[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Could you define "formulaic" architecture ?

I hear the term used, but, I'm not so sure that the term is being used in a consistent context.

Perhaps you could clear up my confusion by defining it, or if you can't define it, please don't tell me that you know it when you see it.

[TEPaul]

"Could you define "formulaic" architecture?"

Sure Pat, although I'm quite certain at this point you have a very good idea what I mean by that.

Formula--n; any fixed or convential method for doing something.
Formulaic---adj. made or executed according to formula; composed of formulas; being or consituting a formula.

Examples of "formulaic architecture" to me would be NEVER considering routing a long par 4 into the prevailing wind whereby reaching the hole in regulation is not automatic.
NEVER considering routing such as par 3s and par 5s back to back. NEVER considering designing long par 4 holes that must have a certain minimum prescribed sized green for the particular length of the hole. Designing bunkering in such a way that a particular portion of a stroke penalty MUST be guaranteed. NEVER considering designing greens that an automatic two-putt is not guaranteed as realistic. NEVER considering designing blind shots. The list could go on and on.

The reason I feel this way is I believe golf is better when its architcture is more off-beat, more varied, more interesting, more random, as is nature itself. And to make it that way it's necessary to occasionally break some of what has unfortunately become some of the expected "formulaics" in architecture.

Fazio might be a good example of an architect who tends to think and to design with too many "formulas" in mind. His book expresses a pretty large enumeration of things that he feels and architect "can't" do. Clearly the reason he feels this way is his concern that it might be considered "unfair" and golfers would not accept it.

I just don't agree with that particular mindset--at least not to that extent. I think golfers would accept many of those things that break certain drummed up formulas in golf architecture and I think the architects I admire most have taken the initiative and done that and proven, to a large extent, that golfers will accept "unformulaic" architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't think that you can attribute "formulaic" to a thought process that noone is privy to.

But, I did notice bunker after bunker at RSG that is unrecoverable from, causing at least a one stroke penalty.

I've also noticed a "formulaic" design or construction of most of their bunkers.  They all seem to have artificial brick sod faces.
This would seem highly "formulaic" by your standards.

Is it you opinion that RSG's bunkers are extemely formulaic, thus rendering the golf course inferior ?

[TEPaul]

"But, I did notice bunker after bunker at RSG that is unrecoverable from, causing at least a one stroke penalty."

Pat:

I don't think so--not from what I saw. Recoverability from the fairway bunkers is surely of some kind of penalty but it seems to me to be fairly random. It's all about how close to those faces your ball ends up--just sort of the luck of the bounce it would seem to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's all about how close to those faces your ball ends up

You've clearly described something formulaic,
something highly predictable, not random.

The closer you are to the face, the more penal the shot.
The further you are from the face, the easier the shot.
That's one of the most consistent, formulaic situations you could describe.

And, all of the brick sod bunker faces look the same, and are built the same way.   That's formulaic.

God forbid something formulaic gets acknowledged as acceptable, if not excellent architecture.

You're in DENIAL.
You need Dr. Katz.
Dr Katz has two new assistants who specialize in DENIAL.
Dr Fazrees and Dr Vinny Boombatz.
Dr. Fazrees uses hypnosis.
Dr. Vinny Boombatz uses a .38 special.
Dr. Fazrees's treatments consist of 14 visits.
Dr Vinny Boombatz's treatments consist of one short visit.
Dr. Fazrees allows you to pay on an installment method
Dr Vinny Boombatz gets the money up front
Dr. Fazrees schedules appointments at his office
Dr. Vinny Boombatz makes unannounced house calls.
Dr Fazrees has a fixed practice
Dr Vinny Boombatz hires out as a consultant.

Oh, and if you select Dr. Vinny Boombatz, please leave
Coorshaw at home that day and make sure he's fed before your appointment.

[TEPaul]

"The closer you are to the face, the more penal the shot.
The further you are from the face, the easier the shot.
That's one of the most consistent, formulaic situations you could describe."

Pat:

Is it? The first two sentences are certainly truisms but is that describing consistency and "formulaics" in PLAY? You might call that "formulaic" but I don't. What would seem far more formulaic to me in bunker construction is hitting the ball into a bunker that's designed to have the ball release off the face and roll back to where a golfer has about the same recovery shot as if the ball had just trickled through the front of the bunker. The latter is the way many bunkers in America are constructed, including to some extent the bunker construction method of an architect such as Donald Ross or William Flynn. I look at that as far more formulaic than a steep walled revetted face taken close to vertical down to a fairly flat sand floor (very little angle of repose).

So you might call the construction method of the European style bunker "formulaic" but in PLAY it's anything but that as you've obviously noticed this week at RSG. Again, the closer one comes to those steep revetted faces the more difficult the shot will be. I'm sure you'll admit that. And what determines where your ball ends up in one of those revetted faced bunkers such as RSG?

The bounce of the ball does, Pat! And the bounce of the ball is generally considered one of the most random and inconsistent occurrences one can think of, particularly in topography and ground conditions that we're seeing this week at RSG.

But the "luck" factor and randonmess of recovery out of the bunkers at RSG can basically be summed up best by a legitimate question. Which type of bunker would you or any thinking golfer strive to avoid more? The American type that releases the ball farther back towards the center of the bunker or the steep faced revetted bunker of a RSG that has everything to do with the bounce of the ball on its own?

I think the answer is obvious, as we're seeing this week. As at TOC recoverablity is all about how close or far your ball comes to rest in relation to those revetted faces and that's randomness to me.

I really doubt you'll hear a single utterance at RSG this week from any of these competitors of "Get in the bunker", and what does that say Pat? Does that say those players can expect "formulaic" and "consistent" recoverability out of those bunkers as they generally can with the more American style?

I think not!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I prefer the bunkers at RSG versus most of the bunkers I encounter here.

But, I don't think it's so much the bounce of the ball as it is the feeding of the ball into those bunkers.

Their configurations are so similar, especially their faces, that even you would have to admit that they are formulaic in design and construction.

The reason that they don't yell, "get in the bunker" is because those bunkers are far more penal then those they encounter each week on the PGA Tour, but that's not evidence that they are not formulaic.

[TEPaul]

"The reason that they don't yell, "get in the bunker" is because those bunkers are far more penal then those they encounter each week on the PGA Tour, but that's not evidence that they are not formulaic."

Patrick;

What are you talking about now--the "look", the "playability" or both?    
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bjorn's unfortunate experience with a black hole bunker is a perfect example of what I've been talking about.

The bunker is fed balls by its surroundings, including the green.

Several greens at NGLA feed the ball into the nearby bunkers.

This feature places a greater emphasis on risk/reward and prudent play.  And, depending upon the internal configuration of the bunker, can make a player defensive and unsure of the shot at hand.

All too often buffers of rough protect the golfer from having their ball fed into a nearby bunker.  I'd like to see this buffer of rough eliminated.

Is this feature deemed to be too punitive by most clubs ?

Will there be a movement to eliminate the buffer ?

Why aren't more courses built with this feature ?

[TEPaul]

"Is this feature deemed to be too punitive by most clubs?"

Pat:

It would seem so. I've heard members of various clubs state they don't like this feature when surrounds feed the ball into bunkers. Certainly the false front on NGLA's #8 does bigtime and there's a new mowed down fairway area that shoots balls a bit wide greenside left on #5 directly off the right to left slope into a reconstituted bunker. Karl Olsen reestablished the feed into the back bunker on the back right side of #6 too.

"Will there be a movement to eliminate the buffer?"

Probably not much of a movement although I agree with you, I'd like to see such a movement such as Europe and Australia has.

"Why aren't more courses built with this feature?"

You've got me in America. I did a bit of research about this on some old photos of the classic course in America and there always seemed to be a bit of a rough buffer around bunkers although it appeared much lower cut in some of the old photos. Why we don't do over hear what they do in Europe and Australia though is a mystery to me.

And you have to admit where the ball gets to in those revetted bunkers is very random as to recoverability.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I wonder how much of a culprit mechanized maintainance is ?

Hand mowing could create and maintain this feature.

I doubt that triplexes and other mechanized equipment would venture anywhere near the feature.

[ForkaB]

Pat

My "home" club has this feature, in spades, and I believe they mow almost exclusively mechanically (at least I've never seen anybody using a hand mower to cut bunker edges).

[TEPaul]

Pat said:

"TEPaul,
I wonder how much of a culprit mechanized maintainance is?
Hand mowing could create and maintain this feature.
I doubt that triplexes and other mechanized equipment would venture anywhere near the feature."

Pat:

You've got some significant questions there! Mechanized maintenance probably does have a lot to do with the mindset about not doing this kind of thing. Probably more than most are aware of.

I feel this way because this kind of thing is something we very much want our crew to do--a ton of members want to see it happen--eg very close mowing on bunker surrounds--at least on the side the ball is incoming! But the super doesn't really want to do it or would prefer not to. He has some valid reasons too.

We use mechanized mowing of one kind or another on these rough buffers surrounding our bunkering (and some other features). If we were to try to mow it to the very short height you're talking about it would create all kinds of problems with mechanized mowing. There'd be all kinds of scalping etc as the mowers got in too close to the bunker edges that has all manner of intricate little topography. The only way to avoid this would be to go to some other kind of smaller more manual type of close mowing.

Even if the bigger mechanized machinery could get in close on bunker surrounds one needs to be very careful not to take too much weight too near the edges of bunker surrounds particularly over the top edges of bunkering. The obvious reason is the weight of the machinery alone can be disasterous to the architecture of bunkers basically crushing the construction of it.

But clearly this kind of thing is done really short and close in Europe and Australia etc. So, however they do it obviously we could too.

But with that in mind it occurs to me what may be the primary reason it's so much easier to do it over there than it is in America.

That'd be the funny adage about golf course agronomy over there compared to here. They say that supers in America are into the best way to "grow" grass while in Europe and Australia etc the supers are into the best way to "stop the grass from growing".

Just think about that for a second and it may go a long way to explaining why and how they can maintain their bunker surrounds so much lower than we do.

But there's no doubt it could be done over here. It'd just take studying what the best and most efficient process would be. That probably would take a good deal more man-hours though, particularly as our grass probably grows a lot faster. The subject of what kind of grass to use on the surrounds to maintain lower and more slow growing obviously needs to be looked into too!

There is an added concern about close mowing, at least on the side of the bunkering where the ball is incoming. On our course I doubt we'd want to do close mowing on the outgoing side of the bunkering. The reason for this has a lot to do with the "Ross" bunker surround look. So if we close mowed on the incoming side and not on the outgoing side how would that look in the overall? How exactly would you transition from one side of bunkering to the other both maintenance-wise and with the look of it? That could be more man-hours and more complexity even if it could be made to look OK!

But there's no question at all that this type of thing really does make bunkers and hazard features play SOOO much more functional and effective as hazard features. One only had to see that shot Woods hit to the 11th at RSG the other day. His ball was about 3 paces to the left of the pin and well onto the green. It hit the green, slowly turned left, slowly rolled off the green and AROUND the front of  a bunker and entered the bunker on its OUTSIDE edge!! Now that was really something!

It left Woods's apparently really good approach that hit well within the green in a bunker situation with a restricted back swing and about a 25 yd bunker shot. This is something most club members would not put up with. Of course, being Tiger Woods he sunk the damn thing for a birdie!

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Money may also be the culprit.

I know that the pitch in selling triplex mowers is the labor/cost savings versus walk behind mowers.

This is the same pitch for the SandPro versus hand raking.

At my club in New Jersey we use walking mowers to do the greens, and these mowers can handle the slopes at the perimeter of the green, the fall offs into the bunkers, and surrounding areas.

I can't see a triplex getting anywhere near those slopes.

Perhaps some from the UK can tell us how those areas are maintained on their golf courses.

I think that clubs have to make a decision, quality at a price, or save money at the expense of the playability of the golf course.

And, perhaps the design of the features in the UK prohibits the use of triplexes, etc, etc..

The other question is, is anyone designing greenside bunkers fed by their surroundings, including the green ?

Or, are today's architects designing based on today's labor/cost saving maintainance practices ?

[Dan Kelly]

I turned on the radio this morning, and the first sentence I heard -- in a dialogue about Royal St. George's -- included the phrase "those ridiculous bunkers they have."

I think this, alas, is pretty much the standard American view: It's fun to watch the professionals play into and out of "those ridiculous bunkers" -- but it's not fun for us to play out of them.

Too bad.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

What they fail to understand is the purpose of the bunker and strategic elements that those bunkers create.

They, "just don't get it".

Remember, those sportscasters are trying to find something significant in ONE game of baseball, in a 160+ game season.

Especially for teams that are 20+ games out of first place.

[ForkaB]

Pat

In my previous post I did tell you how they maintain the surrounds of those "black hole"/gathering bunkers over here in the UK--with mechanized equipment, as far as I can tell.  I'll be up in Dornoch in a couple of weeks and find out for sure, if you want me to.  My guess is that the firmness of the true links turf allows for this where it would not be feasible on the mushier US ground--even at those places in the US that call themselves "links"............

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

When you say mechanized equipment are you referencing walking or riding mowers ?

[ForkaB]

Pat

Riding.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()