[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I tend to jump on posts that:

1 Are not based on facts
2 Employ flawed logic

I tend to ignore posts that are:

1a Foolish
2a Totally without merit

Yours qualified for both # 1a and # 2a, hence I was silent   

[John Moore II]

Pat-good to know how to get to you Now I can formulate my answers to better get under your skin a bit I want to see green writing all over.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat-good to know how to get to you Now I can formulate my answers to better get under your skin a bit I want to see green writing all over.

Good luck.

Are you sure you're up to the task ?

Do you need assistance ?

Call TEPaul at 1-800-GET-HELP

[Jason McNamara]

I thought I identified the course in a related thread.
It's Glen Ridge.[/b]

Pat,

You mentioned a short par 4 at Glen Ridge in your "An interesting feature" thread, but not any par 5.  By the way, is it the 2nd slide show picture that loads top left at http://www.glenridgecc.com/info.htm?  (There also appears to be a later picture from behind the green.)

Understanding that each lie is different, in general, a player who hits it long enough to bring the green into range with his second shot can do so from the immediate rough.  The further off line you go the more trees flanking the fairway can come into play[/b]

Are there any course features that discourage a lay-up?  Or is the golfer's ego the only thing preventing (in general) a straightforward lay-up to a preferred full wedge distance?

Regardless, in addition to your original point, cutting the rough might also encourage more golfers to lay up too close to the creek, a good hidden penalty on an "easy" hole.

Also:  Would the hole in your estimation be more interesting if the water feature were 50 yds long, i.e. from 35 to 85 yds short of a central hole location?  If you want to put a premium on distance control, this would do it for both kinds of second shots.  [Note:  the preceding sentences are not meant to imply you presently consider the hole uninteresting.]

[Patrick_Mucci]

You mentioned a short par 4 at Glen Ridge in your "An interesting feature" thread, but not any par 5.  By the way, is it the 2nd slide show picture that loads top left at http://www.glenridgecc.com/info.htm?  (There also appears to be a later picture from behind the green.)

The picture in the slide show is either the 3rd or the 6th hole, both relatively short par 5's that have to traverse the creek at the green end.

Understanding that each lie is different, in general, a player who hits it long enough to bring the green into range with his second shot can do so from the immediate rough.  The further off line you go the more trees flanking the fairway can come into play[/b]

Are there any course features that discourage a lay-up? 


Not really

Or is the golfer's ego the only thing preventing (in general) a straightforward lay-up to a preferred full wedge distance?

The lay up usually depends upon the golfers comfort zone.
Some like to lay up as close to the green as possible others prefer to be further back, leaving them a full shot into the green.

The green slopes up toward the back to better accomodate a long approach.

Regardless, in addition to your original point, cutting the rough might also encourage more golfers to lay up too close to the creek, a good hidden penalty on an "easy" hole.

That's a good idea.
However, I don't know that a membership would accept it.
It would make for an interesting experiment.

Also:  Would the hole in your estimation be more interesting if the water feature were 50 yds long, i.e. from 35 to 85 yds short of a central hole location? 

I don't think so.
I think that would make it too gimmickie, ie, driver, wedge, short-med iron.

If you want to put a premium on distance control, this would do it for both kinds of second shots.  [Note:  the preceding sentences are not meant to imply you presently consider the hole uninteresting.

I find both # 3 and # 6 to be interesting.

I'm quite sure that the permitting agencies wouldn't allow that stream to be rerouted in any meaningful fashion, thus, the water feature would remain as it is, and only the maintainance to the approaches could be altered.
 

[Jason McNamara]

I'm quite sure that the permitting agencies wouldn't allow that stream to be rerouted in any meaningful fashion, thus, the water feature would remain as it is, and only the maintainance to the approaches could be altered.

How about a fairway bunker on the L side about 90 yards out, especially if the rough occasionally gets to hosel-twisting length?  Put it on one of the two holes, esp. if the course would benefit from having the holes be more distinct from one another.

Not saying this would be welcomed by the members, but speaking more hypothetically....

Thanks for all your pvs answers.

Jason

[Michael Ryan]

I recently was in Scotland for work and the chance to sneak out a few times.  Interesting I see this thread as my overriding appreciation for the design of the few courses I played (from a "Royal" right down to the Township muni) were the lack of "buffers".  Fairway bunkers that are truly are what the title means.  Not only is there no buffer of rough, but most have a surrounding depression of turf that actually catches balls as opposed to raised turf that repels an approaching ball. 

Lastly, I had an instance where the lack of buffer created a great strategic decision.  While playing a spirited match at Royal Troon, I came to the 16th tee trailing my host two down.  The 16th is a par 5 of some 550 yards (give or take a few).  There is a small burn that crosses the fairway in the area of 280-290 yards from the tee.  My host had the honor and took driver, and his perfectly struck tee shot rolled to a stop only one yard shy of the burn.  I took 3 wood to lay back as I was probably even with to 5 yards further than my opponent with the driver most of the day.  My decision off the tee turned it into a 3 shot hole, he was able to hit a hybrid up to within a pitch, which he converted for the birdie to beat my par, and win the match.  I asked him about his decision off the tee, and the response was "some go through into the Burn, but most stay short....it's a risk that I ususally take".  Not to make too much of this, but I would think an American course would probably have a 5 yard strip of rough to either keep the older membership from grumbling (private club) or keep pace of play moving from folks fishing for balls in the hazard (public course).  Either way, it's a very small architectural aspect that can add to the challenge and enjoyment of playing. 

One of the many reasons I found my few rounds in Scotland to be so enjoyable....

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm quite sure that the permitting agencies wouldn't allow that stream to be rerouted in any meaningful fashion, thus, the water feature would remain as it is, and only the maintainance to the approaches could be altered.

How about a fairway bunker on the L side about 90 yards out, especially if the rough occasionally gets to hosel-twisting length?  Put it on one of the two holes, esp. if the course would benefit from having the holes be more distinct from one another.

Jason,

There's already a bunker on the left side in the second shot LZ.

I don't know the exact yardage and my Google Earth program isn't operational.  Perhaps you can view Google Earth and provide the measurement.

# 6 has an interesting feature.
Two flanking mounds on both sides of the fairway, into the fairway, at 90 degrees to the fairway, forming a slot.  These mounds impede second shots intended for the green as they are about 6 feet high.  It's a unique feature, one you don't see very often.  Again, Google Earth might be of help.

Not saying this would be welcomed by the members, but speaking more hypothetically....

Thanks for all your pvs answers.

Jason

[Tim Nugent]

Reasons from my experience:

1) afore mentioned environmental
2) afore mentioned members not wanting tolose balls/strokes
3) seniors/ladies who do not/can not hit down aon a ball in short grass want to 'scoop' it out of longer grass.  Most bank areas are sloping down to the water, so a downslope, over water, from tight fairway is pretty much the kiss of death to the higher handicaper.
4) supers  who bemoan 'I have no where to turn my mower around
5) too much wear and tear too close to the edge from #4
6) as water tends to drain toward a stream, this area stays wetter longer (see #1,3,4,5)

Personally, I found that putting a couple of those dreaded catch basins in before the bank allows the fairway to be brought much closer.  I still prefer, fro deliniation purposes, to leave about 12' to the top of bank.  If it is a downhill hole, I might leave a bit more and put some additional catch basins in the rough just before the bank. In addition to solving some drainage issues, the reverse grading of the basins will slow a ball, not make all shots hit from a downslope, while still afford some randomnessin the final result due to the rub of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Reasons from my experience:

1) afore mentioned environmental

I haven't seen one environmental situation that necesitated creating a buffer between a fairway and a bunker.

2) afore mentioned members not wanting tolose balls/strokes


Dumbing down a course to appeal to the lowest common denominator is the quickest path to the destruction/disfiguration of the architecture.

3) seniors/ladies who do not/can not hit down aon a ball in short grass want to 'scoop' it out of longer grass.  Most bank areas are sloping down to the water, so a downslope, over water, from tight fairway is pretty much the kiss of death to the higher handicaper.

The fronting fairway is FLAT, very FLAT.
But, even if it wasn't, dumbing down the architecture to accomodate the lowest common denominator is foolish.  The game is about members taking lessons to learn how to loft wedges off of slightly downhill lies, not about regrading the fairway or growing rough to accomodate them.

I heard a new one recently.
In NJ, a club must get a special permit if they're going to change an elevation by 2 feet or more

4) supers  who bemoan 'I have no where to turn my mower around

Maybe they should write to ANGC and inquire how they do it.
It's not a difficult issue to overcome
And, previous supers did it for decade after decade with larger equipment.

5) too much wear and tear too close to the edge from #4

Same response as # 4.

6) as water tends to drain toward a stream, this area stays wetter longer (see #1,3,4,5)

The area sits well above the stream and the area immediately fronting the creek is no different from the rest of the fairway.

And, if it was wet, french drains and other devices could be used to insure dry conditions.

Personally, I found that putting a couple of those dreaded catch basins in before the bank allows the fairway to be brought much closer.  I still prefer, fro deliniation purposes, to leave about 12' to the top of bank.  If it is a downhill hole, I might leave a bit more and put some additional catch basins in the rough just before the bank. In addition to solving some drainage issues, the reverse grading of the basins will slow a ball, not make all shots hit from a downslope, while still afford some randomnessin the final result due to the rub of the green.

There is no appreciable downslope and drainage on the tee side is not a problem.

In addition, the area was previously mowed as fairway.

Now, examine the issue in the context of bunkers and buffers.

[Jim_Kennedy]

.....The strip of rough fronting the creek functions as a buffer, preventing balls from rolling into the creek. Both holes are reachable par 5's.
Don't they have it backwards ?
1.- Everyone seems to be in agreement with you.

Shouldn't the grass be mowed as fairway right up to the creek, thereby placing a premium on accuracy (distance control) on the second shot ?
See #1 above.

Wouldn't the tactical value of the hole be dramatically increased if the grass was mowed as fairway all the way to the creek ?
See #1 above

Why do American courses tend to introduce safety net buffers fronting or flanking hazards ?
Everyone has been offering reasons why clubs might be doing it. They read your question.

I don't know what more you want.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

Most of the opinions aren't applicable in this case.

There's no environmental issue.
There's no slope issue.
There's no mowing issue.

It's the evolving culture of golf, that golfers should be protected from their ineptitude, in thinking and/or in executing.

And, few if any responses addressed the buffers for bunkers issue.

[Jim_Kennedy]

It's the evolving culture of golf, that golfers should be protected from their ineptitude, in thinking and/or in executing

Pat,
Well there you go, you have your answer, and I don't think you'll find much in the way of disagreement.

Not from me anyway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

I knew I could count on you. 

Have you gotten pressure to create buffer zones between fairways and hazards ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

I sided w/George Bahto when he did his work here. Since then the grounds crew doesn't speak to me.   

[Jason McNamara]

There's already a bunker on the left side in the second shot LZ.

I don't know the exact yardage and my Google Earth program isn't operational.  Perhaps you can view Google Earth and provide the measurement.

# 6 has an interesting feature.
Two flanking mounds on both sides of the fairway, into the fairway, at 90 degrees to the fairway, forming a slot.  These mounds impede second shots intended for the green as they are about 6 feet high.  It's a unique feature, one you don't see very often.  Again, Google Earth might be of help.

Pat -

I have been looking at GE, and everything is so jammed in that it's a bit tricky picking apart holes.  It looks like the course occupies about 90 acres.  (Most of the fwys are < 30 yds in width, based on GE measurements.)  Does the second on #15 play over #6 green?

One of the par 5s you mention (#3) looks to be about 450 from the fwd tee; presumably there's another back in the trees about 20 yds.  It's in the main part of the course, running NW to SE, adjacent to the hole which marks the NE boundary of the southern portion (?!).   http://tinyurl.com/6acnqp  That's got a bunker on the L side about 160 out, and there's another bunker on the R about 115 out.  The rough fronting the creek starts about 65 yds from the center of the green.  So it looks like the "usual" 90 - 100 yard wedge distance is left open.   It would not seem that the L side bunker on 3 would come into play much these days, unless one fans his tee shot into that churchpew-ish bunker complex.

The bunkers on #6 (which again runs NW to SE and basically bisects the southern portion of the course) encroach rather more on the lay-up.  The bunker R ends about 110 from the center (if I understand the hole correctly), the bunker L starts about 90 yds from the hole.  Between this and the mounds, I would guess #6 is a much trickier hole for the mid handicapper.  A very short hole, but it doesn't let the handicap golfer ever get comfortable.

And if I have the layout correct, it's best suited for an emergency 4 (1-9-10-18).

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have been looking at GE, and everything is so jammed in that it's a bit tricky picking apart holes.  It looks like the course occupies about 90 acres.  (Most of the fwys are < 30 yds in width, based on GE measurements.)  Does the second on #15 play over #6 green?

No, the 15th green is to the right of the 6th green as you play # 6.
You then walk past # 6 green, # 4 tee and # 3 green to get to # 16 tee.

One of the par 5s you mention (#3) looks to be about 450 from the fwd tee; presumably there's another back in the trees about 20 yds. 

That's correct.

It's in the main part of the course, running NW to SE, adjacent to the hole which marks the NE boundary of the southern portion (?!).   http://tinyurl.com/6acnqp  That's got a bunker on the L side about 160 out, and there's another bunker on the R about 115 out.  The rough fronting the creek starts about 65 yds from the center of the green.  So it looks like the "usual" 90 - 100 yard wedge distance is left open.   It would not seem that the L side bunker on 3 would come into play much these days, unless one fans his tee shot into that churchpew-ish bunker complex.

Which I did.

The bunkers on #6 (which again runs NW to SE and basically bisects the southern portion of the course) encroach rather more on the lay-up. 


That's true, but, the large mounds intrude into the Drive Zone off the tee.

The bunker R ends about 110 from the center (if I understand the hole correctly), the bunker L starts about 90 yds from the hole.  Between this and the mounds, I would guess #6 is a much trickier hole for the mid handicapper.  A very short hole, but it doesn't let the handicap golfer ever get comfortable.

And if I have the layout correct, it's best suited for an emergency 4 (1-9-10-18).

You have the right layout.

On # 9, it was about 40-50 yards longer when the club decided to introduce tennis courts in the 70's and shorten the hole.

I liked the old hole, although the shortened version is pretty strong.

The par 3's are very interesting.

It's a neat, sporty course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()