Augusta #10: What role does the bunker play?

[Adam_F_Collins]

This may seem like a stupid question to some, but I'm a newbie.

It has bothered me for a long time. Number 10 has that beautiful fairway bunker, but it doesn't seem to play much of a role...

Am I missing something?

[Brian_Gracely]

The greensite used to be next to that bunker.  Also, #10 was #1 before the nines were flipped.  

[Mark_Fine]

Shortly it will become very strategic as players will have to worry about driving into it off the tee  

[Adam_F_Collins]

So is it just serving an aesthetic purpose then?

[TEPaul]

And it just may be the last vestige on the golf course of an original Mackenzie/Jones bunker. Even if it serves no real strategic purpose for Masters players it should remain as a reminder of what the course once was!    

[Adam_F_Collins]

Tom - so is it close to its original form, then?

[JBergan]

I always thought it was a tribute to Mackenzie.

[Robert Emmons]

It comes into play for the members though...RHE

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Foster Collins,

It never did.

[JakaB]

I bet this bunker sees more play per round than 750 of the bunkers at Whistling Straits..

[johnk]

Aesthetics.
It's a beautiful bunker, first of all...

Second, I think it works well visually, somehow, whether it's from far away or close up, it breaks up a tremendous amount of shady dark green, and give perspective on the small target that is the green...

That's what I thought looking at the empty course in the morning...

[Mike_Young]

Have I not seen it listed as a 5par on members scorecard before...few years back?

[Peter Galea]

OT, but I think the greenside bunker on #10  and the greensite is one of the finest looking in all of golf. (well...at least in my little corner of the golf world)
Though to be truthful, I have only seen this bunker on tv (many, many times).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pete,

This may be a case where the hole was dramatically improved by moving the green site, back and up onto the small knoll.

While some in this group oppose any changes to ANGC, this change improved the hole immensely.

The elevated nature of the new greensite adds greatly to the challenge on the approach, and recovery.

The elevation better serves drainage issues as well.

The original bunker was not a fronting bunker, but off to the side.  The level of confrontation it presented was minimal to moderate at best.

[JakaB]

Pat,

Did you play the green in its original configuration...if not how do you know which is better....of course I'm not from the play it/know it school so I agree 100% with your conclusions..

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

I've played to its former location, and I've played to it's current location, and I've looked at a number of photos or the former green, and in my opinion, it's now a better hole.

The configuration of the old green and old bunker was such that a good distance intervened between the two, perhaps 30-40-50 feet.

If one hits an ideal drive to the flat, center-left of the fairway a relatively short shot existed to the old green.  Even if your ball remained on the slope of the fairway, there was no intervening bunker or feature to impede a shot into that green.

Perry Maxwell saw the merits of moving the green back and up onto the knoll behind the old green.  It dramatically altered both of the approach shots I described in the above paragraph as well as any attempt at recovery.

The area of the old green was naturally wet, and being in a hollow, the tall surrounding trees prevent ample sunlight from reaching that area, and create shadows that keep it damp.

I've never heard anyone who has played the hole, state that the old 10th was a far better hole, or that the old 10th should be restored.  I have however, heard that comment from people who have never seen the hole in person.

The present 10th hole is a terrific golf hole.

[JakaB]

Pat,

You are my hero...you have tucked me in with that one..strong indeed.

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick,

That bunker appears elevated.  If so, does it have the appearance of being greenside from down in the valley and if so does it cause depth perception problems, coupled with the shadows.

I'm amazed how in reality and on television that green looks impossible to hold from the fairway.  Impossible.

Thanks,

Mike

[Sébastien Dhaussy]

From "The making of the Masters" by David Owen, p.123-124:

"The tenth hole originally measured fifty or sixty yards shorter than it does today, and it seemed shorter still, since both shots played downhill. [...] The green until 1937 was situated well in front of and below where it is today, in the damp hollow to the right of the sprawling fairway bunker. That bunker seems anomalous to modern players, because even well-struck drives don't reach it and even poorly struck approach shots usually miss it. But in the early years the bunker embraced an otherwise defenseless green. [...] Moving the green was the idea of Perry Maxwell, the Oklahoma architect [...]. Maxwell pointed out that moving the tenth green to higher ground would not only solve its drainage problems but also markedly strengthen the hole. The change turned a breathtaking but mediocre short hole into one of the greatest par-fours in the world."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

That bunker appears elevated.  If so, does it have the appearance of being greenside from down in the valley and if so does it cause depth perception problems, coupled with the shadows.

Starting at the tee the golfer has a "bird's eye" view of the hole and can see everything.  As the golfer descends to the bottom of the fairway everything is clearly visible in front of him.  Once at the bottom of the fairway the elevated green becomes the golfers focus and the bunker is a distraction more then a hazard.[/color]

I'm amazed how in reality and on television that green looks impossible to hold from the fairway.  Impossible.

It's a small target.
Balls in the fairway that don't enjoy a flat lie have their work cut out for them.

Approaches hit just short or barely left and short have a better angle for recovery in relationship to the cant of the green.  Approaches hit long or right are faced with a more difficult recovery.

The shadows make reading the green, putting and the approach more difficult.

The hole seems to have an interesting balance.
When it's wet, drives won't go as far, but approaches hold better.  When it's dry and firm, drives go further, but holding the green becomes more difficult.

This is a hole where Nicklaus's high trajectory on his irons is definitely an advantage.  I'd be interested in knowing his scoring history on the hole.[/color]

Thanks,

Mike

[Pete Stankevich]

Mike,
Seeing that bunker on #10 in person is drastically different than on tv or in photos.  The slope of the fairway blends beautifully (and gently) into the back of the bunker, but it falls off pretty noticeably to the right and left.  What is really amazing in person is how high the front edge of the bunker is relative to the valley in front of the green.  There must be an elevation change of 10 feet and then the fairway moves back up the hill to the green site.
When the longer hitters move one right to left down the left side and have a middle or short iron in, the valley in front is more visible and it's easier to trust your yardage.  The bunker does not appear in any way "greenside," so there is no optical illusion or depth perception problem.
For the shorter hitter or if you leave your drive well back and on the right side of the fairway, the green looks extremely small and the bunker looks much closer to the green.
Even if you've seen the hole before, it's hard to trust the yardage from that area.  You know the bunker isn't greenside, but the shadows, the elevation change, and the size of the green do play tricks on your eyes.  Plus, don't forget about the downhill lie you're about to hit from.
I've had the good fortune to spend a lot of time on that golf course over the past 10 years and that hole probably shocks me in person more than any other out there.  That bunker, the green, and especially the amount of elevation change from tee to green and how much it moves right to left.
TV does not do it justice.

[Jeff Goldman]

Why wasn't it put there in the first place?  Wouldn't the Good Doctor have seen it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

Nobody's perfect.

Why didn't Thomas see the modified 10th hole at Riviera at the outset ?

Pete,

I think you'd agree that the first time you see ANGC in person, it's a shock.  TV doesn't capture its essence.

[Mike Hendren]

Pete,

I think you'd agree that the first time you see ANGC in person, it's a shock.  TV doesn't capture its essence.

Patrick,

It's been many years since I've been to the tournament.  My lasting impression is that, visually, there are some very difficult golf shots called for at Augusta National.  The tee ball at the 1st and 2nd, the approach at the 3rd, the tee shot at 4, the back right pin at six, the approach at 7, the second at 8, the drive at 9, the approach at 10, 11 and 12, the drive and long second at 13, the second at 15 and the approach at 18 all come to mind.  

Is it fair to say the course looks much more benign on television?  Not to mention the incredible interior green undulations.  

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

It's not only fair, it's accurate.

The elevation changes are startling, the size and depth of the bunkers is shocking, and the slope of the fairways is an eye opener.  You just can't grasp the essence of the architecture and play of the golf course through that two dimensional medium.

What I found very appealing was the sense of familiarity that I had with the back nine, from a historical and architectural sense, understanding that TV doesn't do it justice.

You gain an increased level of appreciation for shots that you saw on TV, because in person you realize how much more difficult they are.

It is a very unique golf course, one that is sometimes underrated, mostly by people who have never actually seen it.

And, The Masters signals the begining of THE golf season for me.