Dufner on Doral

[Mark Saltzman]

Bill,

I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.

How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?

I have 

[Ryan Coles]

Bill,

I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.

How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?

Pat

How many times have you played it since the renovation we're talking about?

How many played it the week of the WGC? Oh Phil Mickelson et al whose views were dismissed as whinging pros.

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark,
I've yet to see any bunker, UK,NGLA, anywhere that I wouldn't prefer to be in (on average) moreso than being 140 out.
BTW, Iwasn't crazy about new 16
too short,and greenside bunker or green was easily attainable.

Would've liked to have seen the hole a bit longer,more tilt in green ala 10 at Riviera, and/or less sand in the area of fairway 40-70 yards out on the right(nobody went for that)
and an area of fairway a bit more short left with the furthest point of the water ending up there and diagonally making the carry shorter the further one went right.

I want to see longer hiitters go for 16, not everybody in the field.(didn't see anybody not make the carry)
that's what #13 was for when it was 242 30 years ago-should've made 13 250-260 yards

Jeff, I'm with you on 16, especially regarding the area 50 yards short of the green.  When I played there, with absolutely no chance of making the carry over the water, there was zero incentive to hit a long club into that area.  Angles not improved and the shot to get there too risky.  Not a great hole.

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan, you keep repeating the same mistake... You can't criticize an ENTIRE COURSE because a few pros chose to to hit driver on a short par 4...

I'm about to change my font to green and refer to you as Pat would...

How many more times, Bill?

My criticisms are numerous, in addition to the point you highlight. Hope this clarifies.

[jeffwarne]

Mark, that area also is small, and runs away, and it's a downhill lie to the green.
Very odd to protect an undesireable area so well

When I heard they were moving the green behind the lake I was excited but that was a real letdown.
many, many ways that hole could've been better.
maybe even put the green tilted towards that area we are discussing leaving the best angle from the left where the green is , but protected a la Riviera

Even the previous incarnation was more interesting in the ProV1 era because many tried to drive it, yet few birdied it,especially those who drove it close

[Alex Miller]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!

I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html

Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there

All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.

A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?

Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.


Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.

You don't see that the bunker in question has completely failed and therefore serves no purpose on the course other than to boost maintenance spending?

No. I'm amazed that you can see that. You've drawn quite a conclusion from 2 players choosing to play a hole a certain way.

[Jason Thurman]

Your attempt would better be described as "lots of otherwise excellent courses are let down by their bunkers not being proper hazards. We should get rid of of lots of the meaningless bunkers and make the few remaining ones worthwhile and genuinely to be avoided.

No, it wouldn't. Your thesis just doesn't hold. Your whole premise is flawed and reflects a lack of understanding of drainage, shaping, risk/reward, and aesthetics as they pertain to golf course architecture, along with a total lack of perspective for how the pro game relates to the evaluation of golf courses. Bunkers serve a great many purposes beyond just dissuading professionals from hitting the ball to a certain spot.

We know that you've never seen Trump Doral in person. Have you seen any of those 80 correctly-bunkered courses you so admire in Great Britain in person?

[BCowan]

Your attempt would better be described as "lots of otherwise excellent courses are let down by their bunkers not being proper hazards. We should get rid of of lots of the meaningless bunkers and make the few remaining ones worthwhile and genuinely to be avoided.

No, it wouldn't. Your thesis just doesn't hold. Your whole premise is flawed and reflects a lack of understanding of drainage, shaping, risk/reward, and aesthetics as they pertain to golf course architecture, along with a total lack of perspective for how the pro game relates to the evaluation of golf courses. Bunkers serve a great many purposes beyond just dissuading professionals from hitting the ball to a certain spot.His comments don't lack understanding of drainage, there is no risk with #16, just reward.  Gotta focus on them aesthetics, like that hasn't been overdone.  What Golf Construction have you done?  Sitting on greens committees don't count.

We know that you've never seen Trump Doral in person. Have you seen any of those 80 correctly-bunkered courses you so admire in Great Britain in person?Have you seen Doral in person, or the less than 20 courses you stated across the pond?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.

How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?

Pat

How many times have you played it since the renovation we're talking about?

As of next week, once

How many played it the week of the WGC? Oh Phil Mickelson et al whose views were dismissed as whinging pros.

As of next week, once.

I can tell you that the wind on Friday was most unusual, and ferocious

[Ryan Coles]

What is the hole number Ryan?

16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.

Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!

I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html

Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there

All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.

A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?

Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.


Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.

You don't see that the bunker in question has completely failed and therefore serves no purpose on the course other than to boost maintenance spending?

No. I'm amazed that you can see that. You've drawn quite a conclusion from 2 players choosing to play a hole a certain way.

I don't believe players should aim to lay up in a bunker anymore than they should aim to hit into a water hazard or out of bounds. I held that view before this week. In my view a bunker should be penal and the player should be playing away from them rather than into them. As you alluded to earlier, you do this yourself and lots of golfers now do this due to a combination of high loft wedges, manicured sand and large flat bunkers with no lips on them. The game is poorer for this development in my view. Architects would find it bizarre that their hazards are now a desirable places to play from.

[Ryan Coles]

Bill,

I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.

How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?

Pat

How many times have you played it since the renovation we're talking about?

As of next week, once

How many played it the week of the WGC? Oh Phil Mickelson et al whose views were dismissed as whinging pros.

As of next week, once.

I can tell you that the wind on Friday was most unusual, and ferocious

Its all relative I suppose. 20 gusting 25 is nothing unusual over here. In Miami it's described as ferocious.

Hope you enjoy the trip.

[BCowan]

''I can tell you that the wind on Friday was most unusual, and ferocious''

Pat Burke who stated in a prior post that Friday wind was a frequent occurrence when he played, is a PGA tour pro who played in the event wrong?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

I understand that wind frequency and velocity differ from site to site.

There are prevailing winds in south Florida, but, nothing like Friday.

And, I've been playing golf for over 60 years at a variety of locations and know the difference between wind and really windy conditions.

I love the wind, and I loved playing in the wind on Friday, but, I was playing match play and had a partner.
 
At medal play, I might not have been so enthusiastic, especially if I was doing it for a living.

I'm not a fan of Trump WPB, nor Trump Westchester, so I would tend to think that my assessment of Doral will be objective.

[Ryan Coles]

Your attempt would better be described as "lots of otherwise excellent courses are let down by their bunkers not being proper hazards. We should get rid of of lots of the meaningless bunkers and make the few remaining ones worthwhile and genuinely to be avoided.

No, it wouldn't. Your thesis just doesn't hold. Your whole premise is flawed and reflects a lack of understanding of drainage, shaping, risk/reward, and aesthetics as they pertain to golf course architecture, along with a total lack of perspective for how the pro game relates to the evaluation of golf courses. Bunkers serve a great many purposes beyond just dissuading professionals from hitting the ball to a certain spot.

We know that you've never seen Trump Doral in person. Have you seen any of those 80 correctly-bunkered courses you so admire in Great Britain in person?

Hi Jason

Yes indeed. In fact I've failed to avoid most of them. I've only played one Gil Hanse course in Castle Stuart and I can't believe same guy has his name on this course.

Perhaps you can elaborate on the great many purposes that a bunker serves, other than as a hazard?

[Jason Thurman]

Ben, your questions reflect an unsurprising lack of contextual understanding of the discussion at hand. It's also unsurprising that you would rush to defend someone evaluating through a ridiculous prism a course that he's never seen. I probably shouldn't respond, but then I'd deprive myself and many others the unbridled joy of reading any replies you write while at work on Monday morning.

I'll simply ask you this - is it your assertion that golf courses the world over can have bunkers constructed like those at The Old Course and Muirfield, with no negative ramifications to drainage, shaping quality, or aesthetics? And if that is NOT your assertion, then please describe five bunker styles that routinely extract from professionals a penalty on par with water or OB, as Ryan suggested is ideal.

Also, describe the relationship between professional bunker play and the bunker play of the average golfer. Thanks in advance for getting the week started right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In terms of the number, size and location of bunkers, I believe that Hollywood had over 200 and no one complained.

And, I wouldn't say that the bunkering at Pine Valley is "sparse"

[Ryan Coles]

Ben, your questions reflect an unsurprising lack of contextual understanding of the discussion at hand. It's also unsurprising that you would rush to defend someone evaluating through a ridiculous prism a course that he's never seen. I probably shouldn't respond, but then I'd deprive myself and many others the unbridled joy of reading any replies you write while at work on Monday morning.

I'll simply ask you this - is it your assertion that golf courses the world over can have bunkers constructed like those at The Old Course and Muirfield, with no negative ramifications to drainage, shaping quality, or aesthetics? And if that is NOT your assertion, then please describe five bunker styles that routinely extract from professionals a penalty on par with water or OB, as Ryan suggested is ideal.

Also, describe the relationship between professional bunker play and the bunker play of the average golfer. Thanks in advance for getting the week started right.

Jason

You display a considerable lack of understanding yourself. I did not mention an ideal penalty. Nor on par with anything. I believe a bunker should be avoided and should be penal. Be fortunate to be in the middle of it and the penalty is rather benign. Have a half backswing or be up against a steep face and the penalty will be as malignant as your rather unfortunate DG demeanour. The point being that you will avoid the risk of going in there if you can. You may recover, you may not. Even you can see the difference between this and OB and a water hazard?

[BCowan]

Ben, your questions reflect an unsurprising lack of contextual understanding of the discussion at hand. It's also unsurprising that you would rush to defend someone evaluating through a ridiculous prism a course that he's never seen. I probably shouldn't respond, but then I'd deprive myself and many others the unbridled joy of reading any replies you write while at work on Monday morning.I understand and actually have discussed Doral with Archies, have you?  Oh, so you can't look at a hot n ready pizza and determine that it prob isn't good?  Have you seen courses that you wouldn't play just by seeing them on TV?  Yeah, having like minded tools who have narrow views like yourself and try and use big words to make themselves sound intelligent.

I'll simply ask you this - is it your assertion that golf courses the world over can have bunkers constructed like those at The Old Course and Muirfield, with no negative ramifications to drainage, shaping quality, or aesthetics? And if that is NOT your assertion, then please describe five bunker styles that routinely extract from professionals a penalty on par with water or OB, as Ryan suggested is ideal.
They necessarily can't be copied exactly, there are re-enforcements that can be made (wood) to make them hold up and sod doesn't have to be used.  Has bunker drainage improvements been made better in the last 10 years?  I am not going to play your game (name 5 courses), u lack any imagination!   
Also, describe the relationship between professional bunker play and the bunker play of the average golfer. Thanks in advance for getting the week started right.The course was designed with the professional in mind, was it not?  You are welcome, thanks for proving to me and some others with how narrow minded you are and how much common sense you lack!

[BCowan]

''And, I wouldn't say that the bunkering at Pine Valley is "sparse" Grin''

  Do you aim at bunkers at Pine Valley?  Rather Penal course wouldn't you say?  Do they have water on 12+ holes?

[BHoover]

Sand and water look good on tv. I say the more the better!

[Sam Morrow]

I'm watching the replay now, I enjoyed the tournament. I think folks here are torn, they want to hate it because of Trump but they wanna love it because of Hanse.

[BHoover]

I'm watching the replay now, I enjoyed the tournament. I think folks here are torn, they want to hate it because of Trump but they wanna love it because of Hanse.

Bingo. Replace the name Trump with Keiser and see how different the reactions would be.

[Sam Morrow]

I'm watching the replay now, I enjoyed the tournament. I think folks here are torn, they want to hate it because of Trump but they wanna love it because of Hanse.

Bingo. Replace the name Trump with Keiser and see how different the reactions would be.

That's another thread.

[Sven Nilsen]

I'm watching the replay now, I enjoyed the tournament. I think folks here are torn, they want to hate it because of Trump but they wanna love it because of Hanse.

Bingo. Replace the name Trump with Keiser and see how different the reactions would be.

I'm not a big fan of fantasy games, so no.

[Sean_A]

Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches:
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.

It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten

a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.

As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.

  But even so, where does that leave the punter? 
 I wasn't terribly interested in making an effort to see Doral prior to this event and I am even less inclined to do so now. 

Ciao

My guess is it leaves the punter in the same position as the punter at Portrush-filling every available tee time.

Your last sentence summarizes this thread (and the $450 Doral thread)
People that weren't interested in playing Doral, still aren't, or probably are even less so (but what's the difference? they're not coming anyway)
and people that WERE, are at least as interested if not more (and will line up to play it).

The criticisms about Doral for the last 20ish years were always that if the wind didn't blow that it was pretty benign course (and the scores reflected that), certainly not as "jazzed up" as say a TPC, Bay Hill, or ANY of the fly by night water laden, optionless Honda sites.
The same criticisms came from the media and hotel guests about the more pedestrian holes.

At TPC there is water penally in play on nearly EVERY hole, whereas at Doral it is least strategically placed as opposed to just punishing EVERY wayward shot. and Doral has way more width, except 10. and 18 for those who can't fly water-though 18 has more fairway than before

the unfortunate thing is that a lot of really good architectural improvements at Doral are being missed, or ignored, even by those smart enough to know better, by setup and weather. Yes there's a bit too much water in a couple places for my tastes-I wasn't that big of a fan of the course to start with-but a fan of the event.


One note:In many, many case the ball scurried across the slick greens,down a slope and into the water.
The drop was often right next to the green, and many players got up and down from that spot.
that's not much different than a really penal bunker or heavy rough.

Jeff

I would have thought those interested in tour stop golf were playing Doral before any splash of cash for a redo.  In any case, the use of water is far too redundant for my tastes even if the design works well around the water (which I seriously question if there is wind).  Its no different to me if these were bunkers rather than ponds; its question of variety.  The stupidly high green fee is merely the crap on the cake ensuring I tick the no box.  I will leave you to all the Doral soup you can stand, it doesn't suit my palate 

Ciao