Sean, what is your beef with the bunker short right on 3? I've been in their plenty of times when trying to avoid that left hill...seems ideally placed to me
Brian
1. The bunker is ugly and amateurish looking.
2. The bunker is designed for the par 5 back tee - flat belly stuff. There is absolutely no need for a bunker there for daily play. The hole is 450ish yards with a blind second to funky green. Too much attention here paid to how flat bellies play. Wouldn't it be simpler to call the hole a par 4 for the flat bellies and get rid of the bunker? Chasing extra yardage rarely leads to good design.
Ciao
Sean-
You really mystify me. I really am saddened that you have been seduced by the boiled-beef culture of England. After long and careful thought, I have had to take the step to write this which will perhaps be somewhat disturbing given our cordiality in the past. I have come to the conclusion that I cannot remain in good stead to read your opinions or when they deal (pun intended) with a course I know well and are so wrong.
Undoubtedly, the form of your golf views and thoughts contain the most profound truths as known to you but I am afraid they simply are egregious and tailored to your own hubristic reality tunnel which has no basis in fact. Tuco would say the common refrain, “ Opinions are like arse-holes and everyone has one”, so you invariably would say so can you.
We live in a time of poor management of the game of golf where it is dying out and lacks fun. This frightens those of us who subscribe to beauty and art in golf architecture rather than the slave of par, over-watered fairways and my course is harder than yours for the card and pencil hoi polloi.
No, it would be a silly kind of pride to debate that we can surrender the 3rd at Deal as a victim of such poor architecture. I’m sure Martin Ebert would shudder to think any of his bunkering is amateurish as let us not stand on ceremony alone—revetted pot bunkering is not exactly Dr. Mackenzie copying clouds in the sky. But let me let you cling to your authority and Arble-ian sense of architecture safety and humor you. Flat-bellies? Seriously, do you recall that Deal plays half of the year into a northerly? Have you played the course several or lets say 10 times in that wind to judge the architecture? I assure you having the 3rd as a par 5 from the medal tees is not a shout out to the flatbellies. Much of this has a familiar ring to me when you critique Deal.. I believe you’ve also said the 5th hole should play as a par 4. Given the 16th was originally a par 4 at times, we would then have a championship course with NO par 5s potentially or one—given you imply the 3rd should play as a 450ish par 4 to a funky green. I’m sure the reduction to par 69 or 68 would be rewarding to the members who know the course best and realize it has FLEXIBILITY in the design to play given the prevailing wind shift that happens per annum..
You critique the 13th as a poor driving hole and the 14th as too long for a man of your ilk. Again, have you played those holes downwind where half of the year the cross bunkers (13) are in play and the drive requires some artistry or when 14 plays as a 5 iron. Guess not..
The unhappy effects of reading your critiques of Deal are quite devastating to me, because as well traveled as you are, it invalidates the realm of your comments to my sensibilities and hence not worth reading. I’m not perfect either and given the choice between being a Deal puritan (pre-destined to like it) or a laisse-faire critic, I guess I’m Mayflower bound. Deal appreciation society may be a topic of my inherent weaknesses but declaring golf holes that are ancient as favoring the flatbellies when they don’t is a crime in my book as is understanding simple hazard schematics which are for certain elemental conditions.
The more clearly I see your views, the more I invalidate them. The more like the declaration of you are irrelevant to me for anything about golf architecture.
I expect this commentary will find a shrug of the shoulders and a fond so what.