Although the ones at Rye may be old, I think they look a bit odd and contrived.
In my opinion, it's easier to accept them if if they were originally on the faces of bunkeres that have since been filled in, or if they are there to provide support and prevent erosion of a steep bank or ridge.
If they were simply put in there with the purpose of blocking a running shot, then why stop at 2-4 inches, why not make them 3-4 feet high? Doesn't this go against the spirit of a running game?
Are they classed as hazards, immovable obstructions, what?
Dónal.
Donal- I suppose its a opinion if you think good or bad, mine is I like them. In part I agree with you re the ground game, so I think they are best at sides of holes, I think they are quite strongy responsible for making Rye the great course it is.
I have incorporated quite a lot of timber into my designs, one of my first courses Erlestoke had several steps and shelves but against the play, it was at the 7th hole, there is a nice feature at East Devon as well that fronts a green, you dont see it until your on the green..it might be 15.
At other places I have used sleepers up to say 1.5m to create flatter or wider green sites into heavy contours, if you shore up 1.5m then you can 'buy' about 6 metres more width on a green surround.
I like the Doak/Hanse green... it is simple and effective.
Adrian:
I have no problem with their use as long as they are used wisely and do not compromise the natural nature of the hole. I think the ones at Rye look unnatural. It's difficult to define "used wisely" as an opinion on their use is subjective.
Take for example the picture of the 7th at Rye that John M posted. You have a nice gently slope which looks totally natural and it's compromised by these 3-4 inch "eyelids". I haven't played the course, but it appears that there is sufficient slope there to cause difficulty if putting of chipping; the scene is spoiled by those sleepers IMO. It looks totally unnatural.
Sleepers should have a practical purpose or be made to look like they had a practical purpose. As I said before, they could remain in the faces of bunkers that were filled in. They could be used in the faces of grass bunkers; this would give the impression that they may have had a practical purpose (suggesting that there was a sand bunker there previously) in the past. I would be more willing to accept the Rye sleepers if they were in the faces of grass bunkers.
If it's acceptable to put in 3-4 inch sleepers like those at Rye, than what's wrong with putting in a 3-4 inch ridge of grass sod for example, or perhaps a tiny hedge? This would be a bit like something Tom Dunn et al. might have done, but shouldn't it be just as acceptable at sleepers, even though it would look daft.
Other uses such as you have described above seem quite legitimate to me.
Dónal.