[Brock Peyer]

I must admit that the more that I see the TPC Sawgrass, the more that I love the place. 

I was watching the round yesterday in the wind and thought to myself that the course looked really hard and it made me think:  how would the course be viewed if the railroad tie borders around the hazards were a different material.  What if they were stacked stone (I must admit I love that look), or rocks like 18 at Bay Hill, or what if they borders of the lakes were just grassy banks? 

How would that change the course? 

Personally, I wouldn't recommend changing it, obviously the RR ties fit, but would the course be so hard if it looked different?

My second question is for our architects, and this may be an ingnorant question on my part:  how much do architects think about things such as this?  Do you consider different types of "borders and hardscapes" (those are my words) or does the developer tell you what to do?

Imagine 17 and 18 with a clean, classy, stacked stone wall bordering the holes, how are the holes different?

[jeffwarne]

may you never play with the green's chairman at any club I pay dues at.
 

[Matt_Cohn]

Imagine 17 and 18 with a clean, classy, stacked stone wall bordering the holes, how are the holes different?

Grass, fine, but stacked stone walls?

[James Boon]

Surely the wider context of the site would be all important?

We have a few dry stone walls across our course (old boundary walls before the land was a golf course) and some 'stacked stone' surrounds to tees or water and these all look fine as there is a tradition of dry stone walls in the Derbyshire/Peak District hills. They would though look out of place at Sawgrass!

Recently the water edge surround to our 17th was changed from grass bank to railway sleepers (railroad ties) and it now looks dreadful and out of character!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()