National Golf Links images

[Michael Dugger]

I stumbled across these the other day and thought everyone might like to see a couple fresh, new and large pictures of Pat Mucci's favorite golf course!

[ed_getka]

Michael,
   Are these your pix? I would love to have a print of the first photo, and would be more than happy to pay for the effort.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Wow!

[Bill Gayne]

Below is the picture posted by Redanman on the inverted bunker thread.



Compared to picture from above of the same hole.

Does anybody know the chronological order of the pictures? In picture form, I prefer the bunker without the plants. For those of you that have been there and seen both what are your thoughts? Could or would the plants in the bunker ever grow to a height to limit visibility of the green or is the angle such that it really shouldn't matter if the holes is played properly?

Thanks

[Tom_Doak]

That big tree at the back of the 15th green [left of first picture] is gone; taken down last year in the purge.  I think the hole is better without it, but it did take some getting used to.

[Dan_Callahan]

Not to be overly critical of a course I've never played, but that raised bunker (if that's what you would call it) with the shrub in the center of it is as artificial looking as anything I've seen. Looks like one of John Daly's divots landed in the middle of the sand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Callahan,

It's not just a raised bunker, but a convex bunker as well.

Is it the bunker you find artificial, or the earth work within it, or both ?

[Tyler Kearns]

Dave,

It appears to be the same effects that Neil Regan uses on many of the photos he posts on this site. It has definitely been altered.

Tyler Kearns

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dave,
It is and I think it was done by me.

I IM'ed Michael to figure out how he got it. This was done when trying some different stuff for Geoff Shackelford's The Future of Golf. It was never considered for the cover, and I don't ever remember sending it to Michael or ever posting it.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I thought the same about Neil also. But I remember this pic, and I can't surely say it was me or Neil that did that. Its an Artistic process through Photoshop's filters.

Matter of fact, now I know for sure its Neil's as I think about it. I think he and I were talking about it on the phone while we did a bunch of them.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dave,
I'll take an iced tea instead! 45 pounds to date!

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan Callahan,

It's not just a raised bunker, but a convex bunker as well.

Is it the bunker you find artificial, or the earth work within it, or both ?

Both, I think. It just doesn't look like it fits the naturalness of rest of the course (from what I can tell from the other photos). The appearance isn't quite as jarring in the photo from 2001, where there is more "junk" in the bunker. Even so, the idea of a mound of sand seems inconsistent with what you would expect to find in nature. Over time, one would expect the wind to carry off the exposed sand, which to me would mean new sand is periodically added to the hazard to maintain its cap. I guess I'm just not seeing what the benefits are of such a design. Why not stick to the kind of bunker we see in the photo with the windmill—perhaps a series of deep greenside bunkers with that same rugged fescue lining the face.

Is there some historical significance to the convex shape? Or a maintenance issue (poor drainage in that area)? I don't get it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Both, I think. It just doesn't look like it fits the naturalness of rest of the course (from what I can tell from the other photos).

I wouldn't base your assessment of the REST of the course from a limited number of photo's of one hole, # 16.[/color]

The appearance isn't quite as jarring in the photo from 2001, where there is more "junk" in the bunker.

Even so, the idea of a mound of sand seems inconsistent with what you would expect to find in nature.

Dunes are found in nature, as are vast areas of sand.
It's the planted cut and manicured golf course grass that's not found in nature[/color]

Over time, one would expect the wind to carry off the exposed sand, which to me would mean new sand is periodically added to the hazard to maintain its cap.
Is that what happens to dunes in nature ? [/color]

I guess I'm just not seeing what the benefits are of such a design.

One of the benefits is to provide blindness to the approach, siimilar to # 17 at Prestwick[/color]

Why not stick to the kind of bunker we see in the photo with the windmill—perhaps a series of deep greenside bunkers with that same rugged fescue lining the face.

Because then you would see everything from the fairway LZ and that isn't the intent.[/color]

Is there some historical significance to the convex shape? Or a maintenance issue (poor drainage in that area)? I don't get it.

The drainage in that area is fine.

To review the historical significance of convex bunkers you'd have to search for previous threads on the subject. but a direct connection lies through GCGC, built a few years earlier.
[/color]

[Bill Gayne]

Pat,

About how high is the bunker when standing behind? The photograph makes that portion of the hole look flat, Is that correct? I'm guessing because the picture is taken from elevation that the hole runs downhill. Am I interpeting the pictures correctly?

Thanks

[Scott_Burroughs]

What is the reason for cleaning out that inverted bunker?  I
like the look of it with the brush in it, and it would seem to be
more blind of a shot if the brush were still there.

[NAF]

Scott--really?  you want the ornamental plants that were on top of the inverted bunker on #17 and were on #9.  I think it looked like crap and I'm glad Bill Salinetti and Matt Burrows removed it when they took over.  They were not original (not what I think CB would have signed on for) and I believe planted by a previous super.  The hazard still obscures enough of the shot.  I for one are glad they are gone.

For that matter, after my recent visit to see Merion, I think they could do with taking out a lot of the scottish broom planted say in the quarry holes as there seems to be way too much for my eye.

But to each their own.

[GeoffreyC]

From the mouth of the expert himself- George Bahto- GCA feature interview

"The 'Leven' hole is what most of us know as the 17th at National - one of the great holes in this country. Only 360 yards and downhill to a wide fairway, the hazards seem strewn in a haphazard manner. However, nothing is haphazard about National's strategy. There are lots of ways to play the Leven, but the main crux of the problem is to place the tee ball precisely. Carry the hazard, placed on one side of a fairway, from the tee and a clear view of the putting surface with a short-iron approach awaits. Fail, and the player is left with a blind approach over bunkered sandhills or a high shoulder of a greenside bunker to the short side of the green. A great strategy to test players who are uncomfortable when they cannot see the target."

Another example of a teriffic Leven prototype can be found at #6 at Yale.  Rather then a forced carry over the preferred left side there is a stream along the left  that juts into the fairway at about 250 yards.  If you bail to the safer right side of the fairway the approach is blind over a hill hiding what WAS a devilish bunker.

This is a great strategic ploy that I think Pete Dye uses quite often as well.

[GeoffreyC]

Dave

Since you're a self-professed high handicap with a wedge in your hands I'll ask you if you've had both shots (blind right and from the left) and if so what were the results.  Do you think that a wedge shot with wind usually a big factor and requiring good trajectory control will yield the same results over a good number of rounds when you can see the target vs. a blind shot.  Distance control is critical as short and long and right are really bad news.

[Andy Hughes]

Pat
Like Dan, I am just going from various pics, but do you think that bunker actually looks natural, or like a natural sand dune? It doesn't to me, but then, I am only going from pictures and that is a poor guide.
I understand the strategic role it plays in encouraging tee shots to be placed appropriately; I wonder what your take is on the 'rail sheds' at the Road Hole?  Also, could a small hill serve the same function as the inverted sand trap?
Andy

[Dan_Callahan]

Patrick,

There are a number of photo's of NGLA in Ran's profile, and the overwhelming majority appear to show a rugged, natural-looking course, a far cry from that convex hazard. I have never seen a sand dune that looks like that thing. Is that what you are comparing it to? A sand dune? really? Seems like a stretch.

From a strategic standpoint, seems to me like an awful lot of architects have found ways to create blind shots without utilizing a convex bunker. In Ran's photos, the image of the first hole, where a bunker sits at the base of a large mound, would serve that purpose. Sure would be better than the eyesore that currently guards the green. It is so out of place, it even manages to distract from the spectacular view of the water.

[NAF]

Dan,

They are indeed sand dunes and that is what the supers called it when I was there..

[GeoffreyC]

Dave

Go too far left and you are dead in the gunch.  Fail to make the MUCH longer carry on the left (into the wind its no small carry) and you are dead.  The carry to the right is MUCH shorter.

Similarly at Yale #6, the stream runs the whole length of the drive on the left and then juts out into the fairway.  It is a dangerous line with a reward for proper execution.

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan,

They are indeed sand dunes and that is what the supers called it when I was there..

They can call it what they'd like—those sand-capped hills aren't sand dunes. This is a sand dune:

[GeoffreyC]

Dave

I'm not sure and we'll have to ask George to get a good answer but my guess is at least 225 into a prevailing wind. Sorry if that doesn't get your dander up but missing left with a hook for you righties should get your attention.  

A second blind shot where distance control is critical and where the target is also shallower from that angle is a more difficult option. I'm not trying to imply that the tee shot to the left to get at this angle is a gut wrenching shot but if you try you will/may be thinking -hit it solid and don't pull or hook it. Not exactly ideal swing thoughts.

[NAF]

perhaps sand hills is a better moniker.

[Tags:]

Tags: