ANGC is Ugly?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have not read any ANGC threads but I have grown more and more 'unfond' of it as time has past. I particularly think the bunkers are too large and there is an uglyness about the look of some of the greens and their complexes and the way things sit. I have not been there but several holes seem from my TV impression to be less visible from the approach shot than they might be with a different design, in particular am I right in thinking greens 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17 and 18 are semi blind. I wonder why this course is hailed as highly, has my GCA education on this site pickled my mind? There are elements of greatness but I can see weakness. How do others feel?

[John Kavanaugh]

If you have read on this site that blind shots are bad then you must read the threads I ignore.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I certainly ignore your posts John.

[John Kavanaugh]

I certainly ignore your posts John.

Obviously.

[Mac Plumart]

I've never played it, but I have played close by.  The land is pretty hilly and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the shots were blind, especially if you got out of position and/or the hole used blindness as a risk/reward tactic.

I don't think it is ugly at all.  I am not a huge fan of the white sand in the bunkers, but that is kind of their calling card.  I do really like the wide open look of the fairways, even if some of the other GCA.com members say the course is too narrow and the rough doesn't belong.  This comment regarding the narrowness of ANGC always strikes me as odd as so many people rave about Pine Valley.  Now that looks narrow.

The greens are the main attraction to me regarding ANGC.  And the placement of the pins and bunkers.  Really neat!

[Mark Pearce]

Adrian,

I don't know that I'd call it ugly but the more I watch, the less it appeals.  It's very artificial in look.  The hilliness of the greens and approaches looks fun and I'm sure it's a blast to play but it doesn't make me yearn to play there in the way that some major venues (and courses that don't host Majors) do.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Its the bunkering I find a bit ugly, much of it is beautiful, but I am not keen on the shapes anymore, the size, some are half the size of a the green, there does not seem to be mch shadow cast on the bunkers which is seen on many courses.

[Mac Plumart]

Adrian...

I am curious as to your thoughts on Cypress Point's current bunkering.  Similiar feelings regarding Augusta National's?

[Bill_McBride]

Compare and contrast:

[Bill_McBride]

Adrian...

I am curious as to your thoughts on Cypress Point's current bunkering.  Similiar feelings regarding Augusta National's?

Let me jump in.

Not at all.  The bunkers at Augusta have morphed into circular amoeba shapes, very unnatural.  The bunkering at Cypress Point still has the capes and bays and natural looking shapes that avoid that artificiality.

See the photos above that I posted of Augusta National and the Valley Club.  The same thought applies.   The committee at ANGC has taken all the interest out of the bunkers.

The greens are still fabulous.

[Mac Plumart]

Good pics Bill.  Here are some more...

http://www.golfarchitecturepictures.com/Web%20Galleries/USA/Georgia/Augusta/index.html

So for you guys it is the shape more so than the color.  The shape of those bunkers reminds me of Rees Jones' bunkering shapes at times.  

Would someone like ANGC hire a C&C, or someone like that, to do a Pinehurst #2 rennovation?  Probably not, but that would be cool.  Ben Crenshaw is a two-time champ.  Just sayin'.

[John Kavanaugh]

I feel sorry for people who only see beauty in what they personally find attractive.  It borders on racism.

[Mac Plumart]

Or personal taste John.

But maybe that is splitting hairs.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adrian,

Some deranged lunatic has broken into your computer and is posting under your name.

As to your comment:

am I right in thinking greens 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17 and 18 are semi blind

What do you mean by "semi-blind" ?

A lot depends on your tee shot.
Good tee shots on # 1, 3, 5, 9 14 and 17 see the green.
A decent drive and second shot on # 8 reveals the green.
On # 7 you can see the green, but the fronting lips of the bunkers obscure part of the front of the green.

Must every nook and cranny of a green be visible ?

If so, you won't like NGLA  

There are very few fairway bunkers at ANGC and those large bunkers provide great deception since they appear to be closer than they really are.  Many look like you can carry them, but, you can't, and, if you get in them, their large size allows them to be dug deep, leaving the golfer with a more difficult recovery.

If you wonder why ANGC is hailed so highly, you need to leave this site and go to either  Bowling.com, tennis.com or happydalefarms.com
[/b][/size]

[Tim Martin]

Adrian-I think you need to see the golf course before rendering that judgement. What you see on TV is different from what you see in person. What about the greens looks ugly?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian...

I am curious as to your thoughts on Cypress Point's current bunkering.  Similiar feelings regarding Augusta National's?

Let me jump in.

Not at all.  The bunkers at Augusta have morphed into circular amoeba shapes, very unnatural.  The bunkering at Cypress Point still has the capes and bays and natural looking shapes that avoid that artificiality.

See the photos above that I posted of Augusta National and the Valley Club.  The same thought applies.   The committee at ANGC has taken all the interest out of the bunkers.

The greens are still fabulous.

Cheers Bill, thats pretty much my thoughts too. I like CP bunkers.

[Brad Isaacs]

I do not feel that you should confuse the perfect manicured look of Augusta with a course that is not a briliant course.  The TV is very deceiving to all of the contours of that course and one must make a pilgramage to the Masters if not play Augusta National.  Once you have seen it in personal life I believe you will have a better understanding of it.  I think it shares this facet with the Old Course. I do not believe that the chages of Hootie were the best for that course which is unfortuanate.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian-I think you need to see the golf course before rendering that judgement. What you see on TV is different from what you see in person. What about the greens looks ugly?

Tim read my post again. I am asking questions about blindness. Its the bunkers I think are ugly mainly, but I obviously except you need to see the course.

[William_G]

I particularly think the bunkers are too large and there is an uglyness about the look of some of the greens and their complexes and the way things sit. I have not been there but several holes seem from my TV impression to be less visible from the approach shot than they might be with a different design, in particular am I right in thinking greens 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17 and 18 are semi blind.

What? You need to go there if you are willing to make such comments without having done so, IMHO.

Thanks

[Tim Martin]

I particularly think the bunkers are too large and there is an uglyness about the look of some of the greens and their complexes and the way things sit.

Adrian-Although I was not a straight A student your statement above and I quote says"there is an ugliness about the look of some of the greens". What am I missing?

[Terry Lavin]

My only criticism, having been there, is that it just looks too perfect.  It looks like computer graphics.  There's nothing out of place.  There are too many damned flowers and flowering bushes.  The cart paths are green asphalt.  The bridges are fussy looking.

But the bunkers are huge, impressive MacKenzie bunkers like the ones you see at Cypress.  They aren't ugly.

[Tim Martin]

My only criticism, having been there, is that it just looks too perfect.  It looks like computer graphics.  There's nothing out of place.  There are too many damned flowers and flowering bushes.  The cart paths are asphalt.  The bridges are fussy looking.

But the bunkers are huge, impressive MacKenzie bunkers like the ones you see at Cypress.  They aren't ugly.

Terry-What about the restrooms? Are those beautiful or what?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tim - I think the 3rd is a bit weird from the tv angle. 17 never gets a good tv angle that looks strange too but those two might just be the TV views. I dont like 18 really but I think a lot of the green complexes are ugly because of the vastness of the bunkering and I think I can say that without being there. Its an opinion and I was just asking if others felt the same way, clearly I am in the monority.

[Terry Lavin]

My only criticism, having been there, is that it just looks too perfect.  It looks like computer graphics.  There's nothing out of place.  There are too many damned flowers and flowering bushes.  The cart paths are asphalt.  The bridges are fussy looking.

But the bunkers are huge, impressive MacKenzie bunkers like the ones you see at Cypress.  They aren't ugly.

Terry-What about the restrooms? Are those beautiful or what?

Tim,

I was hoping somebody would ask!

Just kidding.  What I meant to say is that the perfection, the over-the-top manicuring is a little bit off-putting.  It's just a little bit too much on the senses.  It's not ugly.  If anything, it's too pretty, if you get my drift.  And I do love the bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim - I think the 3rd is a bit weird from the tv angle. 17 never gets a good tv angle that looks strange too but those two might just be the TV views. I dont like 18 really but I think a lot of the green complexes are ugly because of the vastness of the bunkering and I think I can say that without being there. Its an opinion and I was just asking if others felt the same way, clearly I am in the monority[/size].It's spelled, "moronity, not monority" 

It's apparent that you don't understand "scale" and how to achieve "depth" on bunkers.

How long have you been a student of the "Ray Charles" school of golf architecture ?

[Tags:]

Tags: