPaul said, confuse the issue when it is convenient for you.

Where is the case study for the bunker that you had in mind when you started this thread?

One clarification, I only told you to take responsibility for your golf game AFTER you commented on my powers of observation. Why don't you take your own advice and stop telling people what to worry about?

As for my email address, you don't get that, with all due respect. I once turned in to another website similar to this and handed out my email and got spammed. It was not malicious, but often people do not realized when they are passing on viruses. It does not bother me in the least to take that extra step to protect my computer. Whatever emotional need you have for my email address is meaningless, with all due respect. You don't need it Pat! So stop whining about it.

What you need is a case study so that people don't think that you started a thread about a problem that doesn't really exist.

[Carl Ingram]

John Low,

I understand the concept pat mucci pointed out in the thread he started.  I understand his dislike of what he considers extra penal situations.  Don't speak for others on this site.
Speak only for youself.  Pat Mucci and Tom Paul have an act that they and a few others understand and you have fallen victim to it.

Posting anonymously has not been well received by most on this site.  It creates an uneven playing field and negative side effects.  Tom Paul and Pat Mucci and almost everyone posts under their own names and don't complain about span or viriuses.  It's the price to pay for integrity and has benefited the quality of the discussions on this site.

Get with the program

[John L. Low]

Carl,

What do you think is my alterior motive?

I can understand anyone's dislike of a feature. Unfortunately for Pat, if someone says that they are not bothered by a feature (at this point, at best, a feature that only exists in a theoretical setting) Pat tells them they are in favor of bad architecture?

For the sake of this specific discussion, do you have a case study? Mike Cirba provided several photos and Pat picked one of a green site that clearly shows that the golfer does not have to hit into the bunker. Remember, it was Pat who dismissed my several examples way back in the beginning of the thread by saying that regarding the holes I provide that "in each case the water is clearly visable, and in each case, the water can easily be taken out of play.'' I gave him the example of a hole at NGLA that has sand, water and cattails. His response was to dismiss that as a hole where you can simply avoid the hazard.

I have spent this whole thread trying to get Pat to either make the same assumptions about easily taking the bunkers out of play or to provide an actual example of where that is not possible. Why is it so easy to take the water out of play and to thereby dismiss the water's penalty, but so hard to show the same consideration to the bunkers? That is a question I have asked many times and I get no answer. Pat's response is to ask for examples that become more and more convoluted. Why not just answer that question directly? I am not trying to speak for you. But you have to admit, trying to get Pat to answer this question has not been easy. And it hasn't happened.

I am still looking for a case study of a bunker that can not be easily taken out of play. Can you help along those lines? If you do not believe the concept that no hazard is unfair, fine. But let's be consistent. Please.

Until then, as for ornamental bunker grass, the answer is friend, as least for me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()