For those who have Foxtel take a good look @ Walton Heath this weekend (British Masters)
What an amazing golf course
For those who have Foxtel take a good look @ Walton Heath this weekend (British Masters)
What an amazing golf course
Having rough doesn't make something penal though. I didn't see all the holes, but the 4 I watched had some great variety. It's actually great to see what appears to be a strategic style course still have some punishing rough for the really wayward shots. US Tour could learn a thing there.
Chopperlink
WITB
Cobra Speedzone::Cobra Speedzone Tour 3 wood, Cobra F6 5 wood: Mizuno H4's, :Mizuno 50, Mizuno MP 56 and 60*:TM Works #7
AndyC will always be my AndyB(unny)
Last edited by WBennett; 12th October 2018 at 12:57 PM.
Chopperlink
WITB
Cobra Speedzone::Cobra Speedzone Tour 3 wood, Cobra F6 5 wood: Mizuno H4's, :Mizuno 50, Mizuno MP 56 and 60*:TM Works #7
AndyC will always be my AndyB(unny)
Victoria GC has a bit of heather in places, once again quite playable despite its appearance, got stuck in a fair bit of it during my only round there.
There are a few sites in SA that would make incredible heath land courses, Millicent is one of them
Edit: actually come to think of it Blackwood would be awesome covered in heather
Last edited by thecollective; 12th October 2018 at 01:02 PM.
For those interested in this topic - whichever side you're on - this is a really interesting piece that popped up on Twitter this morning. It's long, but well worth it. https://rotgblog.wordpress.com/2018/...nament-venues/
Good read.
spasticrap
Sim 2 Max / PRGR
3W 7W 4H - Sim 2 Max
Miura 57 CBs - ADDI
Odessey #7
Thanks Rod. That was a great read.
Golflink
WITB
Ping G400 SFT 12* Accra ST55 Tour Z M5
Srixon Z355 17* FW Miyazaki Jinsoku S
RBZ Black 3 HY 19* Rocketfuel 65S
Srixon Zu65 3 20* Nippon NS Pro 980GH
Srixon Z765 S300 4-PW
Tourstage X Wedge 54/10, 58/12
Taylormade Spider Tour Red CS 35"
No worries gents, there are some big and important questions facing the professional game, and the game more broadly, and Garrett does a really good job of laying out many of the issues. The more golfers think about this stuff, no matter which side of the ball and/or course debate you come down on, the better the game will be.
I agree. It’s all well and good to be thinking about and discussing these issues publicly and Michael Clayton et al does a fantastic job of keeping it in focus BUT it is all for nought when the governing bodies aren’t willing to acknowledge that there may be an issue.
The release of their so-called distance report only further highlighted their unwillingness to accept and address the potential for problems.
They know there is a problem and my gut feeling is they want do something about it. The real problem for them is that the ball/club business is worth enormous sums and the likelihood is that at least some of the manufacturers are likely to take legal action against any changes that reduce distance. Many will say who cares? but the question for the USGA and R&A is whether that is in the best interests of the game. I don't think it would be, it could get very messy very quickly and that sort of division has rarely ended up being good for any sport. Their only real hope will be a negotiated settlement that involves the Tours and the manufacturers and results in seperate equipment rules for professional play. And while I take your point about the likes of Clayts, Shackelford and others it is the constant pressure they have applied which is slowly leading us to a resolution (hopefully).
Yeah fingers crossed.
So has there been enough evidence provided yet as to why LGN #1 is a penal design?
Golf course design is like any other kind if design. It is too dependant on opinion or a subjective point of view to be as black and white as you say it is.
That's all I've been trying to say. Not that LGN isn't "penal" or whatever you want to call it. There are too many variables for it or any other golf course to be put in such distinct boxes. There's more to it than that, in my opinion of course.
I don't think there are that many variables as you make out. I understand that aren't measurable metrics to punch into a formula to get a result. But by the same token - it's not that hard to look at a hole, try and remove your biases, and ask yourself the questions that the definitions of golf design make you ask, and have a pretty good chance of defining a hole. There aren't that many things that need to be assessed.
I understand too that some holes/courses won't be that obvious, and will fall into the opinion realm from here, and that's fine. But at the same time, many holes/courses fall quickly into one of the categories too. You can't dismiss this either by saying the whole scope of golf architecture is opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)