How do you turn back the Clock ?

[Paul Turner]

Are all the bunkers at Muirfield revetted?  Even the really moulded ones?  

If so, how do they get that moulded shape, rather than sharp edge seen one other bunkers e.g. The Spectacles at Carnoustie?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

JSlonis
The Merion bunkers lost some of their playability, how so?

"...but when my score really counts, I could care less what a bunker looks like. I care how severe it is and how it can effect my score." It doesn't sound like you would be in the optimum state of mind to judge the complete architectural merits of a golf course. Although not caring, and not noticing what the golf course looks like are two different things. Obvioulsy you have to see what the hazard looks like (to make the proper judgement as a focused technician) - you see the severety of the hazard to the left of the 13th green at PVGC - you just don't care. Again this reminds of what TE Paul said his attitude was prior to his interest golf architecture, he was focused pretty much on outcome, I suspect that Pat Mucci has had similar experiences.

You're confused again, TEPaul's admitted attitude and focus was not on architecture, mine always has been, it's not something I became interested in, only recently.
Suspecting and speculating on my behalf only leads you to inaccurate assumptions and incorrect conclusions.

There are people who can actually chew gum and walk at the same time, likewise, people can play golf and distinguish and seperate aethetics from strategy.

Perhaps  revisiting the dictionary will help.     Aesthetic
                                                             Strategic    

I find Jamie Slonis's perspective realistic.
I find perspective's other than Jamie's unrealistic.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

How many times must I answer the same question ?    
I answered your question on the top of page 8.

Again, you're confusing physical properties with aesthetics..

Ken Bakst,

One could view bunkers as one views snakes.
Some are more lethal than others, but all should be treated with respect, especially if you can't accurately identify them from a cursory look.

An open bunker and a pot bunker present different physical properties, and those different physical properties present different if not unique playing charactaristics.  It is not their look that so much seperates them as the learned experience of one's more severe nature, and the greater possibility of having an impaired lie, preventing extracation.

In the golfing world of the last 40 years, bunkers have been well maintained.  One would certainly have to look upon an unmaintained bunker as being more venomous than a maintained bunker, adding emphasis to the strategic importance of avoiding it, but, that assessment is not depedent on the bunker lines, rather the conditions of the floors of the bunkers, another physical property.

Be it the Pacific Ocean, Lilly's pond or out-of-bounds, the strategy remains the same, if scoring is a consideration when the golfer is playing the golf course.  I agree with you that score counts, and attempting to perform at your best adds pressure, which manifests itself in many ways, especially those scores in the club championship.

I recall that the object of the game is to get the ball into the hole in the least number of strokes, and those that don't have that goal as an objective, aren't seriously playing golf.  If one is playing the game under this concept, I would imagine that strategy becomes paramount and aesthetics, casual.

The view to the right on #'s 8, 9, and 10 at Pebble Beach may be more pleasing than the view to the right of #'s 11, 12, and 13, but the strategy is absolutely the same,
don't go far right.

I tend to think that some engaged in discussion on this topic, are adding an enhanced or expanded definition to the word,
Aesthetic, and perhaps that's where the confusion or debate lies.

Lastly, when that pin is tucked behind the front center bunkers at # 18 at GCGC, and your match is all even, don't tell me that you're admiring the flowers on the lake bank and the color of the rough next to the green as you prepare for your shot.    And, if you are, I'll try it this spring  

[TEPaul]

I've already asked a few times but now I think I'd like to move that it be defined what's meant by the word "aesthetic" with bunkering on this thread so we're all on the same page when we discuss it or just stop using the word. Because if it isn't defined I'm sure having trouble understanding what some are talking about.

To me aesthetic means beautiful. But what's aesthetically beautiful to me in bunkering? A number of things are. Bunkering such as Friar's Head has all kinds of what look to me like random naturally occuring lines and they have what look to me like naturally occuring grassing on them too--all edgy, and rugged looking just like actually is naturally occuring on the site. For obvious reasons that is really aesthetically beautiful to me.

So that's one look. What about the playability. Well, Ken Bakst has said there are no bunker rakes on the golf course so I suppose if you're in the sand you sort of take your changes with the lie and recoverability for that reason. Is that strategically functional? Yes it is

But what about the actual architecture of them? By that I mean the randomness of the depths, lips, floors, angles of them whatever. Is that consistent throughout the course?  Well, hardly, just look at those photos again.

So how does that play strategically? I think you can all guess that's pretty random, pretty iffy, and pretty functionally strategic, since just like bunkering such as Pine Valley you never really know what you'll get. To me that's bunkering that looks naturally aesthetically beautiful and functions strategically too. Can that be psychologically intimidating to play? Definitely

But what about bunkering like Aronimink, that Jamie Slonis just mentioned? What about bunkering like Muirfield, Carnoustie or Dornoch all of which Rich asked me about earlier.

Does any of that bunkering have that rugged, randomly edgy grass lines of PVGC, Pac Dunes or Friar's bunkers? No it doesn't. In most cases the grass surrounds are close cropped and maybe very maintained grass/sand lines.

Is that aesthetically beautiful? It sure can be to me. Why? Because even the super clean lines of the revetted bunkers is fascinating to me. It fits well with the overall lines of those sites to me, just study that aspect of it alone. And I think the shadowy sunkenness of much of it is aesthetically beautiful too. The lines of the bunkering, grass/sand lines and the overall lines of the profiles of the surrounds flow well into the overall lines and look of those natural sites. They don't look as naturally occuring as the super natural looking bunkers of Friar's but they're aesthetically beautiful to me anyhow.

But with the short grass surrounds can they be strategically  functional? Definitely because they can be completely iffy as to where you end up in them and what you can recover with. This type I'd call randomly strategic due to the architecture of them. It's not the lies in them, it's where you end up in them. Can this be psychologically intimidating? It sure can be.

The best example of the latter would definitely be some of the Raynor courses--very straight architectural lines but generally short maintained grass. Can they be strategically functional? Definitely depending on where your ball ends up in them and the iffy angles of clearing lips and such.

Are these aesthetically beautiful to me? Not really because they look so engineered and man-made in their architectural lines but I'm getting to like them more and more--they're sort of facsinating due to the look of a distinct architectural era and very distinct and unusual style which to me is becoming more and more fascinating.

How about ANGC's bunkers are they aesthetically beautiful to me? Not at all. Boring round immaculately clean architectural lines with no natural character of any kind that I can see and which don't seem to naturally match the lines of the overall site. Are they strategically functional? I don't think so. It looks like every lie is totally consistent and every single spot in them is not particularly architecturally challenging to get out of either like some areas of some of those restored Aronimink bunkers are.

How about some of those Rees Jones bunkers that were posted on here about a year ago with exactly matching architectural lines everywhere and short well maintained clean grass lines? Is that natural and aesthetically beautiful to me? Not at all. Are they strategically functional? I don't know.

That's sort of the way I look at bunkering for aesthetics and strategic function and psychological effect too.

End of story.

  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're semi correct.

And isn't beauty subjective........ in the eye of the beholder ?

And, isn't strategy, absolute ?

[JSlonis]

Oh boy...here we go again!!

Pat,

I don't think "all" strategies are absolute.  

There is one strategy that is an absolute- to finish 18 holes in as few strokes as possible....BUT...

The strategies that players employ to accomplish the same task are so widely varied we couldn't possibly think of them all.

Just look at the strategies taken by Weir and Howell on the 10th at Riviera.

Is strategy the same as course management?

[TEPaul]

"And isn't beauty subjective........ in the eye of the beholder?"

Sure it is Pat. That's probably why some on here don't think others have much of an eye.

"And, isn't strategy, absolute?"

By that do you mean everyone should try to play a golf course the same way? I sure hope not. That would be pretty boring, don't you think?

Next time you see one of those little handbooks where the architect explains exactly how the golfer should play the golf course in absolute terms, then I guess you'd know that architect must think strategy is absolute if he actually thinks he can call that strategy. I guess you do too if you asked that question. Maybe Tom Fazio does too on his restored Riviera #8 where every single pro every day played the right fairway and not the great Thomas left fairway. That's about as absolute as it can get--something GeoffShac called the "option free" hole. How can that be denied with those stats to prove it. Don't think--just robotically aim and fire.

Have you ever seen a course by Doak, Hanse or Coore and Crenshaw where they explain to the golfer EXACTLY how to play their golf course in absolute terms? I gaurantee you haven't and I don't think you ever will.

[Paul Turner]

The bunkers on The Old Course, until recently, used to look very much like those at Muirfield.  

The recent redo of the bunkers on TOC however, changed them to have hard edges and flat bottoms; these are less aesthetically pleasing than the previous bunkers and they play differently.  Just remember Enie Els's great bunker shot at Muirfield's 13th last year with the ball well below his feet.  It would have been a much less challenging shot with a flat bottomed bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How do you feel about CBM's paths of play at NGLA ?

For the scratch golfer isn't the absolute to hit the fairway with the tee shot, avoiding all hazards and rough, and then hit the green with the approach shot avoiding all hazards and rough ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

JSlonis
"For this discussion, here's another example of "visual look" vs. "strategy/playablity" ...how about the newly restored bunkers at Aronimink.  Ron Pritchard restored these bunkers to original plans of Donald Ross.

In my opinion if you have a complete appreciation for golf architecture, you must have a respect for the outstanding architects and their work. Each architect has their own style, from strategic preferences to an aesthetic fingerprint. Many times these characteristics change, slightly or significantly, through out their career or change based on the nature of the site--seaside or inland, California or Japan, or wherever. I understand there are plans for Aronimink that the present version of the course is based upon, but that isn't the course that Ross built for whatever reason. Out of respect for a master designer I would have restored what he actually built (if possible). One of the interesting aspects of golf architecture is the variety from architect to architect, and the variety exhibited within the career of single designer. That variety, which includes the aesthetic as major component, IMO needs to be preserved.

Picasso's aesthetic is worth preserving, Greene and Greene's aesthetic is worth preserving and Ross's aesthetic is worth preserving. The aesthetic is not the only aspect that elevates these men into the upper echelon of their art, but is a very important aspect.

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

Interesting theory, but I do really wonder if any of us (you maybe, but very few others) could actually recognise a "Ross" course if we played it completely "blind" (in the scientific sense).  You may remember the year-old thread where someone actually asked that question--in effect "How do you recognize a Ross course"--and nobody could give a good answer (even the Rossophiles that actively participate on this site).  Did I miss something in that last discussion?

PS--Just to show that this problem is nearly universal, even such a renowned expert on art and architecture adn golf as myself was recently fooled by a deteriorating memory into thinking that Machrihanish was designed by MacKenzie.  It should have been, but that is another matter........

[Ken Bakst]

Pat

No, I do not believe that strategy is absolute, regardless of form, as I do not believe that form is devoid of function.  Remember, I said there is an overlap and it’s a matter of degree.  That was the only point that I was trying to make.  If you don’t see any truth in that, then there’s nothing you can do or say to sway my opinion, so I would suggest not wasting any more of your time trying as this will be my last attempt as well.  

Of course, if you think that strategy is nothing more than hitting the fairways, missing the hazards, getting on the greens and getting the ball into the holes, then that would certainly explain why we are unable to come to terms on this.  

I think one of the problems with this point I’m trying to make, and I was guilty of this myself when I made the suggestion of visualizing PV with sanitized bunkers, is that you can’t assume that you can just change the bunker style without changing its physical characteristics and, therefore, its function.  This is not possible.  Just think about converting the deep sod-walled greenside road hole bunker to a rough and rugged edged bunker; to achieve the same depth, the bunker would have to be made much larger, whereas to achieve the same diameter, the bunker would have to be much shallower, and in either case the flashed-sand face would change the function as well.  So two identically located bunkers with different styles may have identical functions from your perspective, but from my perspective and in reality they can and will have different functions to some degree, with a direct relationship between the degree of change in form and the degree of change in function.  I am not advocating a particular style of bunker, as I personally find a number of different styles appealing.  I am merely addressing the issue of whether strategy is absolute, or whether form has an impact thereon.  From my perspective, form and function are very much intertwined and, therefore, form and strategy are obviously as well.  Perhaps it would be correct to state that the location of the bunker warrants more weight than its form when assessing strategy, but to say that its form bears no weight at all in assessing strategy makes no sense at all from my perspective.

So I post the following example in support of that proposition:

 
A special note of thanks to Tommy Naccarato for making this example possible!

The function of the form in the altered 2nd photo is not identical to the function of the form in the unaltered 1st photo and, therefore, they have different impacts on strategy (i.e., I am much more likely to attack a pin tucked right behind the bunker in the 2nd photo (pre-shot psychology/strategy), and I am much more likely to be affected psychologically by the bunker in the 1st photo (in-shot psychology/strategy).  Of course there are some differences between the two bunkers from a physical perspective,  but isn’t that critical to achieve the “look”?  Even if the surrounds were identical, to achieve the “look” of the 1st bunker you have to flash the face and grass the surrounds differently, not just rough up the edge of the sand, all of which changes the function!

BTW#1:   With respect to your snake analogy, since some snakes (bunkers) are more lethal than others, wouldn’t an expert in snakes (bunkers) treat a poisonous snake (bunker) with a greater degree of respect?  

BTW#2:   I hate snakes, regardless of whether or not they are poisonous.  I don’t like to get anywhere near them.  In fact, I don’t even like to look at them from afar.  Consequently, I personally abhor your analogy of bunkers to snakes, given my high regard for the art form of the bunker hazard and my belief that its strategic purpose in the architectural presentation is not just to be avoided at all costs,  but to be skirted, sometimes quite closely, in order to place your ball in a more advantageous position for the remaining play of the hole.  Sounds like the difference between the penal and strategic schools of golf course architecture!    

BTW#3:  Yes, I do divert my attention to the pond, flowers and grass from time to time as a way to stay relaxed, thereby increasing my ability to perform to my mind’s eye.  Perhaps you should try it some time.  

BTW#4:  It’s time to walk my dog!  

[JB Bakst]

Pat

I am Ken’s 10-year old son and I just woke up and came into his office.
Upon seeing the pictures in his previous post, I immediately made the following observations:

1.  The 1st photo looks far more natural.
2.  The bunker in the 2nd photo looks like it would be much easier to recover from because it doesn’t have the big ledge that juts out of the 1st one.
3.  Even if you don’t get into the bunker in the 1st photo, you could still get into the native grasses which would also be much more challenging to play.

If I can get the point my dad is making, certainly you can as well!  

[TEPaul]

Ken and JB:

Many of us have been trying to make the very same point that you did, but none of us have managed to do it half so well. Any further post on this thread should be referred back to your two--they're really excellent--and the comparitive photos complete the explanation.

If Pat Mucci does not concede whatever his points and arguments are to you at this point, I move all of us just ignore him henceforth. There're better things to do on an architectural discussion group than to continually attempt to educate Pat Mucci.

[ForkaB]

TEP (and Bakst impersonator(s))

What would you think if you reversed the doctoring of the two photos?  Make the first one an all white sand dune backdrop (a la CPC or FH) with the bunker in photo #2 (more stlylishly done, of course).  Make the second one the all white sand dune back drop with the hairy and brown bunker from photo #1.  That bunker would then look just as out of place as the white one does in the "Baksts"'s submission.  No?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Why do you care....you're focused on the flagstick.

Hell there could be naked woman between you and the green, and you'd still be locked on to the flag.

[ForkaB]

Great idea, Tom!

When it is my shot to remodel ANGC, I'll do just that--naked women at every 100 yards or so (and even some naked men in case Martha Burk gets in, or just for those members who putt both ways....).  With my Stahaknovite focus on the task at hand, I'll still shoot mid-high 70's on that course, but I bet that none of the young bucks on the PGA Tour (tm) will be able to break 90!  I can just see myself in the green jacket......

[JSlonis]

Tom MacWood,

I don't understand the point of your post regarding the bunkers at Aronimink.  Where did I say they were NOT restored to the original design and aesthetics of Ross?

I think Tom Paul can back me up on this...Pritchard did restore the bunkers to Ross' original plans.  He in fact had drawings, photos, etc. to work from.  I believe the only change he made regarding their construction was to move their position further down the fairway to account for today's equipment.  I don't see the problem here.  Pritchard, in all estimations did as true a restoration as possible.

[THuckaby2]

Tom MacW

That bunker you show (16 Pasa n'est-ce pas?) is so much more a pussycat than the front of that green (with the normal back pin) it is not silly.  Of course, because that bunker was completely unmaintanable in that lacy frilly Victoria's Secret style of architecture, it not longer exists in that form.  Not a serious detriment to the stategic interest of that hole or that course, of course.  I can't think of a single bunker on Pasa which was particulary noteworrthy in terms of strategy nor any at Pitreavie nor Lahinch nor Macrihanish nor CPC nor any other MacKenzie course I have played (they blur into one in my mind....), but with my tunnel vision, that should be of no surprise to you..........

Not sure how serious you are about this, Rich, but I can't let you get away with it in any case.  As a MacKenzie fan, them's fightin' words...  

1. Re Pasa 16 - with a normal back pin, assuming you get greens slow enough that gravity will allow the ball to stop on the front of the green, I defy you to get down in less strokes from the bunker than the front of the green, more often.  Even Gary Player himself would average 3 from the bunker, 2.2 or so from the front of the green.  That bunker might be a pussycat to you, and it is certainly a "saving" bunker (that is, it saves balls from worse fate in the hazard), but even today minus the "frilly" edges, it is very deep, and given the large elevation change from bottom of green to top, any ball in there means a long blind shot from way below the top level, which has to be hit perfectly long enough and with enough spin to hold the top level - a fraction too hard, and it's over the back, leaving a bitchly chip, and a fraction too soft or too left, and the ball tumbles down the green levels all the way to the bottom.  It is one damn hard shot.  You really think front of the green is harder?  That's a long putt up a bunch of levels.  Tough to two-putt every time, but certainly easier than the shot from the bunker.

2. As for no bunkers of strategic merit on MacKenzie courses, I'll stick the the two courses I know best out of the ones you mentioned.  Thus I submit to you, one from each course (though there are a lot more, I don't have time to do a complete Paulian summary):

a. #1 Pasa - bunker app. 30 yards short of green - effects strategy trememdously, as unless one plays way up or hits a VERY long drive, one is left with somewhere around 200 yards, from a hanging downhill lie, on one's first hole.  Maybe you're strong enough that you blast it over that bunker with that lie and in that first hole situation, but you'd be pretty damn unique.  For us mortals, missing that bunker is a strategic decision most definitely... playing short, left, or if we're feeling good, trying to get over.  I'll tell you this - laying up left gives a perfect angle in for a third shot, making for a pretty easy pitch... tough to make onesself do on what truly is a two shot hole, but dammit, more 6's are made trying to hit that green than people care for....

b.  Cypress #4 - fairway bunkers.  I know you've called these eye candy or something to that effect before, but you are patently full of it, with all due respect.  You're also dead wrong about #5 (no way you can get there 5I-5I-LW as you maintained in another thread), but I don't have time to cover that now... In any case, on the par 4 #4, the better angle into the green is from the left, but you have a longer carry over bunkers that way... it's pretty standard stuff, staggered bunkers, shorter on right, longer on left, but in any case they do cause most definite strategic choices to be made.  I simply do not believe anyone in this dg hits it long enough for them to be eye candy, not from the back tee anyway.  Even for the longest hitters, it's going to be a tough carry over the left... and is it worth even trying?  That's called a strategic choice.

That's enough for now....

TH

[Ken Bakst]

Tom Paul

The beauty of golfclubatlas.com and the internet medium is that thoughts and ideas can be expressed and communicated around the world in an instant.  The problem, however, arises when people like Pat communicate their thoughts and people around the world actually believe them!   So this certainly isn’t about educating Pat Mucci.  He’s entitled to his opinion, although I wish he wouldn’t always just play the devils advocate because those people around the world don’t understand that he doesn’t really believe what he’s writing!  

Rich

I’m not sure what you mean by Impersonator, but if it relates to Tommy, he created the picture at my request.  I told him exactly what I wanted, which is what you see.  He had nothing to do with the text.  You will note, however, that I didn’t say anything about one photo looking more natural than the other, as that was not the point that was being made.  That was just an observation that my son made all by himself.   The point of the photos was to focus solely on the form versus function issue, no more, no less, so forget about whether the bunker fits in with the rest of the landscape because I certainly don’t believe that it does.   Taken in that context, without focusing on anything other than the bunker itself, did the playability/shot value/strategy change to any degree with the change in form of that bunker or did it remain constant and absolute?

By the way, I stated previously that I like many different bunker styles and I would be the first to admit that a rough and rugged bunker style would not be appropriate for every site, so this is not about a particular style.  Also, I happen to find those “unaesthetic, simplistic beauties” and “ugly little pots at Muirfield” quite appealing, but we are both in agreement on their functional value.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

JS
Your post got me thinking, there is more than one aspect to aesthetics in the context of golf architecture. The aspect  we have been discussing, the psychological impact of aesthetics.

Another aspect is the historical preservation of the aesthetics of a particular design or designer. Protecting or restoring the aesthetic intent of a Ross or a MacKenzie or a Thompson. Not unlike a historical preservation organization preserves/protects a Nantucket or the work of Frank Lloyd Wright or CR Mackintosh. Mackintosh’s home designs were all white-washed, preservationists would not allow someone to come along paint these homes red. They protect Mackintosh’s aesthetic intent.

We’ve already discussed Aronomink and I do not want to send this thread careening off the road, but yes the current version is evidently based on a set of Ross plans, plans that were never executed for whatever reason. The course that was actually built was one of the most extreme of Ross’s career and did not have the style of bunkers that you now find.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I couldn't agree with your 9:44 post more. Of course it would be prudent, be best if the bunker photo resembled the sandy naturally dunsy look of say early CPC or present Friar's. Of course the bunkering and the color of the sand of them would be best by far if it matched and melded into that very same site naturalness and color (the natural dunes and their sand color). A site that had the color of the County Down bunker looks best in the natural environment that matches the color and look of that bunker. Similarly the color and the look of the bunkers at Cusgowilla which are reddish and ruggedly random matches the color and look of the red Georgia earth and Cusgowilla's natural environment. Blinding super white sand at Cusgowilla would look out of place and unnatural there.

To me the color of the sand is only part of it though. The thing that made MacKenzie so good and also makes C&C at Friar's, Doak at Pac Dunes and Gil Hanse at say Rustic Canyon so good is their architectural artistry was able to match the entire look of the bunkering itself (other than just the color of the sand) with the natural site itself. And by this I'm talking about architecturally matching and melding all the "lines" of their architecture (bunkers, greens, fairways, mounds, hollows, whatever), large and small, as best as they can with all the raw natural "lines" both large and small of the site itself (preconstruction).

If an architect can do that and also have those features placed well and functioning well for golf he really needs to do no more.  

[ForkaB]

Ken

I knew the bunker morphing was Tommy's, but your son's post was so sensible and thoughtful that I thought that if it was true that it was he my 10-year old would have to raise her game to get one of those legacy spots at Stanford for the class of 2011, and I panicked, so I assumed impostors......

Sorry.

As to the point, of course the hole plays exactly the same, assuming the outlines of the bunkers are the same, but either one of the morphed alternatives would jar one enough aesthetically to probably have some sort of a psychological effect.  Couldn't be sure, however, until I played them.

[TEPaul]

"The problem, however, arises when people like Pat communicate their thoughts and people around the world actually believe them!"

KenB;

It's so true! And that's why I've recommended many times in the past (though you may have missed it) that if we could all get together and buy a Hannibal Lecter mask, I would be more than happy to put it on him. Patrick Mucci is an extremely dangerous man and the entire world of quality golf architecture needs to be protected from him!    

[JSlonis]

Tom MacWood,

I fully agree with your point regarding the preservation of aesthetics.  As I've said before aesthetics and function are just different parts of the same puzzle. To me, preserving the intended look of the original designer is very important.