Jump to content


 

Photo

Ellerston


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#46 andigold

andigold

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 653 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 06:26 AM

QUOTE: vman @ Jan 1 2007, 09:45 PM

I am glad you mentioned these other short holes. Funnily enough, I considered RMW #7 and Kingston Heath #15 when I wrote my last post.

KH #15, in particular, has an enourmous amount of sand, possibly more than any other par three I have played. But the difference is that the bunkers there were cut out of the sandy ground and appear almost natural. They look like they have been there since white man first stepped foot onto the land.

As you mentioned, Ellerston does not have this luxury. IMO, courses such as these should have a minimalistic approach to bunkering. The less, the better. If one or two bunkers do the job, why would you want five or six when they dont sit naturally in the landscape?

I must confess that I do not like Norman's bunker designs Many of his golf courses look more like fun parks. Holes 13 and 14 in Alex's last post look particularly awful.

The setting of the 13th green looks fantastic with the native rocks set into the hill behind the green but what is with all the bunkers short right? The one, or possibly two, closest to the pin are ample. The two short bunkers and the one furthest right do not appear to serve any strategic purpose other than to catch horrendously short or wide shots and in the later instance I think I would prefer to catch the wide bunker than bound off the hill to who knows where.

And what can I say about the 14th? What a beautiful setting for a golf hole. I imagine it is breath taking standing on that tee. What a shame you have to look out over all those hideous bunkers. Again, what strategic purpose do the two left bunkers or even the shortest right bunker serve? I would fill in the two on the left as well as the 1st, 2nd and possibly 4th bunker on the right.

Mick

Good post Mick.

In looking over the pics and considering some of your comments to my last post in this thread this is a pretty good summation of the 'style' of Ellerston.

Why did Norman do this? Is it just his look (blue steel smile.gif). You'd think he has been around golf long enough to realise how it would look and that maybe he could have put a line through a bunker or 2 that served no purpose. Or is it simply the pressure applied by the client for what he thinks the course should look like.

I think it looks fun to play (and I'd share the driving if you get 2 invites smile.gif) but the bunkering is excessive and it does seem an opportunity lost on the 14th.



#47 porkchop

porkchop

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 08:17 AM

QUOTE: andigold @ Jan 6 2007, 02:33 PM

So what would you have done differently Porkchop?

Why does it matter SO much that it's obviously a golf course?

I'd like to thank VMan for the above post, because he pretty much said what I don't have time to type.

What irks me is designers that talk about working with the land, blah blah and then nuild bunkers that simply don't fit the landscape. From http://www.shark.com/gngcd/gngcd/design_philosophy.php - ""We begin each new golf course design with a least-disturbance approach. Our design team puts a lot of time and effort into finding the most desirable natural features of a site and incorporates them into the routing. Streams, rock features, vegetation and undulating topography are a few natural elements that can provide a golf course with its own unique feel when incorporated into the playing experience. The simplicity of this least-disturbance approach allows us to create a natural, stand-alone golfing experience unique to its own part of the world at a fraction of the cost of many of today's elaborately recreated courses."

It sounds warm and fuzzy, and the bunkering at Ellerston appears from the pictures very disappointing especially following what I think was a great effort with the bunkering at the National.

It doesn't matter that it is so obviously a golf course. I think there is potential for creating interesting courses at odds with nature. Just don't pretend they are otherwise. Courses by Muirhead, Strantz and Pete Dye (PGA West?) might fit the bill, but I've never played them.



#48 Alex the Great

Alex the Great

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 08:55 AM

QUOTE: porkchop @ Jan 8 2007, 09:17 PM

I'd like to thank VMan for the above post, because he pretty much said what I don't have time to type.

What irks me is designers that talk about working with the land, blah blah and then nuild bunkers that simply don't fit the landscape...

It doesn't matter that it is so obviously a golf course. I think there is potential for creating interesting courses at odds with nature. Just don't pretend they are otherwise. Courses by Muirhead, Strantz and Pete Dye (PGA West?) might fit the bill, but I've never played them.

I remember seeing quite a few pics of Kerry driving around on a quad bike while the course was under construction. He obviously had a big say in what he wanted. If you are paying the freight ( and the bridges alone cost $5 mill) I think you can dictate what colour sand goes in the bunkers.

I didn't think the bunkering out of order, although I can see a couple in the pics that could be seen as excessive.

Cheers



#49 drew74

drew74

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2270 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 11:54 PM

Im not big into golf course architecture and routing etc.
I think the course looks great and is built as a mans fantasy!
Wouldn't we all love to build our own course, exactly the way we wanted without having to answer to anyone.
It is unnatural looking against its background, but what part of a man having a course built for himself and guests is natural!
I think most of us mere mortals would love to be invited up to Ellerston!



#50 ParMaster

ParMaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts

Posted 17 January 2007 - 05:12 AM

Hey ATG how bout we have an ISG day there. rolleyes.gif



#51 Art Vanderley

Art Vanderley

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 11 April 2007 - 09:05 PM

QUOTE: vman @ Jan 1 2007, 10:05 PM

I was inferring that the extra bunkers lacked strategic value.

I don't really care about the colour of the sand. All I meant that the white sand looked stark and out of place in a bushland criticism.
I didn't say this at all. Many great short holes with small greens have ample bunkering.

But don't just design a small green and surround it with bunkers on all sides and call it a great hole because of its difficulty. Any idiot can do that.

Mick

Kind of hard to keep the course and sand in context with the surroundings in the middle of one of the biggest droughts in history. I wonder if some shots were taken when the hills around the course were lush if there would be the same level of criticism (for criticism's sake).



#52 wedge

wedge

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 239 posts

Posted 19 April 2007 - 06:41 PM

love it, looks like so much fun to play






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users