News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


BillV

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2001, 06:40:43 AM »
Tom Paul

I think we're differing on concept, scope and execution.

Just like Chanel, Harry Winston and Revillion all together on Gracie Slick would never work.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2001, 08:03:58 AM »
RT,
No, it is not THAT course.:)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BillV

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #27 on: December 31, 2001, 08:41:55 AM »
One additional comment on the mix-ed bag........a bit strange, perhaps unsettling how the perfectly manicured lead-in-to-the-bunker first cut of rough changes immediately to scwuff, midway right-to-left in this left side of fairway bunker on a constructed, but not created (As in bunker#3) modern course.  Yet.........there are complete bunkers orphaned in this stuff.  It makes me shiver a bit, but then the damn wind chill is about 6, so it may be just that!

Mixed bag.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian andrew (Guest)

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #28 on: December 31, 2001, 09:07:45 AM »
Has to be one of the jones boys, (Jr. at Spannish?)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #29 on: December 31, 2001, 09:28:40 AM »
I don't care who it is who built those bunkers! I'll support them no matter who it is because it looks to me to be about 90% better than a lot of the unnatural mess that's out there!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JohnV

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #30 on: December 31, 2001, 10:29:56 AM »
It seems to me that these bunkers are here to save the player who strays slightly from going into the deep stuff.  The bunkers seem to take the place of the first cut of rough.  The probably also help the player with spotting where the ball entered the rough from the tee, assuming you weren't blinded by the white.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #31 on: January 01, 2002, 01:24:36 AM »
JohnV,

I've just been on you website and I like you pictures of PD and BD.

I don't think you have played enough courses though... ;D

Looks like you are missing a few in England, and NOTHING in Norway....!! ;)

Has anyone thought that this bunkering could be at the end of a fairway with the line of play straight ahead almost as if the architect could be trying to copy Pine Valley?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

WilliamWang

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2002, 07:35:13 AM »
mr. tommy n.

is class still in session?  i'm wondering where this bunker is and if you can tell us a little more about it...

or was this rehashed in another ancient thread that i am finally reading.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff McDowell

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2002, 09:13:38 AM »
One thing I haven't heard anyone comment on is the elevation difference between the short grass and the bunker. It looks like it would be difficult to roll a ball into these bunkers because they are elevated.

I guess I'd like to see the bunkers a little closer to short grass grade, because bunkers should be hazards, right? ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

angie

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2002, 10:47:20 AM »
Agree with other comments as to the bunkers looking as if they exist to protect wayward shots from going into the rough, dislike of the lack of transition between f'way and bunker, and that it does appear that the only way you'd get in there is "on the fly".  However, I appreciate the way the bunkering appears to continue behind into the rough, and this makes me think that perhaps from a different viewpoint the structure might appear more organic or integral.  I don't like white sand too much, but it looks nice in a photo.  Looking forward to finding out what it is.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

angie

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #35 on: August 07, 2002, 06:32:12 PM »
c'mon -- tell us what it is!  i was the last response at lunch hour today -- 8 1/2 hours ago!  ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2002, 09:44:01 PM »
Angie,
Even though the name of the place was insignificant, the golf course is The Norman Course at PGA west, which is one of the worst golf courses ever built.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2002, 04:41:34 AM »
Whoa, Tommy.

One of the worst courses ever built? I can see where some people would like it and some wouldn't but that is overboard!!!

I really liked the Norman Course. Only two things I thought were weird - 1) The longest par 4's had the hardest greens, and 2) #15 is just a weird par-4. Other than that, i thought it was stunning, imaginative, strategic, fun, and completely different from anything in the area. Please tell me why you think the course is so bad.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2002, 09:13:19 AM »
Matt Cohn:

If I'm not mistaken you're a very good NCAA player and I've been interested as can be in your overall feelings about architecture generally on your posts.

Not long ago I was talking to one of our best young college players from the Philly area about how he felt about the architecture of Huntingdon Valley that has recently combined its maintenance practices to very much try to balance a good player's reliance on aerial and ground game choices.

This young player said he did like that mix much and he wants to see ANY course give a good player total reliance on his aerial game. He thinks what's ideal on any type of course or architecture is to be able to fire right at any flag!!

As a good young (probably aerial reliant player) how do you feel about that Matt?

If a classically designed golf course (ground game option prevalent) started to dial down on the effectiveness of your aerial game (forcing you to look for other options) how would you feel about that?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2002, 10:58:11 PM »
Matt, Since I don't get on-line till later at night, Tom Paul got to it before me!

I feel that this type of golf architecture is totally misrepresentitive of the game as it was intended to be played and it isn't like I haven't played the course more then once. (three times to be exact! I keep asking myself "why would I keep on going back? ? ? ?" Trust me, that won't happen again.) when I first visited this course, it was explained to me by the assistant professional that it was the way ALL golf courses are to be constructed in the future. (I quickly replied after the round, "Lets hope not.")

From the horrible crushed white marble in the bunkers that would seemingly make Tony Montana drool, the horrible placement of those hazards, as well as their faux links-like look to the horrible misconception that the golfing world will accept hitting off of concrete-like decomposed granite, only after avoiding some of the most annoying plantings in the history of the game.

The only feature I found to be of interest was the faux road hole bunker on #10, which was OK. Did you find a provocative green to make one forget about all of the nonsense from the tee? I can't remember one hole that had a unique contour or shape.

The Greg Norman Course at PGA West is a horrible experiment of golf architecture gone awry and the prime example of maintenance by design--a horrible practice of the art of golf architecture which will no doubt get a few superintendents pissed-off at me. Less turf, no rough, less water, more profit. But the clubhouse came out great, so it must have something going for it!

And I'm not the only one. This course WAS developed as a private course for PGA West members only, which lasted all of about 6 months when it was quickly changed to a public access course. The members at PGA West and La Quinta don't just loathe the course, they HATE it.

Also, the course was marketed as being located in an ancient sea bed. Well, from my history lessons, so was the ground that I type this post on. It was called the after-effects of the ice age.

Let us celebrate golf architecture for the right reasons, not the politcally correct ones. If you are a talented NCAA player, take advantage of being able to travel and see all of the great courses you can. Take the time to read books on what is GREAT golf architecture and then reread them again for good measure. Learn that when these Masters wrote about their beliefs, they interpreted things in a much different way then we do today. You will quickly see that this Norman style is far and away from GREAT golf architecture and is nothing more then a trendy marketing ploy.

Also see past posts on the Norman course in Scottsdale that didn't even open, and was razed and redesigned by Fazio because it was so unplayable. It's just not PGA West Norman, It is a lot present day Norman.

(For a list of books to read, please email me.)
tommy_n@earthlink.net

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #40 on: August 09, 2002, 02:14:48 AM »
Tom and Tommy (!),

Matt's currently in Melbourne, working his way through the sandbelt (I played with him at Commonwealth today).  

If he hasn't grown to love courses that offer both aerial and ground games by the time he leaves here at Christmas, he'll have alot to answer for!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #41 on: August 09, 2002, 04:41:53 AM »
Chris Kane:

Your last paragraph there! I like that--that's great!

From reading Matt Cohn's posts though I'm very interested in his take on things architectural although I have no idea about that Norman course he and TommyN are talking about.

But Matt's a young and good player and I'm always interested in what golfers like that have to say about architecture generally, particularly as they'll be seeing a lot more of the future of it than I will!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #4
« Reply #42 on: August 09, 2002, 08:41:42 AM »
As far as the Norman Course...I don't remember the hazards being poorly placed. The green contours were not unique but were competently done, I think. They certainly weren't bad.

Off the fairways, what's so bad about decomposed granite?
-It contrasts the fairways and greens very well.
-It provides a relatively difficult recovery for the good golfer and a relatively playable one for the high handicapper.
-It provides options, although weird ones, as far as recovery - putt, hit down on it, blast it - and there are risks and rewards for each possibility.
-It's virtually impossible to lose a ball in it.
-It's conducive to unimpeded foot and cart traffic.
-It's cheap and easy to maintain.

I'm not saying grass would be so bad, but there's plenty of grass to aim at anyway. I think, based on the list above, decomposed granite is at least as acceptable as sand, and I don't think sand would be so bad.

As far as the plantings, would it be better if they matured into impenetrable plum thickets like Prairie Dunes, or gorse bushes like TOC, which are both courses renowned partly for those very features?

About that ancient sea bed business, I don't know, that sounded a little strange to me too!

I never used the word "great" about the Norman Course - I said it was fun and that I really liked it, although I don't think it's great. What I said was that it wasn't one of the worst courses ever built! I played it two years ago and I don't remember the specific locations of bunkers and contours of greens very well but it was at least acceptable. Visually I thought the course was just, "cool".

And yeah, the bunker sand is white. So's Augusta's, yay! Maybe the Norman Course's sand would be slightly less blinding if it were a little darker, but I don't think it looks bad because the sand is white and not brown or something. I mean, the course has a lot of eye candy, and you ought to expect a fairly attention-grabbing look for the green fees at that facility! I'm not above a little good eye candy, that's part of the fun. I just feel like I can tell when there's something behind it and when there's not. Besides, if you want to look at the "natural" side of thigns, the natural sand around La Quinta is more white than brown, so it's not so far off the map.

If you went on a date with a great looking girl who was OK to talk to, would you go on another one? I think so! Would you marry her? Probably not. I wonder if that's a good analogy for the Norman Course.

As far as the ground game thing, to start with a general statement, I like it. Was I the only guy on my team to go around our dormant OU course this winter with just a 5-iron, hitting 50 yard bump-and-runs for my third shots to the par-4's, just for the fun of it? Probably! I enjoyed it. Of course, I wouldn't do it in a tournament.

As I hinted at in my Muirfield post a week or two back, I am concerned that, in "normal" conditions - i.e., good weather - that the ground game might have only a minimal place in the future of elite-level golf.

I mean, when a good player can carry a ball 200 yards and have it roll less than 10 feet, why would he even try a low runner? In good weather, I can only see the ground game being a factor for such a player in three situations: 1) a punch from under trees 2) a shot to a firm green sloping away 3) a long second shot to a par-5. Wind, rain, etc. could of course change things up a bit.

In general, if there's anything on the ground, it would be kind of silly not to just fly the ball over it.

Think of the ultimate ground-game course, TOC, when Tiger won the Open in 2000. The golf course was absolutely rock hard tee to green. Did he play an aerially-based game? Definitely. Of course he hit some good low shots around the greens, but when we talk about the "ground game", I think we're referring to bouncing and rolling approach shots towards the hole. It's sort of a given that getting chips and pitches rolling early has always been the soundest way to play them (putts too!).

Besides, let's say you really wanted to force the ground game on players. You'd have everything rock hard and the green complex would slope away from the player. But now I'm hitting driver-pitching wedge from 450 yards. Of course, I'm not going to worry about the ground game a whole lot with a pitching wedge...you'd have to make the thing 500 yards, and that's just for a par-4. I suppose if we had a lot of 500 yard, rock-hard par-4's with greens that didn't slope towards the fairway, then we might see a lot more use of the ground game. Who would win every week? Tiger Woods, the one guy who could still fly it in there and make it stop - he'd still be hitting driver-pitching wedge!

You guys see what I mean. The whole thing with angles and ground game options is less than critical unless the ground is rock-hard and the elite player is hitting a middle or long iron, and who is going to build courses like that...and why would they?

I absolutely think that a great course should require a mix of air- and ground-game options, but these days, can such a course even exist in good weather? I think unless we roll back both the distance and spin rate of the golf ball, the answer to that question is "umm..." at best and "no way" at worst. I hope this post will provoke a few more opinions as to that question.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back