[Joe_Tucholski]

11 Nov - 18 Nov --- Discuss Design and the Player through Fairway and Rough --- Read Bunkers and Water Hazards through end of book

With the long weekend I'm behind.

Below are some quotes I thought interesting.  Feel free to share thoughts you had.

Pg 71 “We might go so far as to say that the strategically arranged hole should feature the most difficult or penal hazards, whereas the penally arranged hole must not have penal hazards if it is to remain playable for the average golfer.”
This hits me as an odd statement.  I think I get the point (if a hazard has no penalty associated with it the strategic choices are minimized) but if a penal hazard is unplayable for the average golfer on a penally arranged hole isn’t it also unplayable for the average golfer that finds it on a strategic hole even if the architect gives the player plenty of opportunity to avoid it.

Pg 85 “It is the point of golf architecture not to dictate to the golfer how a hole should be played, but to create a situation where player’s ingenuity can be exercised.  There is much more to admire when the idea for the shot is the player’s rather than the architect’s.”
I like the quote.  Is design by checking boxes to use every club in the bag and having holes of specific lengths the antithesis of the above quote or a requirement for the above statement?

Pg 100 “One of my least favorite trends in modern design is the unusually shaped green.  On nearly all classic courses the greens have a fairly simple oval or pear shape’ the line which describes the circumference is no perfect curve, by any means, but it rarely bows away from the center of the green.  Any time it does so, there is the possibility that the player whose ball rests on the very edge of the green might not be able to putt straight for a hole cut near the same edge, because the collar or rough around the green is in his way.”
Is this a pet peeve of anyone else?  This type of green doesn’t bother me.  I’ve never played a course with geometric shaped greens with sharp corners but from photos these sorts of greens don’t seem to fit my eye at all.

Pg 101 “The most overlooked part of a green design in modern golf architecture is the entrance to the green.”
I think this is a very important statement.  In my mind the greens are the most important aspect of a design but a green can be ruined by an entrance that doesn’t fit the hole.  For example a soft entrance with really firm greens is a nightmare.  Similarly interesting entrances/surrounds can really enhance the greens (Pinehurst comes to mind).

Pg 122 “In final analysis, forward tees are meant to increase the average player’s enjoyment of the game.  There need be only sufficient teeing grounds for every class of player to have a chance to play all the shots of the game.”
I thought this was an important quote with threads on the front page about not playing forward and another about shorter courses.

Pg. 131  “Pine Valley is intended to serve as the ultimate model of ‘target golf,’ yet it is obvious to anyone who has played the course that this solution will never work for the average golfer.”
I’ve always heard target golf used as a negative, but never really heard a negative word about Pine Valley.  So the obvious questions are: Is Pine Valley a target golf course?  Is target golf bad architecture?

[Connor Dougherty]

11 Nov - 18 Nov --- Discuss Design and the Player through Fairway and Rough --- Read Bunkers and Water Hazards through end of book

Pg 100 “One of my least favorite trends in modern design is the unusually shaped green.  On nearly all classic courses the greens have a fairly simple oval or pear shape’ the line which describes the circumference is no perfect curve, by any means, but it rarely bows away from the center of the green.  Any time it does so, there is the possibility that the player whose ball rests on the very edge of the green might not be able to putt straight for a hole cut near the same edge, because the collar or rough around the green is in his way.”
Is this a pet peeve of anyone else?  This type of green doesn’t bother me.  I’ve never played a course with geometric shaped greens with sharp corners but from photos these sorts of greens don’t seem to fit my eye at all.

I'll defer to Tom if he decides to comment, but I doubt it actually refers to very geometric greens. The biggest thing is that a golfer can putt to any hole location from any point of the green. I recall him using some of MacKenzie's more eccentric green shapes as examples. If flat, you would not be able to putt to certain hole locations, but because of carefully placed slopes, these putts became possible.

[Tom_Doak]

I must say that it's nice to have something you wrote twenty years ago quoted back to you, and find not much to change.  I must have had some very good editors for that project!  The one passage that is awkward to read is the first one quoted:

Pg 71 “We might go so far as to say that the strategically arranged hole should feature the most difficult or penal hazards, whereas the penally arranged hole must not have penal hazards if it is to remain playable for the average golfer.”
This hits me as an odd statement.  I think I get the point (if a hazard has no penalty associated with it the strategic choices are minimized) but if a penal hazard is unplayable for the average golfer on a penally arranged hole isn’t it also unplayable for the average golfer that finds it on a strategic hole even if the architect gives the player plenty of opportunity to avoid it.

So, what I meant is that on a "strategic" hole [with only a couple of bunkers to defend the strategy], the more difficult the hazards, the better.  But on a "penal" hole [with cross bunkers and bunkers pinching the fairway on both sides and the like], if you have very difficult hazards, then if you have difficult hazards it's unplayable for the average golfer.

Sadly, most of modern design in the 80's and 90's [and some of it still today] had evolved to the latter description -- lots of bunkers, all of them shallow -- so they are very bothersome to the bad player who has trouble getting out of a bunker, but seldom cause the good player to think.

As for the p. 100 quote, Connor has it right.  Ironically, I've found that one of the worst offenders of this rule was Dr. MacKenzie ... he frequently built curvy greens with bunkers protruding into them, and not always like the one I illustrated at Crystal Downs where the slopes allow you to putt around the curve.

[Joe_Tucholski]

11 Nov - 18 Nov --- Discuss Design and the Player through Fairway and Rough --- Read Bunkers and Water Hazards through end of book

Pg 100 “One of my least favorite trends in modern design is the unusually shaped green.  On nearly all classic courses the greens have a fairly simple oval or pear shape’ the line which describes the circumference is no perfect curve, by any means, but it rarely bows away from the center of the green.  Any time it does so, there is the possibility that the player whose ball rests on the very edge of the green might not be able to putt straight for a hole cut near the same edge, because the collar or rough around the green is in his way.”
Is this a pet peeve of anyone else?  This type of green doesn’t bother me.  I’ve never played a course with geometric shaped greens with sharp corners but from photos these sorts of greens don’t seem to fit my eye at all.

I'll defer to Tom if he decides to comment, but I doubt it actually refers to very geometric greens. The biggest thing is that a golfer can putt to any hole location from any point of the green. I recall him using some of MacKenzie's more eccentric green shapes as examples. If flat, you would not be able to putt to certain hole locations, but because of carefully placed slopes, these putts became possible.

Connor I didn't write my thoughts very well.  I knew he was referencing ameba shaped greens.  I was interested in seeing if anyone else, besides Tom, had aversions to large irregular ameba shapes.

I tried to say these large irregular ameba shapes aren't bothersome to me.  I then tried to say the greens that do seem weird to me are geometric shaped greens with sharp corners (like squares, diamonds, or other polygon shapes).  Looking at historic photos it looks like many sand greens were the opposite of irregular and were nearly perfect circles or squares.  The satellite image of Yeamans Hall Club is an example of weird greens to me.  Nearly every green has a straight front running perpendicular to the fairway with a sharp corner.  Maybe on the ground it's not as bad as the satellite images make it out but I don't think I'd like the sharp regular shapes.

[Connor Dougherty]

Joe,
Greens thathave these  appeal to me less as well, but that's largely because courses I play with these kinds of greens generally are poorly designed. My opinion may change if I get the chance to see a place like Yeaman's or Camargo. I personally wouldn't have a problem with amoeba greens, but from a maintenance standpoint it could be a nightmare. I remember hearing a story about a guy having to chip on one of the greens at Pebble to get to the hole. After about a dozen practice swings without a divot, he ended up taking a huge divot on his shot, tearing up the hallowed sod.

What a nightmare that would be if it were standard procedure.

[Mac Plumart]

My favorite passage is on page 153.

"...the central fairway bunker is usually greeted with scorn by the low handicap golfer, who believe the sole purpose of golf course architecture is building a course that separates good shots from bad ones.  ... It is the extra option that confuses them."

[William_G]

My favorite passage is on page 153.

"...the central fairway bunker is usually greeted with scorn by the low handicap golfer, who believe the sole purpose of golf course architecture is building a course that separates good shots from bad ones.  ... It is the extra option that confuses them."

I don't agree with that quote, as the low handicapper can aim and hit wherever, just like #10 at Old Mac off the tee, much worse for the high handicapper

Just played Old Mac yesterday and Brad's bunker on 18 was in play from the back tee, 469 yds, with a 35 mph wind in our face. One guy went straight over it and just cleared while I and my other buddy went slightly right of it (wimps)

footnote. p 153

perhaps the diffence between US and British attitudes can be drawn along the lines of our national past times. Cricket is a far more forgiving game for the offensive player than basball, where "outs" are more frequent than hits.


Hahahaha, no wonder Tom doesn't like water hazards.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

I think that the central-fairway bunker is much worse for the mid-handicapper for much the same reason as as T.D. gives ……. the weaker player will not reach the hazard, the strongest players will treat it dismissively. I firmly believe it is the mid-handicapper who suffers the indignities that a middle of the fairway bunker delivers.

The only hole, a par 5, on my home course with this type of hazard is almost a text book example. Invariably the central hazard is within range for the mid-handicapper. Fairway on the left hand side delivers the best angle into the green but is defended by a lateral water hazard, the Brisbane River. The right hand side is wider and thus safer but one is further away from the green and has to tack back to the left hand side of the fairway, once again running the risk of entering the lateral hazard, to get a good angle into the green. A third choice for the mid-handicapper is a fairway wood off the tee landing short of the hazard but they then still have a long way to go without their handicap to buffer them. Ofttimes the mid-handicapper will trust to luck but Sod's Law (contrary to T.D.'s assertion!) dictates that they will pull off their straightest and longest drive of the day and we know where that leads to!

So to my mind the low marker will fly it over and can get to the green in two, the weaker golfer can play short and has their handicap to allow them to skirt the hazard but the middle man has lots to think about and many pitfalls in the way …which makes for a good hole.

Cheers Colin

[Jon Wiggett]

I think the reason for straight lines on old pictures is because of the equipment. The early green mowers were heavy push mowers where the greenkeeper often hired a lad to pull from the front using a rope tied to the mower as he pushed from behind. It stands to reason that pushing in a straight line was easier than going round a corner. Mowing square greens with a hand mower is a doddle making things such as accurate spreading of topdressing and fertilisers much easier. From an aesthetic point of view I really like the square cut greens and fairways but this is of course very individual.

I do not like greens where all pin positions cannot be reached from all parts of the green.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()