[Eric_Terhorst]

I can't help but feel that you golf architects out there must have many frustrating days after reading John Paul Newport's column in the WSJ today.

The story brings up the question, Is the ideal golf hole "one that affords the greatest pleasure to the greatest number" or 2) one that suits the target market best, or 3) one that suits the loudest complainers?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120250379421054645.html

Excerpt below

One problem is that many golfers are so focused on the immediate task at hand -- getting the ball airborne -- that they don't think about strategy. Then, when they get off their best shot of the day, and helplessly watch it roll into a bunker, they aren't inclined to view that bunker as a catalyst for pleasure the way architects do. They see it as an abomination.

Mr. Hanse is unapologetic. His bunkers at Soule Park received many complaints for being too deep. But in his view, hazards need to pose "real penalties" or they lose their effect. "Where's the joy in avoiding a bunker if you know that, if you'd gone in, it would have been easy to get out of?" he asks.

Another problem, about which I intend to write more in a future column, is how often golfers play from the wrong tees.

The most reviled new bunker at Soule Park was one that extended nearly all the way across the fairway on the par-five fourth hole, about 370 yards from the "avocado" tees (this is Southern California, remember) that seniors usually play. A good drive for many seniors rolls out to 200 yards, but on No. 4 that leaves most of them too far back to carry the tall cross bunker on their second shots. Laying up short isn't very satisfying, either, because the player would then have a third shot of 170 yards to 190 yards to reach the green, impossibly long for many.

"What really drives me crazy is when they call that bunker unfair," says Mr. Hanse. "The problem is they ought to be playing from different tees."

By design, the appropriate tees for many senior men are the so-called lemon tees, but few venture there because at Soule Park they are known as the women's tees. Mr. Hanse was distressed to learn that those tees, which were not intended to be gender specific, aren't grouped with the other tees on the scorecard, but rather listed by themselves at the bottom, alongside the ladies' handicap information.

Last fall, in response to continued complaints, grounds crews filled in all or parts of four bunkers at Soule Park, including most of the cross bunker at No. 4, and made other changes to "soften" the layout. According to Mr. Lakes, everyone now seems to have made their peace with the new design, and membership is back up.

[Joel_Stewart]

I read the article.   The seniors were up in arms about some of the bunkers.  The article cited 45 members quit the club because it was too hard.  Gil is quoted quite a bit.

Four bunkers were filled in including the cross bunker on #4.   The one thing not mentioned is who made the decision to fill in the bunkers?   

[David Stamm]

Joel, the head pro. Tommy N, Robert Ball and myself were just out there playing about 5-6 weeks ago and gave him hell for it. I played it before they filled them in and I played it after. The bunkers being filled in will not make the course any easier if you hit lousy shots any way. The following is a photo treatise if you will. Please forgive the rather poor quality of the photo's.


The mentioned hole from the article, the par 5 4th. This was the bunker before it was ruthlessly chopped in half. The seen scab was removed and the bunker was cut in half where you see the finger cutting in.






The short drivable par 4 6th. The small pot bunker in the center was taken out and takes alot of the design intent out of the hole. Beleive it or not, that little bunker made the hole very strategic off the tee.






The par 4 10th. The center greenside bunker was taken out to "provide for a run up shot for the weaker players". The area around it is maintained as rough so that makes no sense at all.









The bunker did NOT "extend nearly all the way across the fw" as the article cites on number 4. Gil left an 10-12 yd alley way there for the player that did not wish to challenge this bunker. It's not the bunker's fault if the player was too dumb to figure that out after playing it numerous times or if he chose to challenge it and didn't pull it off. Such a waste. Gil's right, play from the right set of tee's!

[Eric_Terhorst]

David

Thanks for posting the pictures.  The before pics look appealing.  The rest of the story is hard to fathom...

[David Stamm]

Despite these stupid in house changes, Eric, the course is fantastic. IMHO, it's a top 5 public access in So Cal.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

David

Thanks for posting the pictures.  The before pics look appealing.  The rest of the story is hard to fathom...

I don't think it is hard to understand, these members who can not break 100 are designing (or re-designing) a golf course brought up to proper standards by a good architect.

You can not make this type of golfer happy no matter what you do, 100 yard wide fairways with a tree on their edge would be unfair and unplayable if one of these members were to hit their ball behind it.

No architect should even respond to this type of article or questioning.

[Dan Herrmann]

We have had prospective members leave after one round because our Hanse course was too difficult for them - bunkers too deep, in the wrong place for them, etc..    There was some talk about softening things, but that was a long time ago.  Everybody knows the quality of what we have, and are now focused on bringing Gil's intentions to reality by significantly improving conditioning and improving turf health.

I remember one story from Eric Pevoto, our original pro and member of the treehouse.  He was doing a dog and pony show to a group of prospective members at an offsite location.  He had several ask why there would be a bunker right where a good tee shot would go.  These folks couldn't grasp the concept of the true meaning of a hazard.

Best Hanse quote from the article: "When you think back to your most memorable shots, they aren't just the times you flushed a five-iron. They are when you hit that great shot in the face of some adversity," Mr. Hanse says. "Even less-accomplished players want to have to hit the ball over something sometimes, like a bunker or a stream. To take that challenge away is to water down design to the point where golf almost becomes bowling."

Fortunately, we've attracted a darn good number of members that "get it"

I also think Kelly Blake Moran hit some of that "dumbing down" at Lederach too (which I love!).  Centerline hazards are just so foreign to most golfers.

I pray to the golf gods that they don't mess up the Bandon course designs to play to the masses or to the jet set crowd.   If the folks at the Soule Park ran Bandon Dunes, they'd probably remove the buner at BD 15!

[Dan Herrmann]

deleted - duplicate post

[Mark_Fine]

I rememeber riding in the car with Gil about three years ago and we talked at length about hazards.  At one point he said, "If you accomplish one thing with your hazards book, I would love to see the word ‘fair’ fall out of use in association with hazards.”

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I couldn't agree more.

Hazards should be just that, features to be given ample thought and avoided at almost all costs.

All too often I've seen bunkers softened, either by lowering the fronting bank/berm, or by bringing the sand up to the lip, thereby eliminating any impediment to advancing the ball.

I've seen a great cross bunker, partially filled in, bunkers eliminated or softened to the absurd degree that you could hit 3-woods out of them no matter how close your ball came to the front of the bunker.

The whining you hear when a golfer's ball is close to the front of the bunker, and confronted by a lip, bank or berm is deafening.

Give me OAKMONTS bunker forms.

They are hazards.

They must be accounted for, and if you end up in them, you've got your work cut out for you.  They are definitely a 1/2 to full stroke penalty, AS THEY SHOULD BE

[R_Paulis]

What makes the recent changes so infuriating is that with the recent remodel, SP rivaled the nearby Ojai Valley Inn as a great alternative. Mr. Hanse's redesign made SP a course that required a bit of strategy and made you want to return to "learn" the course. It's still a nice option, but a bunch of men clubbers have dumbed down the course and that is a shame.

[Brett Hochstein]

Those bunkers are deep?  Weak is the mental strength in that one, the membership.  With the newly  deepened bunkers at Franklin Hills and the tendencies of the membership, I was surprised to see the way they accepted it as a whole.  The only times I really saw anyone give up or get really discouraged was for safety reasons with the steep faces.

Overall, I love the opinion of the posters and Mr. Hanse about hazards.  If they don't challenge, they don't thrill.

[Philippe Binette]

A couple of things here:

1) Removing the central bunker on the 6th is a bad decision, small size, lots of room around, not in play for short players

2) On a par 5, like it or not, most senior players, most players don't get inside 180 yards on a third shot anyway, plus it seems there's a fairway on the right.

3) I could see the point on the 10th hole, if it's a long par 4 and it seems like there's water behind, there's not a lot of room to use the low road, but then again, it comes down to what I've said many times, people don't learn to play golf, they only learn to hit the ball

but the only thing I don't like is the play off the right tee mentality, on the other end, if you're member of a course and you play 60 rounds a year there, why the hell you have to play them all from the same set of tees

[SB]

I guess I'll be the only one against the crowd, again, as I couldn't disagree more. 

People, this is a MUNICIPAL golf course.  Maybe some of you need to go stand at the first tee of your local muni and watch how people there really play golf.  Most have ZERO control over the ball, meaning hazards are really just random opportunities to raise their score.  They don't swing hoping to carry a cross bunker, they swing hoping to make good contact.

That's why a pot bunker in the middle of the fairway is annoying or stupid at a municipal course.

A 10-12 yard alley is not an option.  How many of you can run a ball through a 10-12 yard target from 180 yards?

I don't know how many greens have no opportunity to run it up, but there shouldn't be many, if any.

How do Oakmont's bunkers get into a discussion of municipal golf courses?  What the heck, maybe every municipal course should look like Pine Valley or The Golf Club.  Now THOSE are hazards.  Come on.

Sorry.  I like Gil and his work, but the seniors have a right to complain.  The architect needs to understand his customer.  There's a difference between designing a private course and a municipal course. 

[Philippe Binette]

I'll have to disagree with SBusch:

I understand that it's a municipal course, but it will always fascinate me to think that the same players would NEVER complain if there was a lake on the entire right side of the hole. But they complain about a central pot bunker.

Look at the pictures, on the first one:
yes there is that bunker but after that, the last 160 yards of the hole is all fairway (45 yards it looks like) and a small bunker. Go look at a new municipal course recently built, you'll in the same area, one bunker at 100 yards, at least 2 around the green and a 30 yards wide fairway.

on the third picture:
the only bunker I would take out is the one on the left of the fairway, but what you see is a wide open fairway with the bunker far enough out there that only decent player will reach them.

on the fourth picture:
guess what, nobody complains about that lake, on a everyday basis: you'll see 20 balls in the lake for 1 ball in the central hazard of the 6th hole. big wide fairway, bunkers at the green, I don't understand why they don't mow the space in between the bunkers though

It's just that if you go with the philosophy: it's a municipal course, listen to the seniors, you'll end up taking out: central hazard, bunkers on the right side, false front, high grass, bunkers short right of a green, contours on a green, out of bounds, long par 4's, creeks, end then the same players would say the course is boring.

Instead of listen at them complaining: just asked those seniors: what would they do, give them a blank canvas and see; you'll end up closer to TPC at Sawgrass than what Gil proposed

Read: How soft are today's golfer by Mike Clayton
Once again: people need to learn to play golf, not swing at a ball

[Philippe Binette]

I look at the tee distance on the scorecard:

Gil said players are playing from the wrong tees: well it's hard to make that call

Back Tee: 6750 yards
Orange Tee: 6400 yards   (350 yards gap = 20 yards per hole)
Avocado Tee: 6100 yards  (300 yards gap = 15 yards per hole)
Lemon Tee: 5200 yards  (900 yards gap = 45 yards per hole)

I don't think it's a good distance separation, I would believe that for a muni espacially it should be something like:

Back: 6750 yards (with options to put it 6600 on weekends)
Orange: 6200 yards
Avocado: 5800 yards
Lemon: 5200 yards

then you can say, play from the tee in front if they are playing from the orange tee

[David Stamm]

I guess I'll be the only one against the crowd, again, as I couldn't disagree more. 

People, this is a MUNICIPAL golf course.  Maybe some of you need to go stand at the first tee of your local muni and watch how people there really play golf.  Most have ZERO control over the ball, meaning hazards are really just random opportunities to raise their score.  They don't swing hoping to carry a cross bunker, they swing hoping to make good contact.


[b color=Red] If that is the case, then why worry about where the hazards are? [/ b color]


That's why a pot bunker in the middle of the fairway is annoying or stupid at a municipal course.

[b color=Red] Stupid? It's a 318 yd par 4! What the bad player IS in control of is picking a club out of his bag that has no shot of reaching that bunker. The player is still left with a reasonable shot into the green. Why should that bunker be taken out for one class of players on a hole like this? I don't think asking a muni player with litttle playing abilities to use his head is too much to ask. [/b color]

A 10-12 yard alley is not an option.  How many of you can run a ball through a 10-12 yard target from 180 yards?

[b color=Red] It's a par 5! The bunker is in the lay up area. If someone can't lay up right with an iron, what difference does it make? it's only 10-12 yds NEXT to the bunker. Play short of it! Again, use good judgement![/b color]

I don't know how many greens have no opportunity to run it up, but there shouldn't be many, if any.

[b color=Red] Most can be run up there. [/b color]

  

Sorry.  I like Gil and his work, but the seniors have a right to complain.  The architect needs to understand his customer.  There's a difference between designing a private course and a municipal course. 

[b color=Red] They are not the only ones playing there. If they don't want to play from the right set of tees and use their heads, let's just set up a soccer field for them play over. No thought, no hazards. Is it satisfying to play great over a course that just lays down for you? What are the most memorable shots that you've hit? The ones where you pulled off the shot while facing great difficulty. The thrill of the sporting challenge is what great architecture is all about. BTW, Gil does know his customer. He spent quite a bit of time with them explaining what he was going to do before he did it. They just don't like seeing their handicaps go up becasue the course presents a greater challenge. [/b color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()