[Mark Pearce]

Is the Cabot Cliffs example really a PN? I thought the main point of a PN is the 4 options. This example is really penal in nature rather than strategic.

This.  It looks to me as if the strategic intent of the PN has been completely abandoned.  This looks like a bunker complex built entirely for eye-candy.  So I'm with you, Sean, not a PN at all.  And I'd question whether it's good design.  Also, what's with all the cabbage around it?  It appears as if, if you are stupid enough to hit a shot that might go in it, the sand is almost the only place you'll have any sort of shot. 


Probably the first picture of Cabot I have seen that doesn't make me want to play there.

[Sean_A]

Is the Cabot Cliffs example really a PN? I thought the main point of a PN is the 4 options. This example is really penal in nature rather than strategic.

This.  It looks to me as if the strategic intent of the PN has been completely abandoned.  This looks like a bunker complex built entirely for eye-candy.  So I'm with you, Sean, not a PN at all.  And I'd question whether it's good design.  Also, what's with all the cabbage around it?  It appears as if, if you are stupid enough to hit a shot that might go in it, the sand is almost the only place you'll have any sort of shot. 

Probably the first picture of Cabot I have seen that doesn't make me want to play there.

Mark

I have no issue with the design. Penal architecture is as valid as strategic architecture. I have an issue with the label of the feature. It seems more based on appearance than function. To be fair, the architect may never have referred to the feature as a PN.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Is the Cabot Cliffs example really a PN? I thought the main point of a PN is the 4 options. This example is really penal in nature rather than strategic.

This.  It looks to me as if the strategic intent of the PN has been completely abandoned.  This looks like a bunker complex built entirely for eye-candy.  So I'm with you, Sean, not a PN at all.  And I'd question whether it's good design.  Also, what's with all the cabbage around it?  It appears as if, if you are stupid enough to hit a shot that might go in it, the sand is almost the only place you'll have any sort of shot. 

Probably the first picture of Cabot I have seen that doesn't make me want to play there.

Mark

I have no issue with the design. Penal architecture is as valid as strategic architecture. I have an issue with the label of the feature. It seems more based on appearance than function. To be fair, the architect may never have referred to the feature as a PN.

Ciao

To be honest, the name is more about form than function for me. I don’t call every centreline bunker a PN... nor does every PN have be strategically centreline.


Maybe it’s just me but it has to look like a nose to be called a nose.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the overhead shot gives a better picture of what it is. A hazard wraps all the way in front of it.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cabot+Links+Golf+Resort/@46.2481544,-61.2918996,583a,35y,270h/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!3m7!1s0x4b5d8897b3cb0655:0x48e360879296b73b!5m2!4m1!1i2!8m2!3d46.2365266!4d-61.3022359

Looks like you either take it on with your drive to go for the green, or if you layup it can come into play on a poor approach shot..

[Sean_A]

Is the Cabot Cliffs example really a PN? I thought the main point of a PN is the 4 options. This example is really penal in nature rather than strategic.

This.  It looks to me as if the strategic intent of the PN has been completely abandoned.  This looks like a bunker complex built entirely for eye-candy.  So I'm with you, Sean, not a PN at all.  And I'd question whether it's good design.  Also, what's with all the cabbage around it?  It appears as if, if you are stupid enough to hit a shot that might go in it, the sand is almost the only place you'll have any sort of shot. 

Probably the first picture of Cabot I have seen that doesn't make me want to play there.

Mark

I have no issue with the design. Penal architecture is as valid as strategic architecture. I have an issue with the label of the feature. It seems more based on appearance than function. To be fair, the architect may never have referred to the feature as a PN.

Ciao

To be honest, the name is more about form than function for me. I don’t call every centreline bunker a PN... nor does every PN have be strategically centreline.

Maybe it’s just me but it has to look like a nose to be called a nose.

Its about both for me. Though I admit the function, as with any bunker, is more important. Given the importance of TOC's (RIP) and Woking's examples of PN as a pillar of strategic design I think a PN carries added gravitas as function over form.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean, I agree the function of a good centreline bunker comes first... I’m just arguing why we are calling centreline bunkers PNs?


I’ve never known any PN other than 16 at TOC or ones that have been deliberately built with a bridge and a couple of nostrils.


No one ever called 4 at Woking a PN? It was merely inspired by the strategy of 16 at TOC.


Perhaps I’m being pedantic but if that’s what we’re talking about, why not name the thread “small, centreline bunkers”

[Mark Pearce]

Ally,


I'm not calling 4 at Woking a PN.  I just noted that we appeared to have a thread entirely about form, rather than function.  Which appears to suggest that eye candy matters to many on this board more than others.

[Sean_A]

Sean, I agree the function of a good centreline bunker comes first... I’m just arguing why we are calling centreline bunkers PNs?

I’ve never known any PN other than 16 at TOC or ones that have been deliberately built with a bridge and a couple of nostrils.

No one ever called 4 at Woking a PN? It was merely inspired by the strategy of 16 at TOC.

Perhaps I’m being pedantic but if that’s what we’re talking about, why not name the thread “small, centreline bunkers”

I always thought of Woking's as a PN from a side view  It's a sneaky PN which plays like TOC.

There is also a PN (as you would call it) at Sacred 9, but interestingly it plays fairly evenly between fairways...and can't be seen off the tee from either direction.

Ciao

[MCirba]

I've been on a bit of a nostalgia tour in recent months and today I played a course call Pine Hills Country Club near where I grew up for the first time in probably close to forty years.   in the iteration I recall, there were no sand bunkers and conditioning was sketchy, the design of the course done by the original owner.   


Around the turn of the century he sold the course and the brothers who own it now put a lot of work and money into it, as well as upgraded architecture including some fairly decent bunkering.   Imagine my surprise today to find this PN on the inside corner of the  dogleg of the par four 7th hole.   

[Michael Whitaker]

On another thread we were discussing Brandon Johnson, one of the architects currently working with Arnold Palmer Design. Brandon did a masterful complete redesign of Wexford Plantation on Hilton Head Island, incorporating a great number of old school features... including a Principal's Nose bunker complex:


 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()