[Jeff_Brauer]

... Like all concepts, water used wisely, judicially and sporadically can be as good as any feature.

Ciao

Balderdash!

BTW, Too much gorse can be even worse than too many ponds. Right, Mayday?

Who is talking too much? I am generally not a fan of gorse, but on Cleeve Cloud's 5th it's an excellent feature. Anything used sparingly can be excellent. Variety is one thing which makes courses interesting.

Ciao

When people use the word variety as a positive for courses, i am sure they aren't thinking of ball gobbling, two stroke penalty imposing gorse.

Native areas are as site dependent as water, and are often the course theme, not unlike water is on Florida courses.


I can't imagine reducing the natives at Prairie Dunes, no matter how many golf balls I might have lost.  And, I really can't imagine taking them out in the name of variety!  I could see someone proposing to widen fw corridors slightly, maybe not there, but at other courses where natives have increased in the name of water conservation, only to find that the lost balls reduce golf enjoyment far too much.


Just another example of how hard it is to discuss gray areas on a very black and white internet.

[Garland Bayley]

Gorse is not a native to Bandon, OR.

[Kalen Braley]

... Like all concepts, water used wisely, judicially and sporadically can be as good as any feature.

Ciao

Balderdash!

BTW, Too much gorse can be even worse than too many ponds. Right, Mayday?

Who is talking too much? I am generally not a fan of gorse, but on Cleeve Cloud's 5th it's an excellent feature. Anything used sparingly can be excellent. Variety is one thing which makes courses interesting.

Ciao

When people use the word variety as a positive for courses, i am sure they aren't thinking of ball gobbling, two stroke penalty imposing gorse.

Garland,

I agree with Sean on this one. 

And I don't have an issue with OB either when used sparingly, at the right moment, to demand the golfer really think about the implications of their next shot...especially if its something like playing near a property line to include a neat feature into the routing.

But yes, of course I wouldn't want hole after punishing hole of it, which at that point would actually be lacking "variety"

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

OB is just an admission that the property wasn't large enough for the golf course. It's not variety. It's resource scarcity.

This website is adamantly against in course OB. Only a little slack should be given for property boundary OB.

Were there any OBs at the GRUDGE MATCH sites? Did not the sites qualify, because of how wildly you hit it?  Isn’t it a benefit to have enough property so that pedestrians on the property can find your wide ranging shots for you?

[Joe Hancock]

Now I’m thinking “OB” is just a lazy way of saying “OBTUSE”….

[Sean_A]

... Like all concepts, water used wisely, judicially and sporadically can be as good as any feature.

Ciao

Balderdash!

BTW, Too much gorse can be even worse than too many ponds. Right, Mayday?

Who is talking too much? I am generally not a fan of gorse, but on Cleeve Cloud's 5th it's an excellent feature. Anything used sparingly can be excellent. Variety is one thing which makes courses interesting.

Ciao

When people use the word variety as a positive for courses, i am sure they aren't thinking of ball gobbling, two stroke penalty imposing gorse.

Depends on how gorse is used. In the case of Cleeve Cloud's 5th the prime position is protected by gorse on the left. One can lay up. There is also endless room right which is safe, but not desirable.

OOB can also be used very cleverly. St Enodoc's 4th is clear evidence of this. You haven't come close to convincing me there are good reasons to never use certain features. That approach is far too black or white for my tastes.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Anyone know if Colt prescribed growing, or maintaining gorse on the courses he designed? MacKenzie?

It seems OTM made a name for himself by removing it.

Again, I refer you to Jeff's quote in my tagline.

[Sean_A]

Anyone know if Colt prescribed growing, or maintaining gorse on the courses he designed? MacKenzie?

It seems OTM made a name for himself by removing it.

Again, I refer you to Jeff's quote in my tagline.

OK, Garland says no gorse or OoB. If that works for you that's fine.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Nick -
 
I think Sarah is right.

You know who minds ponds the least? Beginners and average golfers (regardless of gender). Why? Because they have no pretentions about being better than they are, or vanity handicaps to protect. Because they still have the good grace and clear-headedness to blame themselves for their mistakes and high scores instead of the architecture. Because they understand intuitively that any game worthy of the name -- from Snakes & Ladders all the way up to golf -- is more thrilling and engaging and fun when there is significant risk involved, i.e. when one roll of the dice can be the difference between a celebration and a catastrophe. And because they humbly understand and accept that, despite the money they've paid to play/join a club, they are not gods who can dictate the nature of the site or wave off any kind restrictions (environmental and otherwise) with a magic wand.

Theirs tend to be the most sane, sensible, and well-balanced perspective on our 'fields of play': ie they know that each field of play is different and unique, and that each time out their 'task' as golfers is to accommodate themselves as best they can to the course instead of expecting the course to accommodate itself to them/their individual games.

In short: beginners and average golfers are usually the best, if not perfect, guests: appreciative and well-mannered.

Granted, that fine perspective & healthy attitude tends to last only until their handicaps get down to 12, or until they make their first million, whichever comes first. Then it's cigars, carts, slow play, and a whole lot of bitching and complaining about anything that might deflate their ego -- and nothing does that more effectively than a forced carry over water or a greenside pond!

[Sean_A]

I have an honest question: are water hazards truly as bad as architecture nerds (of which I consider myself as a member-in-training) would have you believe? I ask while knowing (and agreeing with) many of the arguments against:

- Forced carries disproportionately affect high handicappers
- We should be able to find our balls, even after bad shots
- The penalty does not fit the crime
- A high percentage of water hazards deter strategic play
- Many great courses have been made worse by the installation of new water features
- Many water features don't appeal to the eye at all!


Again, I agree with all of the bullet points above, but I've recently heard a couple compelling arguments on the flip side from my wife Sarah, who does not play golf (yet). The first is that for the non-golfer and beginner, ponds, lakes, creeks, rivers, etc. can actually generate interest in the game. We often speak glowingly of how golf gives us a chance to take a stroll outside, surrounded by nature. A water hazard, including manmade ones that are designed and built with care, can add to that walk with the visual interest it generates.

The second point she made is that, though the penalty may not fit the crime, the thrill of hitting an island green, or a long iron over a water hazard, must be tough to match. For those of us who are fans of blind shots because of the excitement and anticipation that ensues as we first hit the shot, and then as we climb over the hill to see exactly where we ended up, I view this as a comparable feeling to the type described by Sarah. Though my wife is competitive by nature, I don't think she is alone amongst beginners or non-players in seeing the happy trade-off between risk and reward, even at its most extreme.

This conversation came about because Sarah believes that if we build Old Barnwell with a mission to bring more beginners and women to the club, then I should probably consider what that audience would want in a course, even if it goes against architectural best practices. In short, she has said that my aversion to water hazards/features is elitist! She asks: who doesn't get joy when viewing a good looking body of water nestled amidst greenery and trees?


My guess is that most participants on this site would acknowledge that water hazards, in moderation, aren't all that bad. But her argument has me thinking more broadly about popular appeal, and how it can coexist with strategic and insightful design. Though it may cause some headaches for Brian and Blake, I'm glad I've got Sarah to provide a different perspective on these things!

It's interesting you mention Island green. That is not usually the sort of feature I would encourage, but if done well it can be a great boon for a course. I recently played one at JCB and was impressed. Mind you the island previously existed and is much bigger than needed for a green. But the execution of the hole is very good, almost to the point where a beach-like bunker is a necessary reminder that the green is on an island despite the drop shot nature of the hole. Its a remarkable set piece.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

OB is just an admission that the property wasn't large enough for the golf course. It's not variety. It's resource scarcity.

This website is adamantly against in course OB. Only a little slack should be given for property boundary OB.

Some of the best holes I have ever seen were made great by out-of-bounds:


the Road Hole at St. Andrews
the 4th at St. Enodoc
the 2nd and 12th at Talking Stick (North)
the original 7th at Royal Liverpool; also the 1st and 16th
the 12th at Pacific Grove


Internal o.b. is often a last-ditch solution when there is a safety problem you can't solve otherwise, and some people will flay you for it just like they do when you have a bunker and a tree together.  You know the type -- the sort of black-and-white thinkers who can't get over their own code of good design, and accept the hole as it is.

[Sean_A]

OB is just an admission that the property wasn't large enough for the golf course. It's not variety. It's resource scarcity.

This website is adamantly against in course OB. Only a little slack should be given for property boundary OB.

Some of the best holes I have ever seen were made great by out-of-bounds:

the Road Hole at St. Andrews
the 4th at St. Enodoc
the 2nd and 12th at Talking Stick (North)
the original 7th at Royal Liverpool; also the 1st and 16th
the 12th at Pacific Grove

Internal o.b. is often a last-ditch solution when there is a safety problem you can't solve otherwise, and some people will flay you for it just like they do when you have a bunker and a tree together.  You know the type -- the sort of black-and-white thinkers who can't get over their own code of good design, and accept the hole as it is.

Seacroft's 8th is another great example of OoB improving the hole. What is very cool about St Enodoc and Hoylake is the OoB doesn't create a potentially dangerous situation. There is nothing like being able to use land for hole that isn't part of the course .

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Internal o.b. is often a last-ditch solution when there is a safety problem you can't solve otherwise, and some people will flay you for it just like they do when you have a bunker and a tree together.  You know the type -- the sort of black-and-white thinkers who can't get over their own code of good design, and accept the hole as it is.

Another gray area, IMHO. If you pay the green fee the second time, you accept the hole as it is.  That said, our national hobby is griping, and some of use golf as the cattle prod to start our real hobby, so you could have a golfer accept it, and yet complain loudly all the way around the course about it.  Or, complain ONLY when his ball flies OB, and then it's unfair, even if he laughed his ass off when his opponent hit it OB.


I disagree with the notion that OB is a sign of not enough property.  When dealing with real estate, there are practical limits to how much land they are willing to give, and/or just how far a house can be from a fairway and still be sold as a "golf view."  As it happens, to make the view good, the lot needs to be closer to the fairway than would be prudent if 100% safety was the goal, and in reality, we all start trying to figure out if 90% meets any legal standard, or is that 88%, 92%, 95%, or 99% of golf balls flying OB. 


Actually, I think most internal OB is created when gca's think they can dogleg a hole with another green, tee, or par 3 hole in the crux of the dogleg, which always invites a portion of golfers to take the short cut, regardless.  And, if on the slice side, another 10% or so will slice it far enough to be in the next hole's play area.


As you can guess, one of the design rules I have adopted, taught by my mentors, is never to dogleg a hole around another.    Which leads to the corollary of not designing sharp doglegs in most cases.  Or as Nugent used to say, he only disliked sharp doglegs in two cases....one where there were a lot of trees, and the second where there weren't a lot of trees.

[Garland Bayley]

OB is just an admission that the property wasn't large enough for the golf course. It's not variety. It's resource scarcity.

This website is adamantly against in course OB. Only a little slack should be given for property boundary OB.

Some of the best holes I have ever seen were made great by out-of-bounds:


the Road Hole at St. Andrews
the 4th at St. Enodoc
the 2nd and 12th at Talking Stick (North)
the original 7th at Royal Liverpool; also the 1st and 16th
the 12th at Pacific Grove


Internal o.b. is often a last-ditch solution when there is a safety problem you can't solve otherwise, and some people will flay you for it just like they do when you have a bunker and a tree together.  You know the type -- the sort of black-and-white thinkers who can't get over their own code of good design, and accept the hole as it is.

Problem is that neither Kalen nor I can keep it in bounds on those holes while trying. So holes that are great for low single digits may not be so great for us. I personally have been OB on the holes you list that I have played while trying to avoid the OB.

Sort of like why Old MacDonald is a better course than Pacific Dunes. I don't lose balls at Old MacDonald, but lose 5 when I play Pacific Dunes. For Pacific Dunes to be a great course, they have to remove the gorse. What strategic value does it have there?

[Sean_A]

OB is just an admission that the property wasn't large enough for the golf course. It's not variety. It's resource scarcity.

This website is adamantly against in course OB. Only a little slack should be given for property boundary OB.

Some of the best holes I have ever seen were made great by out-of-bounds:


the Road Hole at St. Andrews
the 4th at St. Enodoc
the 2nd and 12th at Talking Stick (North)
the original 7th at Royal Liverpool; also the 1st and 16th
the 12th at Pacific Grove


Internal o.b. is often a last-ditch solution when there is a safety problem you can't solve otherwise, and some people will flay you for it just like they do when you have a bunker and a tree together.  You know the type -- the sort of black-and-white thinkers who can't get over their own code of good design, and accept the hole as it is.

Problem is that neither Kalen nor I can keep it in bounds on those holes while trying. So holes that are great for low single digits may not be so great for us. I personally have been OB on the holes you list that I have played while trying to avoid the OB.

Sort of like why Old MacDonald is a better course than Pacific Dunes. I don't lose balls at Old MacDonald, but lose 5 when I play Pacific Dunes. For Pacific Dunes to be a great course, they have to remove the gorse. What strategic value does it have there?

Did it ever occur to you that a hole or course can be great independent of of your skill level?


Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

Speak for yourself! 

Of those holes, I've played PG 12 a few times and had no trouble keeping it in, its an awesome hole! And while I've only played Pac Dunes once, I didn't lose any balls in the gorse, only one in the gunch off the cliff at 4.

P.S.  I agree with Joe!

[Garland Bayley]

Did it ever occur to you that a hole or course can be great independent of of your skill level?


Ciao

It's not my skill level. It's the skill level of the vast majority of golfers.

Why have a nonnative noxious weed on a golf course if it serves only penal, not strategic purpose?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Speak for yourself! 

Of those holes, I've played PG 12 a few times and had no trouble keeping it in, its an awesome hole! And while I've only played Pac Dunes once, I didn't lose any balls in the gorse, only one in the gunch off the cliff at 4.

P.S.  I agree with Joe!

Clearly Joe was talking about you and the others that are stuck in "conventional" lines of thought and not quick to understand the shortcomings of or contradictions in it.

[Sean_A]

Did it ever occur to you that a hole or course can be great independent of of your skill level?

Ciao

It's not my skill level. It's the skill level of the vast majority of golfers.

Why have a nonnative noxious weed on a golf course if it serves only penal, not strategic purpose?

My example of gorse is practically the definition of strategic. Same as if a bunker was there instead. Its alright not to use sand once in a while.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Did it ever occur to you that a hole or course can be great independent of of your skill level?

Ciao

It's not my skill level. It's the skill level of the vast majority of golfers.

Why have a nonnative noxious weed on a golf course if it serves only penal, not strategic purpose?

My example of gorse is practically the definition of strategic. Same as if a bunker was there instead. Its alright not to use sand once in a while.

Ciao

Ball lost in Gorse - 2 strokes
Ball in bunker - approximately 1/2 stroke

No exactly "same as"

So are you telling me that gorse imported to Bandon, OR is OK if is used in strategic fashion?

[Thomas Dai]

I like gorse whether in relation to golf or otherwise.
Like a bunch of other golf related stuff if it’s managed appropriately it can make a useful strategic aspect of interest or a hazard or just something best avoided.
It also has some advantages over trees, which of course can also be prickly.
Gorse doesn’t take copious amounts of water etc from the surrounding terrain. Gorse doesn’t throw shade over wide areas. Gorse is easier to hit shots over than trees. Gorse can be managed and cutback easier than trees.
Some might not be so keen on it but that’s the way things go sometimes. Each to their own.
Atb


PS - gorse also comes in several varieties some of which are not prickly.

[Sean_A]

Did it ever occur to you that a hole or course can be great independent of of your skill level?

Ciao

It's not my skill level. It's the skill level of the vast majority of golfers.

Why have a nonnative noxious weed on a golf course if it serves only penal, not strategic purpose?

My example of gorse is practically the definition of strategic. Same as if a bunker was there instead. Its alright not to use sand once in a while.

Ciao

Ball lost in Gorse - 2 strokes
Ball in bunker - approximately 1/2 stroke

No exactly "same as"

So are you telling me that gorse imported to Bandon, OR is OK if is used in strategic fashion?

Never mentioned Bandon. That is your hang up.

The feature used for strategic purposes doesn't define the strategy. There is nothing wrong with a harsh penalty for erring when seeking the best position. This approach just needs to be used sparingly. That is a far cry from to be never used. Your approach is far too simplistic if variety is of any value. To me, variety is a core of design...that means I have to keep an open mind. I am not a huge fan of gorse, but I recognise there is a small place for gorse in golf design, just as there is for trees, ponds, blind shots etc

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
The feature used for strategic purposes doesn't define the strategy. There is nothing wrong with a harsh penalty for erring when seeking the best position. ...

Ciao

Technically aren't you advocating for heroic golf design in this situation. It goes a bit beyond strategic does it not? No one in their right mind would chance a two stroke penalty while trying to shoot the lowest score. At least certainly not if they are a Broadie disciple. Whereas, when a heroic effort is necessary to gain back ground in match play, the chance may be taken.

[Sean_A]

...
The feature used for strategic purposes doesn't define the strategy. There is nothing wrong with a harsh penalty for erring when seeking the best position. ...

Ciao

Technically aren't you advocating for heroic golf design in this situation. It goes a bit beyond strategic does it not? No one in their right mind would chance a two stroke penalty while trying to shoot the lowest score. At least certainly not if they are a Broadie disciple. Whereas, when a heroic effort is necessary to gain back ground in match play, the chance may be taken.

Loads of players on the 5th at Cleeve Cloud choose to play for the fairway (it isn't wide) adjacent to the gorse left of the fairway. As I said, the penalty has nothing to do with the strategic - penal continuum. What defines that continuum is the presence of options. Some prefer to play wide and likely accept a bogey. Some choose to be more aggressive. The choice itself isn't the issue, it's the presence of choices which is at the heart of the matter. Your dislike of the aggressive option is irrelevant. You assess and make your choice. Penal architecture doesn't offer options. The shot is prescribed. The hole in question offers some 50+ yards of choice...classic strategic architecture.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

I never mentioned penal architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()