3 hole Backyard course

First topic message reminder :

As poated by Pedro in another thread, Bale is building "replicas of Augusta National's 11th hole, "White Dogwood," TPC Sawgrass' iconic 17th island green, and the short Postage Stamp eighth hole at Royal Troon" in his back yard.  http://www.golfchannel.com/news/grill-room/soccer-star-build-replicas-iconic-golf-holes-backyard/


If you could build 3 replica holes in your garden what would they be?

Bob_the_Job wrote:I think the point S_R is making is the TOC is no longer that fantastic from an architecture perspective

This is not the case, in most modern architectural writing you will find references to inspiration still being drawn from TOC when new courses are designed.

Yes - very good Mac. Car designers are still drawing inspiration from the 1963 Porsche 911 but I wouldn't want to drive one every day (have you felt the clutch on one of those?).

But back to my point - firstly architecture like art, food and music will always be somewhat subjective, and whilst imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, those that have drawn inspiration from TOC have not simply replicated, implying that they've view it as flawed and feel they have produced a better/more modern version.

Whilst you keep talking about it in reverential terms as if it's some form of hallowed ground, you haven't actually said what makes it great (in your or anybody else's opinion).

I think with a couple of exceptions it's a bit bland, lacking in definition, very flat, with bunkering that's not really in play a lot of the time, and very little in the way of penalty for being really wayward. Some of the greens are massive which on one side of the coin means lots of variation in length and character, but the flip side of that is you can often putt from 20 yards short of long. I'm sure you think I'm wrong, but you've not done much to convince me that your view isn't just baseless dewy eyed sentimentality. Off the top of my head I can name 6 links course I think are better layouts than TOC which means I don't think it belongs in the modern classic category.

I'm happy to be corrected, and in fairness I've only played it once (and loved it.. because of the history).

McLaren wrote:

Bob_the_Job wrote:I think the point S_R is making is the TOC is no longer that fantastic from an architecture perspective

This is not the case, in most modern architectural writing you will find references to inspiration still being drawn from TOC when new courses are designed.

Mac, you could say the same for every council house development in the UK, they are all derivative, but that doesn't mean you'd want to live on one.

Let's take 8,9,10 for example and put them on a course in Skegness that was built in 1996.
How many people would give it a second look? How many people would fawn over the "architecture"? None. How many people would take inspiration from those holes and put them on other courses? None.

People copy it because it's St.Andrews, and it's a selling point, not because it's spectacular, not because the architecture is especially great, challenging or even aesthetically pleasing. It's simply the association with St. Andrews.

If someone can make a claim that it's "based on St.Andrews" or "based on Augusta" it's going to get more attention than "based on a drawing on the back of Bert's fag packet" isn't it?

Why do you think clubs make such a big deal of promoting they were designed by Braid, McKenzie etc? It doesn't make them good courses, it's simply an association with something, notably reputation.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

I think with a couple of exceptions it's a bit bland, lacking in definition, very flat, with bunkering that's not really in play a lot of the time, and very little in the way of penalty for being really wayward.  Some of the greens are massive which on one side of the coin means lots of variation in length and character, but the flip side of that is you can often putt from 20 yards short of long.

I'm happy to be corrected, and in fairness I've only played it once (and loved it.. because of the history).

You may think it has a lot of bunkers that are out of play, and it might seem like that when you watch the coverage of the Open from St Andrews on tv. But play it yourself, on a breezy day, and you'll find the bunkers are relevant and penal. There is trouble down the right of almost every hole, but there is a little bit more room than it might appear. Hit it far enough left and you might be ok - remember there are spotters for the Open - or you might never see it again.

Believe me, the Old Course is a real handful in anything more than a breeze, and off anything further back than the front tees.

It's flat, but links courses generally are. And, again, when you see the pins for the Open, a lot of possible pin positions are not used to keep things moving. But in normal play, the pins can be moved a long way left - near encroaching bunkers - and further back.

A lot of bunkers there, even with wind are simply irrelevant (Hell Bunker,  Shell Bunker for example). Furthermore, there is so much room out left, that you can get away with some terrible shots. You can play the entire course playing off a fairway that isn't yours and still be playing off the short stuff. Hardly genius design in my view.

All great discussion points, but not "3 holes in my back garden" stuff really. How about a "TOC" thread all of its own?

Super


"playing off a fairway that isn't yours"

What sloppy language. I would have thought a regular and local like yourself would have realised that the short grass is shared between holes. One of the design aspects most copied from TOC is width, and this arises due to the massive and often shared fairways.

Ahh, the Godwin's law of this forum, all topics revert back to the merits of TOC. Navy you should know this by now. I'll just slip in a mention of the Irish potato famine and sprinkle some religion on top and we have the full house.

Don't forget obesity and the john Terry, ray

The fundamentals of TOC are to golf what the constants of nature are to physics. It doesn't matter what you think about them, they are true and any theory not based on them is flawed.

You sounds like Deepak Chopra Mac Corbyn

Don't feed the trolls

Jack Nicklaus got into Hell bunker, and took 10 on that hole.

Maybe you play like Rory McIlroy - for everyone else Hell bunker is a real possibility.

I think I've been in most of the bunkers on the Old Course over the years - some of them are wind dependent, but I can't think of many that are really redundant.

Played it tons of times, never even been close to even flirting with Hell Bunker.

Very tough hole to hold green in 2 and often quite hard to reach in 2, but Hell Bunker doesn't even come into my thoughts.
Driver, 3 Wood takes care of it with ease. If you have 250 drive off the tee, you only have to carry 180 to carry the bunker, which is also not in direct line with the target. There's not reason to even go near it.

The more you play it, the fewer bunkers you go in, but then, that's the same for every course.

super_realist wrote:Played it tons of times, never even been close to even flirting with Hell Bunker.

Very tough hole to hold green in 2 and often quite hard to reach in 2, but Hell Bunker doesn't even come into my thoughts.
Driver, 3 Wood takes care of it with ease. If you have 250 drive off the tee, you only have to carry 180 to carry the bunker, which is also not in direct line with the target. There's not reason to even go near it.

The more you play it, the fewer bunkers you go in, but then, that's the same for every course.

So, out of the population of all golfers out there, how many can carry the ball more than 430 yards in two shots? Less than 10% I'd say.

And if you happen to stand on the 14th tee with an easterly wind blowing - forget about carrying Hell bunker (unless you are playing off the red tees of course...)

Super

I am a pretty long hitter for a club golfer (240 drives, 220 hybrid) and into the wind I certainly have to consider hell bunker.

Mac, you should carry it easily then.

What i'd be asking yourself though is why your driver is not as long as it should be.

If you can hit a hybrid 220 (presuming it's at least 16 deg), why aren't you hitting driver better?

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:Played it tons of times, never even been close to even flirting with Hell Bunker.

Very tough hole to hold green in 2 and often quite hard to reach in 2, but Hell Bunker doesn't even come into my thoughts.
Driver, 3 Wood takes care of it with ease. If you have 250 drive off the tee, you only have to carry 180 to carry the bunker, which is also not in direct line with the target. There's not reason to even go near it.

The more you play it, the fewer bunkers you go in, but then, that's the same for every course.

So, out of the population of all golfers out there, how many can carry the ball more than 430 yards in two shots? Less than 10% I'd say.

And if you happen to stand on the 14th tee with an easterly wind blowing - forget about carrying Hell bunker (unless you are playing off the red tees of course...)

An east wind doesn't hurt as much as you'd think on the orientation of the hole george, a SSE one would, but an Easterly doesn't really.

Having watched the Dunhill at Leopard Creek at the weekend, I would pick just one hole - the 13th ... as long as I can have the rest of the Kruger National Park as a backdrop with all the animals in it!

Fun topic ...

From courses I would like to play:

#16 at Cypress Point
#10 at Augusta
#6 at Muirfield

Of the holes I've played:

#16 at Merion East
#4 at Swinley Forest
#17 at Pine Valley