Comments on: Q&A with Golf Course Architect Doug Carrick http://www.thewalkinggolfer.com/doug_carrick_q_a.html The Walking Golfer is a website dedicated to providing information about the many benefits of walking when you golf, which is how the game was intended to be played. If you are a passionate walking golfer then please consider joining the growing membership of The Walking Golfers Society. Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:58:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v= hourly 1 By: Mike Laverack http://www.thewalkinggolfer.com/doug_carrick_q_a.html/comment-page-1#comment-3854 Mike Laverack Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:09:32 +0000 http://www.thewalkinggolfer.com/?p=129#comment-3854 I have followed this site for several months and find it very interesting although I play most of my golf in the UK in summer and South Africa in winter. We have just under gone a 7 hole alteration to our home course. The first hole is a par 4 hole at 472 yards in length on fairly flat terrain. However, the architect has has positioned two cross bunkers 30 yards from the front of the putting green, making an approach for most club golfers impossible via the front apron. The ball has to be flown over these bunkers to land on the green. Most golf architects books I have read seem to recommend that on a long par 4 there should always have entry to the green via a running approach (long iron) shot through an opening to the front of the green with bunkers probably either side to collect the errant approach shot. However, in our case we have no possibility for this shot but the architect has placed a bail out area to the right of these bunkers similar to what you now find on a long par 5 hole. This philosophy seems to be at odds with most golf architects views on long par 4 holes. The average members have great difficulty with this hole and play it as a par 5 which is a great shame for an opening hole. I would be interested to here Doug's views on this. Incidentally I have played "The Carrick" and stayed in the hotel. I will go back as it was a fantastic experience, I am a 5 handicap walking golfer and always walk unless forced into a cart. I have followed this site for several months and find it very interesting although I play most of my golf in the UK in summer and South Africa in winter. We have just under gone a 7 hole alteration to our home course. The first hole is a par 4 hole at 472 yards in length on fairly flat terrain. However, the architect has has positioned two cross bunkers 30 yards from the front of the putting green, making an approach for most club golfers impossible via the front apron. The ball has to be flown over these bunkers to land on the green. Most golf architects books I have read seem to recommend that on a long par 4 there should always have entry to the green via a running approach (long iron) shot through an opening to the front of the green with bunkers probably either side to collect the errant approach shot.

However, in our case we have no possibility for this shot but the architect has placed a bail out area to the right of these bunkers similar to what you now find on a long par 5 hole. This philosophy seems to be at odds with most golf architects views on long par 4 holes. The average members have great difficulty with this hole and play it as a par 5 which is a great shame for an opening hole.

I would be interested to here Doug’s views on this. Incidentally I have played “The Carrick” and stayed in the hotel. I will go back as it was a fantastic experience, I am a 5 handicap walking golfer and always walk unless forced into a cart.

]]> By: N. Thomas http://www.thewalkinggolfer.com/doug_carrick_q_a.html/comment-page-1#comment-1149 N. Thomas Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:07:41 +0000 http://www.thewalkinggolfer.com/?p=129#comment-1149 Enjoyed reading your article on design. Brings me to a question about balance of par 3/4/5 holes. It seems to me that Stanley Thompson designs had more variety in the balance of these three types. I have not played even half of his designs, but I have played on some that have 6/6/6 balance of the par 3/4/5 respectively, and have gone through 6 holes without even playing a par 4. But it seems that all current designs seem to favour a balance of 4/10/4. Thompson was constrained with a lack of horsepower to create designs, but now with more HP available, it seems that we get less creative in balancing types of holes. What constraints do you face in balancing the mix of par 3/4/5? Is the marketplace putting this constraint on the architect? Enjoyed reading your article on design. Brings me to a question about balance of par 3/4/5 holes. It seems to me that Stanley Thompson designs had more variety in the balance of these three types. I have not played even half of his designs, but I have played on some that have 6/6/6 balance of the par 3/4/5 respectively, and have gone through 6 holes without even playing a par 4. But it seems that all current designs seem to favour a balance of 4/10/4. Thompson was constrained with a lack of horsepower to create designs, but now with more HP available, it seems that we get less creative in balancing types of holes. What constraints do you face in balancing the mix of par 3/4/5? Is the marketplace putting this constraint on the architect?

]]>