|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 23, 2020 17:00:01 GMT -5
In my personal opinion, I think if you're alright with "invisible" bunkers then you're missing the point of strategically placing bunkers. Sure a bunker can be there just for aesthetics, but a bunker should always be placed with a purpose like b101 and grovey31 are getting at. Alister MacKenzie said "He believed in very well thought out placement of bunkers, putting them where players would likely hit it if the bunker wasn’t there." A bunker should have a purpose and keeping it out of view from the golfer can take away from that purpose. Obviously there can be blind shots where a bunker is waiting on the other side of the hill in your desired landing area, like b101 and joegolferg said, but if there isn't a blind shot then you should be able to see the bunker. In this game are "invisible" bunkers alright, I guess, but is it realistic? No. I prefer realistic as possible and I think a lot of other people do too. Here's an article from the American Society of Golf Course Architects. Hope this helps in some way. That article goes a little bit more in depth than necessary for this discussion's sake, but a lot of good information in there. asgca.org/design/existing-courses/course-renovation-articles/bunkers/ Here's the full article where I got the quote from Alister MacKenzie, excellent architect to learn from. His 13 principles of golf course design still hold true to this day and his catalog of courses stacks up well against any of the great architects, some argue he is the best. Bunkers are discussed towards the end of that article. thefriedegg.com/alister-mackenzie-biography/And this is another article that might be of interest. www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/travel/ways-architects-use-grass-hazards/amp/Thanks ! I will need to read the quote in context. Generally a player hits in the fairway BECAUSE there's not a bunker there, so ... Grass hazards are great, and tougher than bunkers for most players IRL & in-game, I gather. But I don't like my in-game efforts at them, so that article may wait a bit. Rarely too much discussion for me, obviously. Stamina, that I have !
edit: Just through the 13 Rules, have some thoughts both as relates to in-game design and modern real-life, but keeping 'em to myself unless prompted. Seems like it would always be a great discussion, as long as disciples don't burn me as a heretic !
To tease, though : not all great architecture, design, or even usage principles from 100 years ago hold up - buildings, cars, bridges, planes, guns and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 23, 2020 19:06:06 GMT -5
At the end of the day we all have an opinion on whether you like hidden bunkers or not but to suggest that they're unrealistic unless the whole shot it blind is just factually incorrect. I play many courses that are older and newer designs that have hidden bunkers on well revealed fairways/greens.
In regards to the tagged link from an American Architects Association I can't say I'm surprised as there has always been that divide in opinion between the US and UK especially judging by the difference in styles of courses between the two countries.
As for Mackenzie it was his opinion that bunkering should be visible almost all of the time and he is entitled to that opinion, but it is just his opinion and not a law on bunkering.
In a nutshell all I'm saying is that there is no right and wrong on having hidden bunkers. It's not wrong or unrealistic to have them. That said, In the context of TGC design you do see many courses built with UNINTENTIONALLY blind bunkers due to lack of sculpting skills or just pure laziness. This is unacceptable for courses that are submitted for approval.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 24, 2020 8:07:56 GMT -5
One thing I don't get ... short of asking the designer about it, how can one be SURE any 'feature' is unplanned or the result of, as I've been accused, 'being lazy' ?
This I understand far less than why they are or aren't liked by players at this point, but that's for a human psych forum, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Dec 24, 2020 8:13:13 GMT -5
Are we talking about your course now? If so, I refer you to the screenshots in my first reply, which aren't sculpted and have no reason for being blind. That's an error - no two ways about it.
On a general note, echoing what everyone else has said: if it's in play, not visible and there's no good reason for it being blind (i.e. to prevent you bouncing down a hill, as a strategic hazard on an Alps, 17 at NGLA etc), then it shouldn't be blind. If that's coupled with lots of elementary sculpting errors, then yeah, it's pretty much a fast track for not approved. We don't necessarily know your intent, but we can guess that it's not strategic and it won't change the fact that it's a major reason why a number of courses are not approved. One blind bunker on its own won't do it, but multiple, plus poor sculpting definitely will.
Edit: one exception would be links golf, where you do see a few blind bunkers here and there because that's where nature intended a bunker to be and they collected sand. Again though, they would be sculpted, which is the general giveaway.
|
|
|
Post by abowidow5712 on Dec 24, 2020 8:25:58 GMT -5
In a nutshell all I'm saying is that there is no right and wrong on having hidden bunkers. It's not wrong or unrealistic to have them. That said, In the context of TGC design you do see many courses built with UNINTENTIONALLY blind bunkers due to lack of sculpting skills or just pure laziness. This is unacceptable for courses that are submitted for approval. [/quote]
This is well said. I obviously disagree with the realistic opinion, but that's just a difference of opinion. I don't think many of the great architects would agree with that either, but that is also just my opinion. I think it's interesting that the fact most of the great architects that came from the UK or inspired by the UK courses, including MacKenzie, didn't choose to keep similar bunker styles. Very rare to see pot bunkers on a course over here and rare to see hidden bunkers on the great courses. I think that says a lot. And MacKenzie's opinion may not be law, but it certainly holds a lot of weight. Glad we can share our differences of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Dec 24, 2020 10:15:49 GMT -5
joegolferg b101Saw the reference to links golf. Having not played any outside of a video game wondering if you could answer. I get the bunkers fitting in where the land would call for it. Wouldn't that be obvious from the shot though? Wouldn't you be able to tell where a low point, or depression in the land would be? Not seeing the bunker and not knowing where it is are 2 different things correct? Just curious because I've been researching links courses and finding pictures from a golfer's perspective is frustratingly difficult.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Dec 24, 2020 10:41:25 GMT -5
joegolferg b101Saw the reference to links golf. Having not played any outside of a video game wondering if you could answer. I get the bunkers fitting in where the land would call for it. Wouldn't that be obvious from the shot though? Wouldn't you be able to tell where a low point, or depression in the land would be? Not seeing the bunker and not knowing where it is are 2 different things correct? Just curious because I've been researching links courses and finding pictures from a golfer's perspective is frustratingly difficult. Generally yes, you can tell, but not always. There are sometimes little pots behind a green that you can’t see until you’re in it. It is still rare that there are any directly in the landing zone (I.e. middle of the fairway) that are blind though.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Dec 24, 2020 10:53:33 GMT -5
Again though, the Old Course tends to be the exception. If I remember rightly from Spirit of St Andrews, Hell and Perdition are blind on the Long from the golfer’s perspective when playing their seconds. Doubtless some others too. PithyDoctorG might know more - I know he researched a ton for St Cyrus
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 24, 2020 11:27:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 24, 2020 11:38:24 GMT -5
Only discussing rejected course particulars in PMs anymore, Ben, but happily will engage there with anyone on it. It's not like I'm redoing it and creating a duplicate on the servers.
Should I start a WIP thread ever, I invite feedback on specific things that players might find unsatisfactory, be they issues of achieving an 'accept' again (I'm 6 for 8) or just personal taste, or just looking to razz me. Not quite there on my next one yet.
This is the 'how & why we think what we do' discussion, which has yielded some good stuff, imo.
|
|
|
Post by meyo on Dec 24, 2020 14:53:19 GMT -5
This thread is like the fight went from inside the bar to the outside, very entertaining .....
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 24, 2020 15:05:03 GMT -5
Don't know what you're seeing, and, well, nobody's forced to click on this thread I created, now are they ?
Maybe I should rename this thread 'open forum with Bobaloo' ?
I'm staying polite, and not mentioning any members or their courses by name, which SHOULD be keeping everyone happy.
Some of us (grovey, joeg) have just been chatting this whole time. Feel free to join in, ProBoards doesn't charge by the post, do they ?
By reading some of the links, I ended up at a nice article on A.W.Tillinghast. It has nothing to do with the "unseen hazard" topic, though, so it should be another thread about importance of Par 3s and/or making the greens the key. However, it is 'my' thread, & in an actual, face-to-face chat, we could artfully segue, to ... say ...
Not exactly about "invisible", but about bunkers.I think most of the explanation of strategy both for player & designer, is pretty obvious, though. I did like the visual examples, and ... THIS lauded hole was mentioned for it's Lion's Mouth at the green, but it has what seems from the clip to be a likely unseeable pothole bunker mid-fairway as well. Not sure, because it's a flyby ... would have to seek a teebox pic before I'd commit
See, once set on a research path, I tend to explore an awful lot of nooks & crannies besides the ones I was sent there for.
Hey, let's all thank the TGCTours staff for giving us a great diversion in a year that desperately needed some.
Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, whichever works best for ya !
... may Santa bring you the nextGen of whatever platform you prefer
<clean & apolitical punchline tag deleted for potential offensiveness to sensitive souls>
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Dec 24, 2020 15:43:54 GMT -5
In one final attempt to help you (but more importantly, anyone else reading this thread) before I give up for good... Blind bunkers is an interesting discussion, for sure. However, it's not what you need - you are looking for a way to legitimise poor sculpting:
I'll be muting the thread now. You won't watch or learn from any of these, but as both a teacher and a reviewer where 90% of the courses we have to reject include severe sculpting issues, I'm going to leave these here in the hope that maybe, MAYBE, you might want to work on the sculpting rather than claiming you intended said bunkers to be blind.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 24, 2020 16:08:05 GMT -5
"However, it's not what you need - you are looking for a way to legitimise poor sculpting:" sez b101
He is absolutely right in both parts, as they are both his opinion. He is NOT really entitled to jump into a thread & presume the second without me saying he's wrong in that opinion. I didn't start this thread to be psychoanalyzed by Ben every few posts.
I AM sorry for responding to his intrusion, and I hope his links help whoever goes to them.
While I am at it, many, many thanks for CrazyCanuck (who's channel I really like, BTW) for creating the videos, good stuff and he's a got a nice way of explaing what he's doing. I don't believe I've ever said otherwise ...
I am not sure whose clip that last one is, TBH, but thanks to all content creators !!
Can we now get back to discussions that don't concern Ben's rejections ... my apologies to all for the interruption.
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Dec 24, 2020 16:50:29 GMT -5
I think what Ben is getting at is blind bunkers are fine if done with a purpose. 99 percent of the blindness that comes to the reviewers (and I'm not talking about your course specifically) is because the designer doesn't understand the tools. Usually if the bunkers are blind (again not your course specifically) they are also not well sculpted. When a shot or hazard is blind and looks like a mistake (not specifically your course) its because it is. It looks more like a mistake when other basics are missed. If scaling is all over the board (again not your course specifically) where greens are large and relatively flat on a somewhat closed in (not yours) course and bunkers are 40 yards long and 30 yards wide but fairways are 15 yards wide right next to it then its safe to assume the designer (not you) doesn't quite understand the basics. What I would recommend to anyone who's putting out courses (not yours) that are balancing on the approved tightrope is to watch canucks videos a lot. Once you understand that your bunkers and sightilines and green sculpting and scaling (not yours yours, just in general) is not up to par then you can build on that. Save blind shots and hazards until you get the basic concepts of design down (again not you specifically).
|
|