|
Post by axelvonfersen on Jan 26, 2021 2:25:40 GMT -5
Man, this really divided the community. I love links golf and thus blind shots. But fair play, not everyone likes it, but in that case, maybe links golf isn't for you.
I saw a user review for one of the nearby links courses that said "They had a double green which was disappointing. It's a shame they're only trying to save money and not build 18 different greens". So, everyone does indeed not get it.
If I play a links course, I would expect a few blind shots, evil bunkers, double greens and rock hard fairways. If I'd see these things on a parkland course, it'd be bewildered.
Even though one of my local courses plays up a 8 metre tall ridge where you have to use a pine tree as the aim marker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 4:16:47 GMT -5
Two things - Firstly, shorter hazards should have no place on a real (not virtual) golf course apart from creating visuals. 90% of your golf club carry the ball 200 yards or less off the tee. Putting hazards to challenge the slower swing speed player has always taken my head off because a) it's no fun for people who already find the difficult b) it slows down pace of play and c) maintenance costs. Good design should unnerve the better player to protect birdie, but should not hinder the bogey golfer. This is off topic, but I think I will respond: I have played with single digit hcp golfers with less than 200 yard carry with the driver. Good design challenge all golfers - and do not protect anything (the worst kind of design is the protect mentality) but punish bad shots to different degrees and rewards good shots. For example - a bunker can also be used to differentiate the penalty for different misses. Take a look at the 8th at Harbour Town Golf Links - you have water left, but next to the water is a bunker. This bunker keeps balls that just slightly misses left from going in the water, making it less of a penalty compared to a more severe miss in the water. Compare this to the same hole without the bunker but a bank where a slight miss may end up in the water. I have on countless occasions played behind slow swing speed golfers that are efficient and who play fast where there is no waiting. I have on countless occasions played with or behind good players that use 2-3 minutes pr. stroke - ages on the green - back and forth, laying down, back and forth - another view - perhaps 5 minutes to gauge that putt in a meanlingless non-competition round, that is far slower pace compared to the slower swing group. Fast pace on the course has very little to do with swing speed and skill level, but routine and efficient play. A good example of bad routine that needs to be weeded out early, is the new golfer that takes 4 practice strokes, aim, another 4 practice strokes, another aim, perhaps another practice stroke and another aim, and then almost miss the ball and the ball goes 10 yards forward. And the routine all over again. I like to say "if you are to hit a bad shot, do not use so much time on it - all this lengthy routine is not helping you hit a good stroke".
|
|
|
Post by wildy33 on Jan 26, 2021 6:31:19 GMT -5
Two things - Firstly, shorter hazards should have no place on a real (not virtual) golf course apart from creating visuals. 90% of your golf club carry the ball 200 yards or less off the tee. Putting hazards to challenge the slower swing speed player has always taken my head off because a) it's no fun for people who already find the difficult b) it slows down pace of play and c) maintenance costs. I’m going to respectfully disagree here on one clear proviso: Hazards should be placed to challenge a player, not punish them for an already poor shot. Hence why awful muni courses with bunkers down both sides of a fairway to ‘punish the mishit drive’ are just that, awful. That caveat of strategic vs penal architecture aside... Say I do carry my driver 200 yards. Do I get no thrill from challenging strategically placed hazards and just play up the middle of wide open fairway every time? Because 18 holes of that will be really dull. Caveat number two: in this scenario, I would argue the golfer is playing off the wrong tees, but the point stands - you need a variety of hazard distances to ensure that every player is challenged. In the game, we KNOW everyone carries driver between 280-295, so hazards will be focused around those locations (and more likely around 295). Whereas in real life, average driving distance of amateurs is 216 yards and PGA pros 290... A far greater spread requiring a far greater range of hazards. Again, tee choice is by far the most cost-effective and easiest way of managing this scenario, but you still don’t want the short hitter bored and only challenged by having to hit longer shots into greens. Second example: a short par four of c. 300 yards will often have some hazards around 200 yards or the layup is basically a no brainer. This way, it may make you think about second shot distance. Because then the question could move from ‘can I carry this bunker?’ to ‘should I carry this bunker?’. Think of how uncomfortable people can be playing a partial wedge in real life and I think that goes to explain this particular example. Third example which I think you’ve alluded to is the visual hazard. Example is the 6th at St Enodoc - there’s this massive crater bunker to carry that will be intimidating, even if technological advances have taken it out of play. A better example might be the 4th at Royal St George’s, as into the wind, that one can be in play. I guess the point about technology is the final one. Sometimes bunkers are just there because they always have been and as the game evolves, their function changes (or is lost(. Not saying you’re wrong by the way - penalising the short hitter by bunkering heavily at a 220 yard landing zone whilst allowing the longer hitters free carries is something I would totally disagree with. But hazards at shorter distances do have their place, in my opinion. Very fair point and completely agree, I've made a sweeping statement there! I guess I disagree more with the Sawgrass type courses where the hazard is unavoidable unless you hit an excellent shot. Perhaps the cross hazard is my gripe! Do you think challenging directional hitting at 200 yards or challenging angles is a fairer test? We have two 170 yard Carry's over water at my home track which results in the ladies section refusing to play a medal. I am big fan of multiple tee boxes including the ones at the beginning of fairways for juniors though which mitigates but there becomes a point when the experience in muted. The 4th at St George's is one of my favourites. The big boys can confidently nudge it over the dune but the shorter hitters have the option of bailing out left, sacrificing their second shot with a poor angle. What bugs me a bit however is if your 28 handicapper knocks it in the Himalaya, it's a pick up and walk on or you get "I've paid my green fee so I'm finishing the hole" which is synonymous with 5 hour rounds. I'm always torn about this issue as there has to be an advantage to hitting it long but the large majority of the golfing public don't do that. How do you make it fun and fair for all? We'll see if anyone cracks it in the next 300 years 😂
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 26, 2021 6:44:30 GMT -5
I’m going to respectfully disagree here on one clear proviso: Hazards should be placed to challenge a player, not punish them for an already poor shot. Hence why awful muni courses with bunkers down both sides of a fairway to ‘punish the mishit drive’ are just that, awful. That caveat of strategic vs penal architecture aside... Say I do carry my driver 200 yards. Do I get no thrill from challenging strategically placed hazards and just play up the middle of wide open fairway every time? Because 18 holes of that will be really dull. Caveat number two: in this scenario, I would argue the golfer is playing off the wrong tees, but the point stands - you need a variety of hazard distances to ensure that every player is challenged. In the game, we KNOW everyone carries driver between 280-295, so hazards will be focused around those locations (and more likely around 295). Whereas in real life, average driving distance of amateurs is 216 yards and PGA pros 290... A far greater spread requiring a far greater range of hazards. Again, tee choice is by far the most cost-effective and easiest way of managing this scenario, but you still don’t want the short hitter bored and only challenged by having to hit longer shots into greens. Second example: a short par four of c. 300 yards will often have some hazards around 200 yards or the layup is basically a no brainer. This way, it may make you think about second shot distance. Because then the question could move from ‘can I carry this bunker?’ to ‘should I carry this bunker?’. Think of how uncomfortable people can be playing a partial wedge in real life and I think that goes to explain this particular example. Third example which I think you’ve alluded to is the visual hazard. Example is the 6th at St Enodoc - there’s this massive crater bunker to carry that will be intimidating, even if technological advances have taken it out of play. A better example might be the 4th at Royal St George’s, as into the wind, that one can be in play. I guess the point about technology is the final one. Sometimes bunkers are just there because they always have been and as the game evolves, their function changes (or is lost(. Not saying you’re wrong by the way - penalising the short hitter by bunkering heavily at a 220 yard landing zone whilst allowing the longer hitters free carries is something I would totally disagree with. But hazards at shorter distances do have their place, in my opinion. Very fair point and completely agree, I've made a sweeping statement there! I guess I disagree more with the Sawgrass type courses where the hazard is unavoidable unless you hit an excellent shot. Perhaps the cross hazard is my gripe! Do you think challenging directional hitting at 200 yards or challenging angles is a fairer test? We have two 170 yard Carry's over water at my home track which results in the ladies section refusing to play a medal. I am big fan of multiple tee boxes including the ones at the beginning of fairways for juniors though which mitigates but there becomes a point when the experience in muted. The 4th at St George's is one of my favourites. The big boys can confidently nudge it over the dune but the shorter hitters have the option of bailing out left, sacrificing their second shot with a poor angle. What bugs me a bit however is if your 28 handicapper knocks it in the Himalaya, it's a pick up and walk on or you get "I've paid my green fee so I'm finishing the hole" which is synonymous with 5 hour rounds. I'm always torn about this issue as there has to be an advantage to hitting it long but the large majority of the golfing public don't do that. How do you make it fun and fair for all? We'll see if anyone cracks it in the next 300 years 😂 There's the odd course or hole where I think it works well, but generally, I'm not a fan of dead horizontal cross hazards or pure penal golf. Pine Valley's Hell's Half Acre is a possible exception here, but even then, I'd have to play it to be sure how I feel about potentially laying up to lay up again. Then again, that course is unashamed about what it's trying to do - it's the ultimate penal golf design and it's all about giving you tough shots to hit, or else. I prefer examples like the below - the 5th at Kingswood has some of the better cross-bunkering I can think of - it's the second shot on a par five, so it's automatically only really in play for certain golfers or if you've missed the fairway. But it's the diagonal nature of the bunkering that makes it work so well, as it gives you options as to where you play to, or even whether you can carry the hazard depending on where you choose to carry it. Turn the bunkering 45 degrees and it's so much less nuanced.
|
|
|
Post by wildy33 on Jan 26, 2021 7:08:37 GMT -5
Very fair point and completely agree, I've made a sweeping statement there! I guess I disagree more with the Sawgrass type courses where the hazard is unavoidable unless you hit an excellent shot. Perhaps the cross hazard is my gripe! Do you think challenging directional hitting at 200 yards or challenging angles is a fairer test? We have two 170 yard Carry's over water at my home track which results in the ladies section refusing to play a medal. I am big fan of multiple tee boxes including the ones at the beginning of fairways for juniors though which mitigates but there becomes a point when the experience in muted. The 4th at St George's is one of my favourites. The big boys can confidently nudge it over the dune but the shorter hitters have the option of bailing out left, sacrificing their second shot with a poor angle. What bugs me a bit however is if your 28 handicapper knocks it in the Himalaya, it's a pick up and walk on or you get "I've paid my green fee so I'm finishing the hole" which is synonymous with 5 hour rounds. I'm always torn about this issue as there has to be an advantage to hitting it long but the large majority of the golfing public don't do that. How do you make it fun and fair for all? We'll see if anyone cracks it in the next 300 years 😂 There's the odd course or hole where I think it works well, but generally, I'm not a fan of dead horizontal cross hazards or pure penal golf. Pine Valley's Hell's Half Acre is a possible exception here, but even then, I'd have to play it to be sure how I feel about potentially laying up to lay up again. Then again, that course is unashamed about what it's trying to do - it's the ultimate penal golf design and it's all about giving you tough shots to hit, or else. I prefer examples like the below - the 5th at Kingswood has some of the better cross-bunkering I can think of - it's the second shot on a par five, so it's automatically only really in play for certain golfers or if you've missed the fairway. But it's the diagonal nature of the bunkering that makes it work so well, as it gives you options as to where you play to, or even whether you can carry the hazard depending on where you choose to carry it. Turn the bunkering 45 degrees and it's so much less nuanced. Absolutely agreed! I take it all back. Maybe I'm swayed by playing many years of crappy courses on the local circuit. I'm going to throw something controversial out there however and I'm fully prepared to eat my words - I personally don't the 4th at Bethpage. I've never played it so my opinion doesn't hold much weight but I've always seen it through the eyes of the shorter hitters and how penal it would be. Yes, it's a championship golf course but I would argue that for a shorter hitter (that usually hit the ball very flat) would struggle to clear the cross bunkers unless they position the ball very close, not normally achieved by the tee shot. So I think it would be fair to say it would be a driver, mid iron, metal wood start to a hole just to avoid the trouble? Now of course that hole is an example of great strategic design for a long hitter but applying the same principles, it becomes a frustration rather than an enjoyable experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 8:24:47 GMT -5
I'm going to throw something controversial out there however and I'm fully prepared to eat my words - I personally don't the 4th at Bethpage. I've never played it so my opinion doesn't hold much weight but I've always seen it through the eyes of the shorter hitters and how penal it would be. Yes, it's a championship golf course but I would argue that for a shorter hitter (that usually hit the ball very flat) would struggle to clear the cross bunkers unless they position the ball very close, not normally achieved by the tee shot. So I think it would be fair to say it would be a driver, mid iron, metal wood start to a hole just to avoid the trouble? Now of course that hole is an example of great strategic design for a long hitter but applying the same principles, it becomes a frustration rather than an enjoyable experience. Bethpage Black is indeed a very tough course for every golfer, so if you play it - you are aware that the course will challenge you big time - and the score will usualy reflect that. That being said - fair and hard challenge is fun - and the course provide always a safe way, so I do not agree that the course is penal - but do punish bad shots and rewards good - which is how a good golf course should be. The 4th is a very good golf hole for every kind of golfer. If I remember correctly, the hole is uphill from tee to green, with kind of flat area beside the first left bunker. So it do play longer. The cross bunker do not really come into play for a long hitter, unless you miss into high rough, where you want to take the medicine and lay up short of the bunkers - which is a very good function - you punish a bad tee shot. For the slow swing speed - you need to look at it from the front tees. If you drive 200 yards, you have 120 yard across the gap - uphill, so you need to add 5-10 yard carry. Depending on the golfers carry and trajectory, this may indeed prove a challenge - but again, if you can do that, you can indeed reach the green in 3 which is great for a short hitter on a really hard par 5. So the cross bunkers provide punishment for the long hitter on very bad tee shots - and it provides a challenge for the shorter hitter. I would say this is a very good bunker.
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Jan 26, 2021 8:33:18 GMT -5
You make a good point here but Bethpage might be somewhat of an outlier in this specific situation I think. It's always promoted as one of the most difficult courses in the country and it even has a warning sign on the first tee telling you that this course is for highly skilled golfers (I admit that highly skilled and long hitting are not mutually exclusive though). I echo what Ben has said about playing from the proper tees and how important that is to get the best experience from a course but that really isn't much of an option on the Black course. Pretty much every shot on the course is difficult for someone who hits it less than 200yds but they also know what they are getting into before even teeing it up. I might be one of Bethpage's biggest fans but I would think twice about teeing it up if was a sub-200 hitter or if I was an 18 hdcp+. Either that or I would still play it but mentally prep myself for getting absolutely beat up! It's just one of those courses that doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it actually is. I guess my point is that I agree 100% with you that it's incredibly penal and therefore, not for everyone.
I have been fortunate enough to have played Bethpage six different times and I will say it's always an absolute blast.... but in a sadistic kind of way hahaha
|
|
|
Post by wildy33 on Jan 26, 2021 9:54:12 GMT -5
You make a good point here but Bethpage might be somewhat of an outlier in this specific situation I think. It's always promoted as one of the most difficult courses in the country and it even has a warning sign on the first tee telling you that this course is for highly skilled golfers (I admit that highly skilled and long hitting are not mutually exclusive though). I echo what Ben has said about playing from the proper tees and how important that is to get the best experience from a course but that really isn't much of an option on the Black course. Pretty much every shot on the course is difficult for someone who hits it less than 200yds but they also know what they are getting into before even teeing it up. I might be one of Bethpage's biggest fans but I would think twice about teeing it up if was a sub-200 hitter or if I was an 18 hdcp+. Either that or I would still play it but mentally prep myself for getting absolutely beat up! It's just one of those courses that doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it actually is. I guess my point is that I agree 100% with you that it's incredibly penal and therefore, not for everyone. I have been fortunate enough to have played Bethpage six different times and I will say it's always an absolute blast.... but in a sadistic kind of way hahaha Oh no doubt buddy! There's some courses out there you know you're going to get beaten up by and I would put that in the top 5. Definitely part of the thrill and if you walk off a couple of shots over, you've had a good day. Just to put another angle on it, the Sheep Ranch at Bandon without any bunkers is still an exceptional test of golf but still fair for the majority of golfers. Tee selection is massive and I think course managers should have a real look at breaking from the norm. I played a course in Portugal last year that don't have any tee colours but instead use the course yardages eg the front tees are "57's" referring to the 5700 yard course and so on. It removes the gender traditionally attached to each tee box and puts it down to you to choose the tees for your ability. I'm sure it's not the first to do this but I thought it was really cool!
|
|
|
Post by cd06 on Jan 26, 2021 10:26:25 GMT -5
Bit unrelated but I live quite near Kingswood and I'm interested to hear you mention it, Ben. Have you played it? Any good?
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 26, 2021 11:03:25 GMT -5
Bit unrelated but I live quite near Kingswood and I'm interested to hear you mention it, Ben. Have you played it? Any good? I really like it. I grew up in Surrey and for a (relatively) affordable parkland, you can't do much better round there. The bunkering is clever and there's some really fun holes in and amongst a few weaker ones, particularly the start-middle of the back nine - 10-15 is probably my favourite stretch. Definitely worth a round - I think I got summer twilight rates at £25 a few years back, which is a steal.
|
|
|
Post by Q on Jan 26, 2021 14:24:59 GMT -5
One of the courses I played as a kid was a funky short golf course that utilized some absolutely fantastic blind tee shots that makes me have a soft spot for them to this day. I suggest looking up the "Alps" template as that hole was based off that template. Another style of blind shot is the partial blind shot which works really well in this game! Pacific Grove uses a lot of this where there is a safe visible patch of fairway for layup off the tee but aiming at a blind landing zone to the right is the highest risk/reward. In my first course I decided to avoid blindness because it is hard to execute well, but generally as you get a better hang of course design you can start utilizing it more, so that's my advice for people new to the course designer. Learning how to make everything visible off the tee is a great way to develop your sculpting ability, play around with blindness more after you have the basics down first.
|
|
|
Post by mctrees02 on Jan 26, 2021 18:04:02 GMT -5
Yeah, it’s not an automatic rejection for one missed shot. If it’s a repeated thing then we will flag it and often point to the unintentional blindness as evidence of poor sculpting. That makes sense thanks for clarifying. Agreed one blind shot preventing approval would be a little tough. Are you talking about the course that got tour worthy with 4 or 5 blind tee shots in the first 10 holes and at least 2 blind approaches?
|
|
|
Post by blueblood1995 on Jan 26, 2021 19:31:34 GMT -5
That makes sense thanks for clarifying. Agreed one blind shot preventing approval would be a little tough. Are you talking about the course that got tour worthy with 4 or 5 blind tee shots in the first 10 holes and at least 2 blind approaches? Not 100% sure which course you're referring to but my query was based on x1 screen shot posted within a thread in the Completed Courses forum. If there are that many blind shots on a course then I guess the question needs to be asked again... how was the course approved?
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 27, 2021 2:24:22 GMT -5
Are you talking about the course that got tour worthy with 4 or 5 blind tee shots in the first 10 holes and at least 2 blind approaches? Not 100% sure which course you're referring to but my query was based on x1 screen shot posted within a thread in the Completed Courses forum. If there are that many blind shots on a course then I guess the question needs to be asked again... how was the course approved? To both yourself and McTrees, I don’t know the course in question, but this is simple: we don’t enter discussions on reviews. Additionally, if you had put time and effort into a course, got it accepted, then showed up to a thread with people slating it, how would you feel? Not saying that's what we're doing here, but worth bearing in mind. The reviewers know what they are doing - there will have been good reason for it being approved.
|
|
|
Post by golfwolfuk on Jan 27, 2021 8:48:45 GMT -5
I mean I read the first two pages and jumped straight here, so apologies if I’m way off topic, but just a simple note that all course design is subjective.. each to their own. Many different styles and philosophies.. if you don’t like blind tee shots then that’s fine, but to say that they are essentially wrong is kinda short sighted. As eluded to earlier.. that have there place in golf, much like the 500yd narrow straight away par 4’s on tour.. sadly
|
|