Debattforum

Men det er jo det jeg liker best og klarer best! ... Ikke sant yorkie ?!.

Er tildels enig med deg Stian, Losby er litt "snill" Nordwall design. Han bruker jo ofte bunkere i sikk-sakk mønster, går du over første på feil sted havner du i neste, f.eks hull 8 eller hull 15 på Kongsvinger, og på Losby synes jeg at fw bunkerne lagt litt langt ut til sidene. Mulig at han har tenkt på bunkerne som directional, men kan ikke helt se hvorfor, de fleste hullene er jo godt oversiktelige.

I forhold til ditt poeng, så er du enig med Dr. Alistair Mackenzie.
"The difficulties that make a hole really interesting are usually those in which a great advantage can be gained in successfully accomplishing heroic carries over hazards of an impressive appearance, or in taking great risk in placing a shot so as to gain a big advantage for the next. Successfully carrying or skirting a bunker of an alarming or impressive appearance is always a source of satisfaction to the golfer, and yet it is hazards of this description which so often give rise to criticism by the unsuccessful player. At first sight he looks upon it as grossly unfair that, of two shots within a few inches of each other, the one should be hopelessly buried in a bunker and the other should be in ideal position"

Nå skal det dog nevnes at Dr. Mackenzie også var av den oppfattning "it is often possible to make a hole sufficiently interesting with one or two bunkers at the most"

Akkurat hjemkommet fra Sverige, og spilte bla. Elisefarm, hvis det gleder deg å ha bunkere i spillelinjen bør du ta deg en tur dit. sønne-sønn Hawtree har gjort ett meget solid arbeid (selv om jeg synes ett par av hullene kanskje var litt vel "over the top", fw bunker på 180, 210 og 230, høyre, venstre, høyre og en fw stripe som bare var 4 meter bred er kanskje å ta i litt vel mye) Klarte å treffe 7 fw bunkere (og alle var typen flat inn og en fin bratt kolle bak), så det ble mye driver, pitching wedge og så innspill;) Dog skal det nevnes at alt jeg hadde var oversiktskartet på scorekortet (de var tomme for baneguider!) og på hull 3 tok batteriet på laseren kvelden....

Amici, linjalen hadde vært ett godt nick for deg, kort men rett;)

Det er vel ingen hemmelighet at jeg er veldig glad i designet på Miklagard, så det er ikke mye jeg ville endret.

Men et ønske måtte i så fall være å få rensket opp i grunnen i skogsområdene rundt hull 1, 9 og 18, slik at roughen aldri var høyere enn at man fant ballen og den var spillbar. A la Bogstad.

Ville også flyttet gul teeboks på hull 15 og rød teeboks på hull 13.

Sakset fra Bro hof CC sine hjemmesider om banedesignet:

"Searching is to be avoided. The roughs will be 5 cm high at the most, so that the balls can be found but are difficult to play. The water hazards are kept clean, so that you can easily see whether the ball is in or out of the water."

Tenk om man kunne klippe flere baner slik i Norge.
Men nei da. Her skal man helst traske rundt i lårhøy tjafserough mellom hullene, lete i våre 5 minutter før vi fortsetter på provoen....

Har du bommet fairway skal man i Norge ha minst straff for slag og distanse.

Akkurat som om golf ikke var vanskelig nok fra før....

Angående Losby og de fleste andre nordwall-baner jeg har spilt at det er greenbunkringen som er det største "problemet". Jeg synes de ligger på en rar halvdistanse og burde vært klemt mye mer opp i greenene jmfr Miklagard, Holtsmark og Atlungstad.

På Miklagard er jeg enig med GB, jeg skulle ønske å få fjernet 70% av trærne på hull 1, 9 og 18 og få gjort skogbunnen spillbar og klippbar.

Fjerne de støgge 150 meters pinnene, og ordentlig sand i bunkerne selvfølgelig. Og trærne bak green på hull 17 må bort, de har ingen funksjon annet enn at jo større de blir dess mer vil de skygge for en green som allerede er litt vanskelig å få bra. Ellers er jeg særdeles fornøyd.

stemmer i med Fulland`s betraktninger. Skulle gjerne ønske at norske baner ikke lot roughen vokse til å bli 50-100cm høy. Og at de lager litt mer generøse greenområder,rydd vekk skog og buskas,la heller en rough på 5cm bli tett og fin,det er vanskelig nok.

På min egen bane skulle jeg gjerne sett at man ikke lar roughen mellom hull 17 og 2 bli meterhøy,det er helt unødvendig. De som vil prøve og drive greenen på 17 blir straffet nok selv om roughen er 5-10cm høy og saftig. Nå blir det bare uendelig mye tid på leting uti "guffa"

This is a very interesting thread and is still "sakelig" :-)

Regarding the fariway bunkering of Nordwall at Losby. The fairways have been made thinner and thinner over the years to try and make the course tougher. This has now been changed and the fairways will be getting wider and wider so that bunkering is "in play" and not just out in the rough.

Peter designed Losby to have wide fairways and it was the administration that started to cut the fairways smaller. The fairways were kept wide for the Nordea tour and the winning score was -9 which is perfect and proves that wide fairways can still put players in difficulties. The Old Course is another example of wide fairways.

Central bunkering is a superb design but can only be done if you can make sure that there is enough space on both sides of the bunker for it to be viable. Central bunkering is only classed as so when there is a landing area on either side of the bunkering. I might be wrong but I cannot remember is Miklagard has any of that.

The reason central bunkering is not used very much in modern design is that often the good golfer feels it is unfair to have a bunker in the middle of what he classes the "perfect" line and also it requires a much larger piece of ground to ensure fair landing area either side of the bunker that fairway just on one side of the bunker such as on the inside of a dogleg.

I have to agree about the greenside bunkering at Losby it is quite a way back from the greens making many of the shots difficult especially in height change and I am not sure why. I will ask him in an email next week.

I would not really call the bunkering at Miklagard central bunkering but bunkers that can be carried and the designer (Bruce Charlton) and the administration have made sure that there is FAIRWAY after and around the bunker. I have many discussions with Greenkeepers about this. If a bunker is on a diagonal line and someone who is long enough and straight enough to carry the bunker why should they be punished for doing so by landing in rough behind the bunker?

A poor example of rough behind bunkers is the 7th at my home club Evje. The bunkering is perfectly placed on the dogleg but if you just carry the bunkering you land in rough. The same happens on the 11th...is this fair?

Simen,

What you are talking about is the what we architects call the "Augusta" effect. All clubs can achieve the look of Augusta or Bro Hof but it costs ridiculous amounts of money. We cannot afford that in Norway because members are not willing to pay high prices for golf in Norway.

It all comes down to maintenance costs and there are not many clubs in Norway that have members willing to pay over 10 000 NOK a year.

It is also very important to make sure that the seed used in the rough is the correct type and that the soil is not too rich in nutrients. This is also not very easy in Norway where clayey type soil holds water and nutrients very well.

To finish, for me there is no such thing as "the perfect" line as one line for me might be totally different for someone else. So, there really is no such thing as an unfair bunker especially if you know it is there.

Good golfing!

Brian Phillips
Niblick Golf Design

Brian,

I'm not saying that all norvegian courses can be like Augusta, but there are things that can be done that doesn't cost much.

In my club Hakadal for instance we had killer rough, knee deep originally between holes 1 and 9.

People spend alot of time searching for their balls.
A coupple of years ago the club decided that this caused to many delays off the first tee.

To solve this they cut the rough from knee deep to standard rough hight, and planted trees between the holes.

The result beeing that if you land there now you find your ball imediatly but you get a penalty. That penalty is a more difficult second shot. You must hit it from rough and you might get trees in you line and need to shape your shots to reach the green, or even get forced to lay up.

After they did this there is hardly any waiting off of tee number one and you get a penalty in increased difficulty if you miss the fairway to the left.

That is a good solution.

Extra cost for the club?
15 more minutes of rough cutting a coupple of times a week.

The added bonus is happy colfers that spend less time searching and more time playing. Meaning they have more fun and are more inclined to stay a member og come back as a greenfee guest...

The same was done to another problem area between holes 13 and 17.

And if I have my way it will be done to the rest of "our" smaler problem areas aswell.

Veldig interessant å lese dine betraktninger, Brian.

Når det gjelder roughgress, så skjønner jeg at det er vanskelig og kostbart å få endret dette til "riktig" type, som vokser såpass tynt at du ser ballen når den ligger på bunnen.

Men jeg skjønner ikke hvorfor billigløsningen til simen fulland, altså bare klippe roughen ned til ca 10 cm, skal være så kostbart. Er det noe jeg misforstår her?

Hello guys,

Keeping rough down to 5cm takes a lot of work rather letting it grow to 30cm or more, because you have mow it more often. 30cm might be once a month (all day) whereas 5cm might be once a week (all day).

If you want rough to be playable it normally has to be either down to 5cm or very wispy and thin.

If you want rough down in height that of 5cm or 10cm then you will have to mow it quite often especially in a wet warm summer. This costs money no matter how cheaply you do it.

I am not against short rough (I prefer wispy rough) but the more you mow a grass, often the thicker it will get and more you will need to mow to make sure it stays down. This again costs money it is a choice. Where do you want your men working?

I would prefer try to get the course as wide as you can with the fairways and you will not need to plant trees to speed up play.

Planting trees can solve a problem but it can eventually cause major problems for your turf on the fairway in the long run especially if your fairways do not run South to North. They can create shade and air problems so clubs should be careful about planting alongside fairways especially if they run East to West.

My tip to anyone planting trees at their club. Plant in 1, 3, 5 , 7 ,9 bunches or irregular lines etc. Never plant in whole numbers as it does not look right and also ensure that the spacing is NEVER the same.

You can follow me on twitter for lots of design tips.

www.twitter.com/golfdesign

Cheers,

Brian Phillips
Niblick Golf Design

På hull 2 på Miklagard er det fairway på begge sider av bunker, men rlugh i bakken på baksiden sett fra tee. I tillegg er det mange andre hull der du kan slå over bunkere for å komme fairway. Det er en av mange årsaker til at jeg liker Miklagards design.

Resurrected,
"Og trærne bak green på hull 17 må bort, de har ingen funksjon "
Mmm. innspill til en opphøyet blind green rett mot horisont.
Kan det være mulig at de er tenkt som ett hint for retning og også for å gjøre avstandsbedømmelse lettere?

I do see the element of cost in mowing the rough, however there is the element of playability for all players to be considered.

I played Ljunghusen recently with three high handicap players, and it was a bit painful to watch their frustration. They must have lost at least 10 balls each as the rought there are severely penal, that said, mowing the rough there is not an option as it is thick heather and a fairly central element in the character of the course. To these players the course was almost unplayable.

Ideal rough in my opinion is either short but very thick, or long and wispy. You find the ball easily, but, the stray shot most likely cost you a stroke.

Ljunghusen er brutal til tider ja,der har man også den "lyng-aktige" roughen som gjemmer ballen,eller som slynger seg rundt ballen og gjør det umulig å slå ut. Det er ikke en bane for hvem som helst nei. Men som du sier,det er en naturlig del av landskapet der og skiller seg derfor ganske mye fra den typiske norske bane

Takker for interresant lesestoff vedrørende Losby Brian. Fint å kjenne til de opprinnelige tankene bak banen, og hva som eventuelt fungerer og ikke fungerer.

Punktet rundt "greenside" bunkerene som ligger langt unna ser jeg, men inntil videre ser jeg svake slag fra disse som et resultat av manglende peiling på å spille fra disse bunkerne, men det kommer seg.

Og ser selskapet ditt er igang med redesign av hull 1 ( på tide!). Da vil jeg tipse om at hull 13 kan bli vesentlig bedre om man flytter bunkeren som ligger bak greenen(som sjeldent er i spill) til venstresiden. Da har man ett skikkelig tøft par3 hull :)

(og som en drømmetanke, lage fairway på de små øyene til høyre på hull 15, det ville blitt en strategisk perle, pluss det hadde sett seriøst lekkert ut!)

Generelt ønsker jeg at det ikke er blinde utslag eller innspill. Det er dårligere design enn at det er vanskelige bunkere som passer greenene.
Greit at noen baner er mesterskapsbaner og er kanskje tilpasset spillere under 10-15 i hcp., men noen 18 hulls baner bør også tilpasses oss med høyere hcp.
Det er spesielt banenes lengder vi sliter med. Ikke minst andre slaget som vi ikke får til å sitte på greenene på ett par fire hull.

Dessuten er omtrent alle banene i Norge for lange fra rød tee ett i forhold til gul tee. Grunnen til det er at de fleste kvinnene slår betydelig kortere enn mennene og må trille ballen inn på greenen. Der ligger ofte en greenbunker som er tøffere å trille forbi enn å løfte over. Ut fra det er veldig mange baner vanskeligere å spille for damene enn herrene.

vedr. lengde rød/gul. Interessant artikkel i Svensk golf

http://www.e-magin.se/v5/viewer/files/viewer_s.aspx?gIssue=8&gTitle=&gYear=2009&gKey=ss2vmvx3&gAvailWidth=1014&gAvailHeight=733&gInitPage=3&gHotspot=0

Side 36-40

I have now spoken to Peter Nordwall and the reason for the increased distance from bunker to green on his greenside bunkers is due to the fact that about 4 metres was the distance needed or wanted by Greenkeepers at that time to be able to mow easily.

By placing the bunkers that distance it was easier for the Greenkeeper to mow in between the green and the bunker without having to use specialised equipment and it probably saved time as well in the maintenance.

Brian,

Just wondering what you would prefer to do if you got 1-3 options to change anything on Stavanger GK?

Personally (especially with the current great conditions) I have been struggling to find anything to put the finger on, except maybe hole 9 which is a bit straight foreward. Maybe a fairway bunker could be a bit more scary? Elsewhere, natural hazards which causes punishment but no lost balls reduce the need for fairway bunkers, and the greenside bunkers are strategically well placed in my opinion.

Regarding rough, all at SGK is cut at 5-7 cm, leaving balls to be found anywhere on the course, but punishing in the tight grass. It must be a massive mowing job, especially between the trees, but the intimity of the course reduce the area to cut.

Some of the bunkering on Losby is indeed alittle off, like hole 1, 3 and 18 where you have a too-difficult distance in my opinion. The maintenence argument holds water if the distane was indeed minimum 4 meters.

Whats the story on the remodeling of the green on hole 1 regarding bunkering ?

Bare som en sidenotis. Det er faktisk ikke rett sør som er den viktigste retningen for gress å få sol fra, men mer sør-øst/sør-sør-øst, med andre ord formiddagssolen. Solen etter "lunsj" er ikke i det hele tatt så viktig for gresset vekst som før "lunsj"... For å slippe dårlig vekst på fairway pga skygge bør da hullene egentlig ikke gå nord-sør men et eller annet sted mellom sør-øst til nord-vest, eller jaja sør-sør-øst til nord-nord-vest ;)