[David Stamm]

Does anyone know how much this hole has been changed, if at all? Is it pretty much the same as the day Sawgrass opened? The reason I ask is that it's got to be one of the oddest holes I think I've ever seen. A bunker on the right side of the fw that is blocked out by a grove of palm trees.

[Tom_Doak]

The palm trees were always there although I'm sure they are bigger than in 1980.

The green has been rebuilt four or five times since its first incarnation -- the ORIGINAL green was one of the wildest I have ever seen, with a high front center position that fell off to all sides, but that one did not even survive until the first event there in 1982.  (I was told that two of those original greens were finished and planted under floodlights in a rush to the finish!)

However, I don't believe the position of the green has ever changed.  I do not know if the bunker you're talking about has changed or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't.

[Jason Topp]

And - what is the deal with the tree in front of the tee?
I think this was 6.

[Brad Klein]

In recent years there have been more trees planted on the right side of the 6th at TPC Sawgrass-Players Stadium to squeeze down the landing area.

For all of Dye's genius, he actually has always relied upon trees a lot -- something he seems to get a pass on by observers and critics. The front nine at Crooked Stick has been especially saddled with over-plantings over the years.

[Adam Clayman]

Brad's correct in that he often gets a pass. It's hard to criticize a guy who was building the most intriguing stuff coming out of the dark ages of design. So, trees were an acceptable error (if thats the right word?) in exchange for the quality and humor he exudes.

I'd cite BWR original River-Valley as a place where he used the trees sparingly and to great effect. The new nine, which now comprises the interior nine of the River course, shows where his reliance on trees went over the top and the final product suffered. (That's definitely an error) But since the majority of retail golfer's didn't, or doesn't know the difference, he gets the pass. Understandably so, imo.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

I forgot that the Tour guys told me they were planting a lot of trees at Sawgrass to toughen the course as part of the renovation ... so that may well be where the trees came from.

It's interesting that Brad and Adam phrase it that people are "giving Pete a pass" over his use of trees in the course.  He is doing it because he thinks it is the right thing to do.  The fact that Brad or Adam disagrees with that in theory does not make them right and Pete wrong; in fact, knowing the three of them, I would have to wager it's the other way around.

[Adam Clayman]

Certaintly Pete is right if the goal is to dictate to the top one percent what constitutes the ultimate of tests. However, for those who appreciate having choices, and FUN, Pete is not.Especially on too many holes in the round.

[David Stamm]

I just don't understand the concept of having a bunker in a position off the fw (which btw, has a water hazard to the left of it) and then having a wall of palm trees placed between said bunker and the green. Wouldn't it be easier to just grow heavy rough and accomplish the same thing without the fuss of the bunker? Does Dye really want someone to try a slinging hook out of the sand around the trees to reach the green? If the palm trees are there to punish a shot hit left, why have the bunker? Since pros can control their shots more easily out of sand than rough, this seems very odd to me if the purpose of the trees is to protect the green.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

I just don't understand the distinction you are making -- or I don't think you do.

You seem to have it in your mind that the bunker is an artificial construct, and so why make an artificial construct behind the trees, whereas turf would not be an artificial construct.  But in fact, the whole site was a swamp to start, and the bunker in question cost less to construct and less to maintain than a patch of turf in the same spot would cost.

Lots of people seem to think the "double hazard" of trees and sand is unfair -- even Jack Nicklaus.  [I had this exact same disagreement with Jack on the 16th hole at Sebonack; neither of us was swayed.]  I just don't think it's "unfair".  If you can hit over the trees or under the trees, then you could do so out of a bunker, it would just be a harder shot.

[David Stamm]

Tom, I'm not saying it's fair or not. I just don't understand the concept, that's all. I guess this could be the same as the bunker (Big Bertha) on the 4th at Sandwich, so it may be just a tree thing for me. It just looks really odd. (TPC, not RSG)

Also, I'm not suggeting that rough is the better alternative, I just thought that the same thing could be accomplished. But as you reminded me, it is a former swamp, so the cost of maintaining the turf is a definite consideration. Believe me, I much prefer a creative bunker over non-descript, uniform rough. In the end, it must be an aesthetic thing for me, which makes me very shallow.

[Adam Clayman]

Principally, the bunker should be penalty enough. There are situations that don't allow for either going under or getting over. If the tree is too close (to the bunker) or the slope is uphill.
If the tree causes an inability to recover, it's not unfair, it's just CRAP.

  If you can hit over the trees or under the trees, then you could do so out of a bunker, it would just be a harder shot.

Tom, How many courses with bunkers that have trees blocking the shot into the green have you designed?

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

I don't know how many times I have designed a bunker which might be behind a tree ... probably at least two or three.  At Pacific Dunes, and Sebonack, and several of our other courses, "sand" is the default condition and often when you are way off line you're in the sand and behind a tree ... whether the sand is called a bunker or not.

A tree never CAUSES an inability to recover.  If you can't recover that is because YOU are not good enough to make the shot.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, Are you including Heathland at the legends?
 Your using the word never is just not true.
 I've seen it and my ability had nothing to with it. Off the top of my head I'd cite one of the holes on the front at Smeyer's Southern Dunes (maybe #6 or #7) a slight dogleg left, a RM Graves course in Washington state. And, several other lesser known courses where trees have completely over grown, to the point of precluding any thought of attempting a heroic recovery shot to the green.

  For someone who spends as much time as you do thinking through recovery options, your position on the fundamentals behind the argument seems rather contrarian.

I'll assume since you and Jack disagreed, Mr. Pascuzzi settled the situation? Was it on #15 or 16?   

[Brad Klein]

Tom, on trees with Pete, I wasn't claiming he's wrong and I'm right. When I said that he gets a pass, I simply meant that his reliance upon treees seems to go unobserved, or uncommented upon, and also uncriticized, by folks on GCA and elsewhere who otherwise seem to mind an over-reliance upon trees.

[Tom_Doak]

Okay, Adam, I'll accept that if the trees are completely overgrown, there may be some situations where no one could hit the recovery shot.  But if that's the case, the bunker has little or nothing to do with it ... it's like asking for a free drop from a scoreboard in your line when you are in the middle of the woods.  The truth remains that there are a lot of situations where the intervening tree IS surmountable, but 99% of golfers insist that a double hazard is ALWAYS unfair, and I disagree with that.

(As for Heathland at The Legends, it had very few trees when we built it, so I don't know what you are referring to.)

Brad:  Fair enough.  Do you think Pete relies on trees too much?

[Brad Klein]

I think he's got that tendency. Wouldn't say he does it everywhere, but I was certainly surprised to see the extent of it on the front nine of Crooked Stick, where he did planting in the mid-1990s to narrow things up. The Golf Club has a tremendous amount, esp. on the front nine. Heck, at the 16th at Firethorn in Lincoln, Neb. he makes you play through a chute of trees so tight the canopies touch at the top. At Oak Tree, all of the par-5s are organized around trees to create shape to the playing corridors. Same thing at Harbour Town and at TPC Sawgrass -- look how he turns the third shots there at the 9th, 11th and 16th holes.

Maybe, as I write this, I realize that no architect relies more heavily on trees, esp. on par-5s, to create vertical corridors and angles of approach. But while that works fine for high-ball hitters and strong players, it does wear on everyday golfers. I also see him doing lots of extra ornamental plantings to full up space -- esp. at Crooked Stick, and that's where he seems to indulge himself to excess.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()