About Me
- Ian Andrew
- For the past 19 years, I have worked as a Golf Course Architect. In 2006, I opened my own design firm to build the courses that I think golf desperately needs built. Courses that have less earth-moving are less expensive to build and feature far more hand-made detailing to create something special. I am best known for my restoration work, particularly courses originally designed by Stanley Thompson and Walter Travis. I am member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects.
9 comments:
I have been encouraged to join SGCC by a friend and your involvement in the redevelopment has piqued my interest. The videos and the commentary are fantastic and I have purchased a couple of books (one by Geoff Shackelford and the other by Tom Doak) to get a better grasp on what you are trying to achieve. The new layout looks great and the theory behind your decisions makes it even more intersting. I look forward to more commentary.
Playing armchair archie from the contour video it looks like the pond is taken out of play with the bunkers. Also, the shot options look like (1) stick a 200 yarder or (2) bounce off the left mound.
Why not dump the bunkers and cut into the pond to bring water into play. By taking out the bunkers a shot to the middle of the green slightly short either bounces up and feeds onto the Redan or if too short ends up dead in the water.
Be kind. I realize it might make the hole too tough, but I'm just looking at the video.
I didn't mean cut into the pond, I meant increase the size of the pond by bringing it closer to the green.
Do we know Bill Kinnear never created a Redan? What part of Scotland did he come from...
Henrye - stick to your armchair. What Ian is trying to do is pull from a proven design and modify it to fit what the site has to offer. Personally, a 200-yd "all-or-nothing shot to a water front, fall-off back narrow, sideways green is way more than the average club member can or wants to handle day-in and day-out. What about the ladies, seniors, and juniors?
Evwn putting a couple of "saving" bunkers in won't help them much. Personally, I would add more "pinnable" green between the left bunker and the "kicker" mound. I see Ian has also elected to delete the rear bunker from behind the "kicker" mound. Probably because a of the water on the opposite side.
Anonymous: way to join me on the sofa. I qualified my comments and know there are likely good reasons for Ian's moves - I just was interested in hearing them and why my suggestion doesn't make sense. As for the 200 yards; remember that's the back tees, so I would expect only low handicappers to play off it. As you can likely see, from more forward tees the angle gets friendlier and hitting the green from 150 to 175 for a mid handicapper is certainly doable. Again, just my 2 cents from the sofa and it's nice to have company.
Henry,
The examples I have seen from Kinnear have the water set away from the green. I’m following the pattern. I also happen to detest par threes with water – and yes I have produced them in the past – I think it’s the most overused idea in golf. Bunkers are just as strategic without the finality of a two shot penalty for a miss. Recovery is a key component to an enjoyable course.
Robert,
Haven't seen one.
Thanks Ian for your comments.
off white nike
off white shoes
yeezy 500
goyard bags
off white t shirt
curry 8
fear of god
supreme t shirt
jordan outlet
off white hoodie
Post a Comment