[Bill Brightly]

What does it matter if the course is "engineered?"

Oh geeze, here comes a lecture from Wayne on "naturalism" and "minimalism"  

[Steve_ Shaffer]

"Quirk" can be engineered;it's not exclusive to minimalism.

[Bill Brightly]

Reminds me of one of the greens at the local putt-putt.  

David makes this comment about a hole he has probably never played, then in the same day posts this hideous picture:



Obviously, David is a golfer who knows his putt-putts!

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

Here's the botton line.

If you had a GCA event held at Forsgate and people actually PLAYED the course and experienced first hand what was done there I'm sure would wonder why the course is not rated even higher than it is.

Like I said before -- there are plenty of designs I have played where greens have clearly the element of man's hand at work. What's so amusing is that often times it depends upon who designed the course in determining whether or nor the course is acceptable or not.

I'll stand by what I said -- in all of the NJ courses I have played the quartet of par-3's at the Banks Course at Forsgate are only surpassed by the four you see at PV and Plainfield.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Looks to be as influenced by the old 12th at Garden City as the standard CBMac horseshoe green, because outside the ridge (at least on the right as we look) is not useable for cups.

Could Banks have been stepping out, or did someone just short that side of the green?

Jeff, the area outside of the ridge IS useable for cups provided that you mow the green to the intended foot pad and not excessively offset it from the begining of the slope.

Having played a number of Banks' short greens for 50+ years I can tell you that cups in the areas beyond the ridge were the most challenging.

It took daring or insanity to go for them.
We learned to hit into the interior of the ridge, hoping that the ball would run up and over the ridge.  Occassionally, we'd hit a spectacular shot a few feet away from the cup.  But, when that happened, we knew that the player MISSED his approach shot, unless we were playing best ball and our partner was already on the green.

Balls on the other side of the ridge were left with a putting challenge unlike any seen commonly today.

It's a wonderful hole, one that people from the Philadelphia area don't understand when they assess the hole from an angle and elevation NEVER seen by the golfer.

From the golfer's eye, the hole looks quite different, yet, it plays marvelouslly.[/color]

 

[wsmorrison]

"It's a wonderful hole, one that people from the Philadelphia area don't understand when they assess the hole from an angle and elevation NEVER seen by the golfer."

I have played this hole and by no means does it look significantly less contrived from the tee or standing anywhere on the green than it does in the photo.  It looks just like what it is, a geometric design unnatural in appearance.   Yet it is fun to play.  Still, the possibility of making a hole that is fun to play and natural to look at exists and that is what I prefer in my golf.  You can play and enjoy whatever you like but please extend me the same courtesy.  As Tom Paul says, it is a Big World and there's room enough for both of us, especially when you're in Florida  

[Kyle Harris]

Banks designed another short with a horseshoe (well, more of a donut - or for you physics dorks... a torus) that shows much in the way of evolution.

The 9th at Mountain Lake


I think that sits just nicely upon the land.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Raynor's Yeamans Hall has similar greens at the 3rd and 10th.  Quirky twice in a round is good, a steady diet would be silly.

[scott_wood]

Kyle, good "head on" picture......

can you post a(ny) pic(s) which might illustrate the severity of the actual horshoe green?

playing from 100-146 yards, this version of the short allows
every handicap to have hope "they can win the front"

[Matt_Ward]

Lynn's point is spot-on.

At Forsgate the Banks Course doesn't have horseshoe greens throughout the round. It's easy for people not familiar with the course to identify one quirk as being goofy and then somehow apply the tag to the entire course.

That's not the case here.

In fact, the green differences -- in terms of shapes and contours -- are quite varied and when I first read "Confidential Guide" I was surprised that Doak had given the course a grade of "7." Since that time improvements have been made and the general turf conditions are far superior.

Like I said -- hold a GCA mtg at Forsgate and plenty of people would be singing its praises after time is spent there.

[Adam Clayman]

If you check with a number of the modern designers (Doak, Dye et al, Spann, Engh, Moran, etc, etc) you will find a wide array of green styles that were basically the creation of someone in their office -- not as a result of natural features or natural looking features as you originally stated.This statement seems odd to me. Do all these architects design in the same way? I'm doubtful.
 

I'm not into the style elements as some are here the so-called "look" -- I judge things by the nature of how the game is played and whether shots played to such targets are in keeping with the fundamental premise of the game -- good shots rewarded and poor shots penalized proportionally. This one too, rings oddly. I have seen many a good player state they hit the shot perfectly, yet their results are less than desirable. How many definitions of a good shot are there?

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Allow me to state in somewhat even clearer terms for you. The good shot needs to be rewarded on a fairly consistent basis. If it's not and all shots that are played are treated in such an ill-defined method then you don't have a solid golf design in my book. Not all good shots -- 100% of the time -- are rewarded accordingly. I am aware of the fact of such intrusions such as rub of the greens and the like.

One other thing -- not all designers design in the same way. That wasn't my point and I figured some people would misunderstand this or define it in different manners.

I'll say this again -- the point of this thread came from what Wayne M stated that man-made green features -- of the type the 12th the Banks Course includes -- is not preferred and seems contrived. Those aren't the exact words of Wayne M but fairly in the same ballpark.

I've played Doak courses -- Moran courses -- Dye courses --Spann course --where such elements as seen as the 12th at Forsgate Banks are replicated to some degree -- not the exact horseshoe dimensions but clearly added from man's hands and not whatsoever tied to natural features and the like.

I find nothing wrong with that and if architects add clearly man-engineered formulas I have no issue with that provided it does what I stated previously -- identify the good / bad shots and reward / penalize accordingly.

End of story ...

[Matthew MacKay]

The pic really exaggerates things. From the tee, the indentation is not nearly as perceptable. I think the hole works ok as a short 3, but agree that Banks really pushed the boundaries on this hole and some others at Forsgate. It's the most 'extreme' course I've played.

The par 3's are superb, and Matt Ward you'll be happy to hear that the club was in the process of restoring the Biarritz 17th when I played there in May.

The 'punchbowl' 5th is worth the price of admission alone.

[Matt_Ward]

Matt M:

Glad to hear the improvement on #17 -- the long par-3 Biarritz.

The punchbowl 5th is a treat indeed !

You also left out the unique three-part green at the par-4 16th.

Like I said before - have a GCA get together at Forsgate and the people on this site would be amazed at the architecture that's there -- and on a golf course that still plays under 6,700 yards from the tips.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"It's a wonderful hole, one that people from the Philadelphia area don't understand when they assess the hole from an angle and elevation NEVER seen by the golfer."

I have played this hole and by no means does it look significantly less contrived from the tee or standing anywhere on the green than it does in the photo.  It looks just like what it is, a geometric design unnatural in appearance.   Yet it is fun to play.  Still, the possibility of making a hole that is fun to play and natural to look at exists and that is what I prefer in my golf.  You can play and enjoy whatever you like but please extend me the same courtesy.  As Tom Paul says, it is a Big World and there's room enough for both of us, especially when you're in Florida  

If it's a big world, then, that applies both ways.

You can't be critical of a hole that's clearly stood the test of time along with the onslaught of distance, and then espouse the "big world" theory when I jab at your preferences.

What's interesting is that I can only think of ONE short hole that's had it's soul removed, the 17th at The Creek.

It would be interesting to know WHY the internal contouring was surgically removed.   Some theorize that it was done at about the same time that the surrounding bunker was segmented, 1950, but, the reasons why remain a mystery.

You have to ask yourself, if the hole is so contrived, why has it survived so well over the last century, when fad after fad disfigured so many other holes ?

The answer must lie within its architectural merit and how it interfaces with the golfer as he plays the game.

I would imagine that another asset possesed by the hole is excellent drainage.  It's the type of hole that lends itself to introduction into areas that don't have exceptional drainage, with or without the bunkers.

[Sean_A]

Tom,
I agree that he went over the top on a few holes at Forsgate. But Banks also built this hole, one of the most natural looking holes you will ever find:



Over the years, the floor of this redan bunker has been raised by "modernizers" but it remains a fabulous hole.  This was his first solo effort, and my theory is that he stuck very close to what Raynor taught him. I believe that Forsgate was his last course (before the Depression hit and then he went to South America) and he tried to put his mark on the templates by going bigger and more extreme. In some cases he went too far, IMO, but he got it right far more often.

Bill

The way the fairway bleeds into the green is magnificent!  I know the pic is cropped, but it looks as though that right side could go on forever.  Its a pity that the tee cutting mucks up the look a bit.  It would look better if all of it were cut at tee height.  Same goes for the hair around the bunker.  Just let the tee/fairway flow right past the bunker and this hole would be pure magic.  Despite what folks say about the playability of a course being the prime interest, the look is also very important, to me anyway.  

I would like to play some Raynor/Banks courses some day.  Regardless of the aesthetics (the quibbling over details), they sure look interesting to play.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Do you like food that "Looks" good, but tastes terrible too ?

Thanks for answering my Raynor/Banks question.

They are a treat to play and an abundance of them are located nearby in NJ.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Do you like food that "Looks" good, but tastes terrible too ?

Thanks for answering my Raynor/Banks question.

They are a treat to play and an abundance of them are located nearby in NJ.

Pat

Ah, thats where I differ.  I don't like the look of many a new course and what has been done to many an old course.  It is rare that I am satisfied by a course that doesn't look right no matter how it plays.  However, courses like Huntercombe and Kington have shown me that it is possible.  

Like any sensible chap, I like my food to look as appetizing as it is.  I am not sorry to say that aesthetics are important where food is concerned.  

Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

Sean,

Thanks for the comments! I understand what you are saying about the rough, but only a very small section of this hole is maintained at fairway length. That would be a large expense increase, don't you think? However, the kick mound used to be high rough, and we shaved it down last year, and re-captured about 15 feet of green.

Here is another look (I just wish I was smart enough not to include the service road in the picture...) Hope you can see the subtle "spine" that runs from the front of the green back towards the pin, parallell to the trap, creating two sections of the green. You will never make a putt if you are on the wrong section.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Thanks for the comments! I understand what you are saying about the rough, but only a very small section of this hole is maintained at fairway length. That would be a large expense increase, don't you think? However, the kick mound used to be high rough, and we shaved it down last year, and re-captured about 15 feet of green.

Here is another look (I just wish I was smart enough not to include the service road in the picture...) Hope you can see the subtle "spine" that runs from the front of the green back towards the pin, parallell to the trap, creating two sections of the green. You will never make a putt if you are on the wrong section.

Bill

Of course keeping grass short costs money - especially for those courses that over-feed and over-water the grass!  I just don't much understand the point of putting bunkers in the rough.  Anyway, I just read your intro on the other thread.  If you can afford membership at two clubs then you can afford to have the grass cut - ha!

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
Looking at that hole, I don't see where rough around the bunker matters. It's location doesn't have any implication for a running shot, it protects against an aerial shot. If it were more in the line of play I could see your point.

[Bill Brightly]

I think Sean dislikes the whole idea of rough around bunkers...and I might agree, but you are talking about one helluva big sod bill if you stripped out all the rough (I think its bluegrass) and tried to grow bent...

And I'm also sure Sean dislikes the whole idea of over watered, over manicured parkland courses that we have in the Colonies...

Geeze, Sean. I just got a restoration plan passed, now you want the grass to go brown and get me thrown out???

Seriously, we are starting to create more "fairway-length runups" into greenside bunkers, but it is not as easy as just cutting the grass shorter...two different types of grass!

[Sean_A]

Sean,
Looking at that hole, I don't see where rough around the bunker matters. It's location doesn't have any implication for a running shot, it protects against an aerial shot. If it were more in the line of play I could see your point.

Jim

It matters for three reasons.  1) It doesn't look good to have longer grass around the bunkers. 2) It stops balls from running into the bunker from the rear or side. 3) It stops balls from bouncing back into the bunker off the grass face.  

It seems to be the style these days - a first cut surrounding bunkers.  I always feel that it sort of cuts the bunkers off visually from the hole - it looks very awkward imo.  

I know what you mean Bill.  I have been trying to get my club to more fully incorporate the bunkering into the design of the course by creating fairway around the bunkers.  The club won't do it.  This issue and a few more to do with paths, narowing of fairways, condition of greens and trees mean the fight is over for me.  I am leaving the club as of 1 January.  I don't have that many good years left to waste them on a club with its head buried in the sand.  I will stick what I love, links.  Its a longer drive for a game, but far more rewarding for the time invested.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

Your points are unreasonable.

You can't have what can't be maintained.

How would YOU maintain those areas at fairway height ?

You're also neglecting to account for the elevation change, the slope that runs into the bunker.

Had you had first hand experience with the features and topography on that hole you'd probably hold a different view.

This is why you can't draw absolute conclusions from photos.

[Lester George]

Steve,

I have rebuilt two "horseshoes", one by Banks on the SHORT hole at Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club and one by Raynor on the SHORT hole at the Greenbriers Old White.  

The one at Cavalier has a barely distinguishable horeshoe "indent" while the one at the Greenbrier has a large semi-horseshoe speedbump.  Both are somewhat controversial, but I knew that going in.  People love to play them and more importantly, love to complain about or debate them.  I personally think they add a great feature to a course and bring putting skill to the short hole.

True story - One LPGA Hall-of-Fame member played the one at the Greenbrier and 5-putted it.  She declared it "stupid" or something like that.  Her amateur partner 2-putted it and (being a friend and mentor) told her that she totally didn't "get it" and that she need to learn how to putt better.  She has since played it a number of times and "learned" to like it and actually says she is stiil anxiuos on the tee knowing what lies ahead.

I think thats what Banks and Raynor were about.  

Lester

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()