News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Paul Turner

Humps and Hollows at Royal Mid Surrey
« on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
RT sent me this fine photo of those unusual humps and bumps at Royal Mid Surrey, put in by J H Taylor and Peter Lees.  I've only had a quick look at the course when I jumped over the fence at Kew gardens.  But my old man was a member there for about 10 years (30 odd years ago) and I have an old yardage chart of the Outer course which shows the mounds used as the main driving hazards on holes 2,3,4,6,18 of the Outer. Shame about the trees, but it looks like you'd have some interesting stances in that lot!  Both courses have suffered from neglect in recent times but hopefully a restoration project will be started soon.RTI lost your email, which hole is this? Thanks.

jglenn

Why are bunkers so well defined?
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Patrick,I guess I was talking about both architecture and playability issues with my original comment.Mostly, I suppose, I was lamenting the way that we need to define and label everything around us, filing it into neat little compartments.And woe the items that do not neatly fit into this filing system.

Ran Morrissett

Broadstone Golf Club
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Paul, These pics are mesmerizing - nothing beats the texture of an open heath. By the way, why do you call the 11th Redanish?

Ran Morrissett

Humps and Hollows at Royal Mid Surrey
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
I'll be interested to see this picture (which I presently can't?)as I've always heard the course is too flat to be special. Perhaps these clever mounds make the difference?

Mike_Trenham

Ohio Golf
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Played Kirtland and Congress Lake in late September, two of the best examples of unaltered classic design work (with the exception of tree planting).Congress Lake may be the most under rated course in North America as it shows up no where on any rankings.  And the last 11 holes at Kirtland are fantastic not a weak hole in the the lot.Pennsylvania is great but Ohio is pretty nice also...
Proud member of a Doak 3.

Ran Morrissett

Post WWII course with the shortest green to tee walks?
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Brett,What is the minimum distance that you would place the back tee from a green at a limited play private club? 30-40 yards? I can understand that but I'm talking about several 125-150 yards walks, which I just rarely if ever see on a Ross course.Ross had a routing secret that he didn't share, I believe  For instance, I understand that that Fazio's very private (and very good apparently) Sand Ridge suffers from several long green to tee walks. Same at Cherokee Plantation which gets less than 20 players a day. How can these routings/courses be considered a success (unless you don't care a lick about walking)? I don't get it.

Mike Nuzzo

Champions GC
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Sorry but I need to bring this thread back to the original topic.I played the Cypress Creek back nine at Champions today (followed by the Jack Rabbit back nine)The pin placements were still the same as sunday's.  With such large greens, it is quite easy to have numerous hole locations and at least one mound or undulation will exert influence on your putt, especially when that quick.  There is very little water that needs to be carried throughout the course, instead the hazzards are thoughtfully placed to subtly exert influence on your tee shots, but to be fair they only really exert much strategy when the pins are near the edges.  Jack Rabbit (the recently renovated 18) is much improved.  There were many trees removed, and the drainage will be able to handle our wet weather.  There used to be a single straight ditch that was a major feature, that has been replaced with much more natural forms.  The greens are more of a pinehurst crowned variety.  Not as large as cypress (around 6400 sq ft on average).That front nine is due to open any day now.Very good courses for this flat barren town I now call home.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Lou_Duran

Demanding, Challenging, or Accomodating ?
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
I generally prefer courses which reward well hit shots,  and provide absolution of a poor one through an extraordinary effort on the next one.  I like courses which are "fair", but I do see some merit in having a couple of quirks where luck can make a difference of a stroke or two.  Placing a large cross bunker out at 260 on a 460 yard hole is not my idea of good architecture, nor is a greenside bunker fronting the best angle of approach on a hole which normally requires a long iron.  I do believe that such bunkers can be successfully used to guard short to medium shots, though I would limit them to no more than 3 or 4 holes.  I much prefer "pinching" or "flanking" bunkers because these allow for a greater variety of shots depending on the angle of approch, wind and turf conditions, and the skill of the player.

bm

Post WWII course with the shortest green to tee walks?
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Tom,Pretty hard to sue the pre-WW2 designers as most are dead, however I am sure that more than a few clubs would have been sued for this reason. Perhaps not if they are private clubs where members are more careful about when to approach the green on known problem holes.A post WW2 designer putting tees too close to greens could certainly be subject to a lawsuit if someone got hit by an errant shot (too close determined by who??..there are a few publications recommending minimum distances). Anything within 30 yards or so would be considered too close IMO. I am sure there would be a few precedents on this althought I dont know of any personally.Perhaps you can fill me in on the triangulation theory as I feel a bit dense not knowing what you are talking about!

Lou_Duran

Champions GC
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Mike:Who redid Jackrabbit?  Is the 9 you played totally different than the Cypress side?

Mike Nuzzo

Demanding, Challenging, or Accomodating ?
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
It's all about the pin placements.I played Champions Cypress Creek today (see Champions thread. The normal center pin placements make those huge greens sometimes boring (because the bunkers and flanked water don't exert much strategy), today with the pins tucked, the hazzards are way more noticable.  Today there were 2 of 9 pins (only played the back) placed directly over bunkers that needed to be carried.To answer your orig question, i prefer the flanked hazzard (although I love them all) but doesn't the hole placement define wether the bunker is flanked or pinched?
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Bill_McBride

Post WWII course with the shortest green to tee walks?
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Pacific Dunes is generally okay with short walks from green to tee, but the hike from #11 to #12 is lengthy and convoluted. I think it has to do with the back tee at #5, which will give you some idea how inventive the routing is there!   By contrast, our greens crew just built wooden steps up from the back right corner of the 4th green at Pensacola CC (approx 1920 Ross look-alike) up to the recently elevated 5th tee.  I walked it off - the back corner of the green is 30 feet from the bottom of the steps!   Not sure we'll ever see this again.  By the way, it's usually a good idea to keep an eye from the 5th tee on incoming shots at #4, which plays 400-440 yards into the prevailing wind.  Lots of long irons and fairway woods which occasionally wander right.

Lou_Duran

Ohio Golf
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Tom M:Has the Golf Club been altered since the late 70s?  I played it in 1978 and prefered Muirfield Village, Scioto, and Scarlet (in that order).  How would you rate Double Eagle within this group?  I would also like your thoughts on Jack Kidwell's place in gca, and your favorite courses of his.

Scott_Burroughs

Back To Back Par Threes
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Gib,    Which Tommy's are you referring to?  There's about 10 of them.

Paul Turner

Humps and Hollows at Royal Mid Surrey
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
RanNot sure why you can't see it, if you only get a red cross in a small box, try a right click on that red cross and then click Show Picture.I think I recall Tommy N posting some old pictures when the course was more dramatic?  RT do you have any old photos?Sadly the clubhouse burnt down this year and all of the historic records were lost.  The old wooden clubhouse looked to be a bit like Woking's.

Doug Wright

Back To Back Par Threes
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
I love this site! Where else would a query about back to back par threes devolve into a discussion about Cali cuisine? By the way, Rubios showed up in Denver about 2 years ago. After an initial favorable review re the fish tacos, I gotta say there are many better culinary choices out there...I suppose, as in golf architecture, it's a matter of taste!DougPS I'd forgotten about Manele's back to back threes.
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Paul Turner

Broadstone Golf Club
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
RanWell I guess it's only partly a reverse redan.  The green looks to be on a bit of a diagonal and it sets up for a fade with the front right bunker; the slope isn't correct, it looks back to front.  But Tom Doak calls it a redan in his review, so I copied him    

Doug Wright

Post WWII course with the shortest green to tee walks?
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
TYEPaul as usual I think you've got it re Ross-he positioned the greens on the high ground and said "Hey, while I'm at it let's locate this tee right up here too." The Ross I've seen sure fits that mold,  incluiding the one I'm most familiar with--Wellshire in Denver, which he did via topos and never visted.Another thing to look for as I venture forth to tackle Ross's Wilmington Municipal in the morning...Doug
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Tommy_Naccarato

Leven and Lundin Links
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Rich, You continue to amaze me with this stand.To answer the original question, last year, sometime, we had the same topic come up about the 7th at Leven/Lundin. From my knowledge, Ludin got the hole and it still exists, and while it may not represent exactly what CB had in mind at NGLA, the hole does still exist and but it has evolved. (Much like the rest of Lundin Golf Club)I can't remember the exact name of the hole, but it requires a drive over a blinding dune on the left to have a open shot at the burn-fronted elevated green, or a much safer shot right, off the tee, which provokes a daring blind approach to the same. This blinded approach is the result of the dune line right that runs pretty much the entire length of the hole. I forgot to also add that on the left, the old rail line which is now gorse covered and very much OB is a factor if you hook the ball severly off the tee. I will still maintain that LGC posesses the best links/parkland/links transition in the game today. Much better the Spyglass could ever hope to be.

Doug Wright

Eye candy is underrated!
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Paul,Welcome back. Your comments have been missed, and I hope your projects are proceeding well. Now, to the subject at hand, would you give us some examples of courses where the architect/designer has avoided crossing the line to "eye candy,"  and of courses where he has crossed that line.DougPS And a question for Rob. Re the Congressional eye candy girl, was she "in play?"
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Tommy_Naccarato

Humps and Hollows at Royal Mid Surrey
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Paul, The pictures were part of my In My Opinion piece which is a reprint of The Art Of Golf by Josh Taylor, hilighting the work of his brother J. H.'s work at Royal Mid-Surrey.Seeing Russell's excellent digital image of the same only makes me further want to ask..........WHERE THE HELL ARE MY PICTURES OF "DEATH OR GLORY!!!!!"       [img]

TBJ

Augusta PR campaign due to?
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
SirsThanks for the sentiment.  I do understand that the greatest aspect of golf architecture discussions is that everyone has a differing opinion.  Give 100 designers a piece of land and you will get 100 different golf courses.I do feel that there is a tremendous amount of merit to be had studying and preserving the great courses.  But I also believe this;  I think it is extremely hard to compare the game as it is played today as to how it was when these courses were built.  Sarazen hits a 4 wood into #15, Tiger hits a wedge.  Score in relation to par may not matter to some, but Mr. Cirba and Mr. Nacarrato can not believe it was the intent for players to be hitting the short irons they do into the greens.  I simply refuse to believe it - even if my name isn't Dr. Mackenzie - as Mr. Nacarrato so astutely pointed out.  The game has changed.  Should the great courses of the golden era be lengthened, tightened, recontoured, or regrassed to fit today's 'standards'.  Perhaps, perhaps not.  But to whom do the members of these clubs owe any responsibility?I know that the bunkering at Merion was done for one reason.  They wish to host a USGA event again.  The bunker faces had become overgrown and broken down.  Members were losing balls in these faces.  The USGA refused to even consider Merion unless they did something.  Yes, the Fazio group did the work.  Because of Mr. Fazio's ego? I don't think so.  Being from Philly, I am certain Mr. Fazio has friends in the club who approached him.  To me, this seems a bit more plausable than Mr. Fazio's ego running amok.  But then, I couldn't be certain.  My name is TBJ, not Tony Nacarrato. This is one example of how

Tim_Weiman

Augusta PR campaign due to?
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
Brian B:I share your view that the USGA and the R&A have the primary responsibility for addressing the golf technology arms race.For that reason, people at GCA, myself included, have expressed our disappointment with their efforts to date in many GCA threads.I will continue to do so.But, I am surprised you are so quick to let Augusta off the hook.  After the USGA and the R&A, no other entity is in a better position to play a constructive role on this subject.Why not encourage them to do so?Why are you so intent on shielding Augusta from criticism?  They are big boys.  They can certainly handle it.Keep in mind that the annual Masters broadcast is not likely to include any expression of what is wrong with the idea of spending ever increasing amounts of money lengthening golf courses.  Rather, I am willing to bet there will be subtle (or not so subtle) suggestions that lengthening the course was the ONLY solution to the technology problem.That is all the more reason why we should continue to speak out in this forum.  It's the best "equal time" most of us will find.The folks at Titleist and Callaway certainly don't appear shy about expressing their point of view.  We shouldn't be either.
Tim Weiman

ForkaB

Leven and Lundin Links
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
TommyI'm not sure what "stand" you refer to and/or why it continues to amaze you, but I am flattered!Getting back to the original question, a teeny bit of searching on the web uncovered the following:--It is likely that the current 18th at Lundie was the 9th on the old Leven/Lundin course CB would have visited.  It is apparently largely unchanged from when Old Tom (Morris, not Doak) built in the hte 1860's.--the 16th at Lundie used to be the 7th on the old layout, and it sounds like the hole you are describing.  It was apparently changed by James Braid when Leven and Lundin split in 1909, so the current version is probably different from what MacDonald saw and possibly based the 17th at NGLA upon.  I must admit that the latter hole did not at all evoke the current 16th at Lundie when I played it a few weeks ago.I know you like Lundie a lot.  Quite frankly one of the reasons I discount it somewhat relates to the parkland holes (8, 12, and 13) which I consider to all be weak holes and very much out of character with the rest of the course.  The transition is good from a routing sense, but the holes themsleves are poor.  IMHO, of course.If you really want to see a good transition, from links to heathland to parkland and then back to links, go see Golspie (which also happens to have one of the best heathland holes in Britain--the 9th "Paradise.").  Don't use Spyglass as a comparison--it is two separate golf courses with no transition whatsoever.Slainte

Tony"the Tiger" Naccarato

Augusta PR campaign due to?
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2001, 07:00:00 PM »
LBJ, (I know it is TBJ, but I owe you one! )If you understood JUST how close our opinions are, I think you would be shocked.Yes, the equipment has changed (Especially in the last 7 years) and all the more reason to stop this idiocracy before it really does the game further damage.  My concerns are for the game first and not to satisfy my ego.One of the first things I think of when talking of ANGC/Equimpment/Course changes is the famed "Shot Heard Round The World" by Sarazen. Especially when it comes to thinking of just how ridiculous of a point that all of the equimpment has gotten. I know you probably feel the same, there has to be some sort of closure don't you think?This once remarkable design that was the brainchild of two of Golf's more intriguing figures--Dr. Alister MacKenzie and Robert Tyre Jones no longer exists. It is a different course now just as you suggest the game is a different game. Why? Technology seems to be the simplest answer, but I think it is a lot of too many hands in the pot.Look at the changes overseen by Clifford Roberts by RTJ. Roberts had enough disdain for Dr. Alister MacKenzie, a man he STIFFED for the cost of the design, that making changes to the club after WWII were enevitable. The country was finally out of its darkest financial times and the club was somewhat fiscally sound. (Thanks to Roberts)Those changes were the result of the "Architect Of The Hour" which of course was the man most probably responsible for turning golf course architecture into a viable sales trade--Robert Trent Jones. Whom, it has been suggested took advantage of some creative initialing to tie himself to the great champion.While I have stated that many think Augusta's most beautiful hole--the 16th is a result of RTJ, I feel that it came at a cost of other pertinent features of the course, most notably the damning of a natural drainage creek which welcomed disaster during very inclement condtions; the ultimate loss of several remarkable greens which had fallen victim to green speeds that rendered them unfair; (Ironically these were push-up greens) Dramatic natural bunkering that became orgainized and tidy, and enevn worse, featureless.Roberts would eventually employ George Cobb to do work at the club, and they would eventually find themselves rebuilding features that he was ordered to remove (The mounding right of the 8th green, for one.) this didn't last long either, and just like the features that disappeared, so did more of the design features and strategy. The worse being the further altering of the dramatic closing holes that had made the tournament even more historic and famousWith Tom Fazio recreating what he feels will guide ANGC into the 21st century, this means LOTS of change, and who does he have at his side to urge him on? The Most Recognizable Chairperson since Clifford Roberts--Hootie Johnson, who seems to be welcoming this change to protect the sanctity of the tournament. Something that Bobby Jones once said that, "If the Masters Tournament ever once threatened the sanctity of the club, the event was to be ended immeidately without regard."I see a pattern here that is very similar to the RTJ/Clifford Roberts years. It represents a complete disregard for the history and the principals, while maintaining that the game is changing and they better be moving along with it, instead of securing the foundation of which the game grew to the respect which the club itself was founded.Unfortunately I have to end this right now, and I would like to continue and I hope you do too. Who knows, we might learn something from each other and hopefully it can be carried forward to those who never had chance to learn exaclty how the game was perceived in an age gone by, not unlike the way we have so ruthlessly forsaken the history that was left for us.

Tags: