Opinions Please

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillipe,

Yeah but hockey is better than Australian rules football, so cheer up.

[Tyler Kearns]

David,

If memory serves me correctly, doesn't the general slope of the green run back-to-front and somewhat left-to-right. I didn't realize it on the tee, but was pleasantly surprised to see my tee ball only 6 feet from the hole here after thinking I'd missed the green long & left. With quite a rise at the back end of the green, I think there does exist some room to work the ball towards the centre of the green if one decides the carry over the bunker is too much. In regards to the lie, I didn't hit it there, so rub of the green.    I agree with Phillipe, a water hazard would be much more penal, yet generally acceptable by the golfing public.  

TK

[BCrosby]

BTW,

I have always felt that the big picture issue represented by such a hazard is this - do such hazards discourage bold play right at the pin by too many players?  

That, as they say, is the question, because aiming at the pin is far more fun than aiming to miss in the left fringe.....it just is.  Now, in the context of the course, if this is one of a few similar hazards, the paradox would be delightful change of pace.  (or as the Scottish caddies would say "change of piss" Also, the amount of bail out areas left would affect it.

For most golfers on most courses, it probably is too severe, but at the same time, the fact that it is severe and different makes it somewhat special.

Jeff hits it out of the park.

There's plenty of room left. If they put the pin on the right, you've got a choice between a full sphincter lockdown shot and a reasonable bail-out. Good stuff.

Good strategic hazards tend to be very penal. Like this one.

Bob

[Kirk Gill]

Jeff - isnt' aiming for the pin in that situation made MORE fun by the result of a possible miss? Some mundane bunkering in that location wouldn't provide much of a pucker factor....Perhaps a smart, savvy, tournament-tested golfer would avoid that trap, but they call that a sucker pin, and if there is, in fact, one born every minute, then..........

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kirk,

I just asked the question. Not sure of the answer, and there may be a different one for every golfer, every day.  So, the "safe choice" would be to play the middle.  However, if this is a destination resort, I think it should be different from the every day course, because part of the pucker factor, etc. is to experience something different that what you get at home.

[Tommy Williamsen]

There is nothing wrong with that bunker or the bush around it.  It seems like a big penalty to pay for a shot that is only marginally wayward but....   I agree that if it were a pond or a creek with lonigish grass along the edge it would be accepted more.  Hit it or take an unplayable lie.

[George Pazin]

What Tony and Philippe said.

The architect should cut off his ear and die poor.  I'm getting a little sick of out of focus bowls of fruit pretending to be bunkers.  The architect is not more important than the golfer.

I suppose the corollary to this is "No one golfer's opinion is more important than the architect's".

Unless maybe that golfer is the owner.

 

Jeff, does anyone really take 20 minutes to play out of a bunker? I've never seen anyone who struggled take more than a few wacks and then resort to the hand wedge, or simply put his ball in his pocket.

I'd take that bunker over water any day of the week, especially for slow play. People take a heckuva lot more time determining drop areas and the like than in even an excessively penal bunker.

[David_Elvins]

David,

If memory serves me correctly, doesn't the general slope of the green run back-to-front and somewhat left-to-right. I didn't realize it on the tee, but was pleasantly surprised to see my tee ball only 6 feet from the hole here after thinking I'd missed the green long & left. With quite a rise at the back end of the green, I think there does exist some room to work the ball towards the centre of the green if one decides the carry over the bunker is too much. In regards to the lie, I didn't hit it there, so rub of the green.    I agree with Phillipe, a water hazard would be much more penal, yet generally acceptable by the golfing public.  

TK

Tyler,
You are correct, the left half of the green slopes from back to front with a large back stop back and left.  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.

[Dan Kelly]

Actually, I think  in relooking at the photo, that providing a moving arrow in the sky to help golfers find their balls in that bunker kind of takes away the purpose of the hazard, no?

How do they do that?

Please, Jeff. The last thing this Web site needs is more attempted comic relief. I read that somewhere recently. (Emoticons omitted.)

That wild bunker is fine by me -- so long as I can find my ball.

[David_Elvins]

Jeff, does anyone really take 20 minutes to play out of a bunker?

Probably not but the guy in the picture didnt make it onto the green before the other 3 of us had putted out  

Don't get me wrong though, I like the bunkers, its only the vegetation in the face that I am undecided on.

[tlavin]

The "Cousin It" shrubbery should be eliminated as unnecessarily penal surplusage.

[Dan Kelly]

Probably not but the guy in the picture didnt make it onto the green before the other 3 of us had putted out  

The shot-by-shot?

[Dan Moore]

Love it.  Plenty of room left including what looks like a little backstop for the weak of mind or stroke.  

[Adam Clayman]

To each their own.

[David_Elvins]

Probably not but the guy in the picture didnt make it onto the green before the other 3 of us had putted out  

The shot-by-shot?

No idea, couldn't see him.  

[David_Elvins]

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.  

[Adam Clayman]

David, That plant is a Yucca. Native to the region this course resides.
The rules of golf allow for options to deal with this adversity. People not liking it, is IMO, moot. It is there, to be dealt with by the unfortunate who find it. A good player will minimize the affect, either under the rules, or, with a creative shot. Whining about it, will only add strokes to ones round, guaranteed.

[Dan King]

While attempting to get a ball from point a to point b, nature can at times get in the way. This is not necessarily good or bad, just life. Deal with it and move on to the next hole. If you dislike the natural aspects of a golf course you always have the choice of using golf simulators.

Cheers,
Grandan King

No matter how skillfully one may lay out the holes and diversify them, nevertheless one must get the thrill of nature. . . The puny strivings of the architect do not quench our thirst for the ultimate.
 --George Thomas

[Jeff_Brauer]

Actually, I think  in relooking at the photo, that providing a moving arrow in the sky to help golfers find their balls in that bunker kind of takes away the purpose of the hazard, no?

How do they do that?

Please, Jeff. The last thing this Web site needs is more attempted comic relief. I read that somewhere recently. (Emoticons omitted.)

That wild bunker is fine by me -- so long as I can find my ball.

Dan, sorry about that.....I think you are really objecting to a bad attempt at humor, no? Sorry, they can't all be gems!

Your "find the ball" comment reminds me of the pic you posted of me searching for my just hit bunker shot in the long grass around the 11th at the Quarry opening day (actually, pre opening, but opening for you and I!)

The problems with such analysis is that such lost balls are like taxes - not a big problem when the other guy is hurt by them, a much bigger deal when one bad shot turns your career round into a disaster.  That usually changes a few opinions, at least among the card and pencil type.

[Dan Kelly]

Actually, I think  in relooking at the photo, that providing a moving arrow in the sky to help golfers find their balls in that bunker kind of takes away the purpose of the hazard, no?

How do they do that?

Please, Jeff. The last thing this Web site needs is more attempted comic relief. I read that somewhere recently. (Emoticons omitted.)

That wild bunker is fine by me -- so long as I can find my ball.

Dan, sorry about that.....I think you are really objecting to a bad attempt at humor, no? Sorry, they can't all be gems!

Your "find the ball" comment reminds me of the pic you posted of me searching for my just hit bunker shot in the long grass around the 11th at the Quarry opening day (actually, pre opening, but opening for you and I!)

The problems with such analysis is that such lost balls are like taxes - not a big problem when the other guy is hurt by them, a much bigger deal when one bad shot turns your career round into a disaster.  That usually changes a few opinions, at least among the card and pencil type.

Jeff --

I wasn't objecting to anything! (I laughed at your line about the arrow! It's someone else who was objecting to humor, on that tree-killer thread, and I was just being a smart-aleck.)

Actually, what I was thinking of when I wrote that line about finding my ball was not you at the Quarry 11 (I've never posted a picture of you!), but me at the Quarry 1 -- where, in two rounds, I have lost not one but two balls in the long grass around the bunker in front of the green. That, I don't enjoy.

[Steve Verde]

I have no problems with it. There is more than enough room to the left. Don't hit it there if you want to find your ball.

[Andrew Summerell]

Most of you are missing the point. The 3rd photo shows that the architect did not plan on those shrubs being there. I believe, as Rich has stated, it is a maintenance problem.

Adams picture of a bunker with a Yucca plant close to the lip doesn’t prove anything either, as the Yucca is native to that area, but I can identify one plant in David’s 1st photo that is not native. When I last played this hole, the shrubs were not there & this is where the maintenance problem comes in.

I have no problem with the bunker, but the moment a rough bunker is pictured on this site a chorus of how wonderful it is rises up. We love the natural & ancient look of them, but insist on playing on artificial & over manicured fairways, as is evident to the left of this hole. Nobody has commented on how unnatural that looks compared to the surrounds.

These bunkers are no more manufacture than the bunkers at August National, yet we seem to give them a free pass. If we want truly natural bunkers, then, on a property like this, we should use only the ‘blow outs’ that are already there. Otherwise, we need to accept that bunkers are there for golfers & the purpose of playing golf. Yes, they should be hazards & yes, they will be unfair at times, but a golf course is a totally unnatural landscape & we need to understand that.

[Dan Kelly]

I have no problem with the bunker, but the moment a rough bunker is pictured on this site a chorus of how wonderful it is rises up. We love the natural & ancient look of them, but insist on playing on artificial & over manicured fairways, as is evident to the left of this hole. Nobody has commented on how unnatural that looks compared to the surrounds.

These bunkers are no more manufacture than the bunkers at August National, yet we seem to give them a free pass. If we want truly natural bunkers, then, on a property like this, we should use only the ‘blow outs’ that are already there. Otherwise, we need to accept that bunkers are there for golfers & the purpose of playing golf. Yes, they should be hazards & yes, they will be unfair at times, but a golf course is a totally unnatural landscape & we need to understand that.

I think many of us have said many of these things many times.

I don't see, in this thread, a "chorus" of how "wonderful" this bunker is, just because it's rough-looking.

[Andrew Summerell]

I have no problem with the bunker, but the moment a rough bunker is pictured on this site a chorus of how wonderful it is rises up. We love the natural & ancient look of them, but insist on playing on artificial & over manicured fairways, as is evident to the left of this hole. Nobody has commented on how unnatural that looks compared to the surrounds.

These bunkers are no more manufacture than the bunkers at August National, yet we seem to give them a free pass. If we want truly natural bunkers, then, on a property like this, we should use only the ‘blow outs’ that are already there. Otherwise, we need to accept that bunkers are there for golfers & the purpose of playing golf. Yes, they should be hazards & yes, they will be unfair at times, but a golf course is a totally unnatural landscape & we need to understand that.

I think many of us have said many of these things many times.

I don't see, in this thread, a "chorus" of how "wonderful" this bunker is, just because it's rough-looking.

Dan,

I did not say the 'chorus' came from this thread, but from this site from time to time.

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.

Is it a problem that 'many of us have said many of these things many times', as I have been one of those many. I'm apologise that I offended you by repeating this.

[Dan Kelly]

Is it a problem that 'many of us have said many of these things many times', as I have been one of those many. I'm apologise that I offended you by repeating this.

Andrew --

You didn't offend me. I'm very, very hard to offend. (Easy to annoy; hard to offend.)

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 think that this Discussion Group has as many points of view as it has active "members." And that's why I enjoy it.

Dan