Road Hole Bunker Changed!

[SL_Solow]

Today's Golfweek website reports that the bunker may be changed back due to the uproar.  Apparently the change is only a first effort and has not met final approval.  I'm sure we'll all be anxious to see the next effort.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

You ask some really sensible questions.  

I wish someone here had the wherewithal to post the turn of the century pic of the Road Hole bunker from "The Diary of Old Tom Morris" because it's illustrative and it really must have been enormously difficult in the days before sand wedges and rakes.

What is very clear on that pic, as well as the one Craig Disher thoughtfully posted here from the 20s, is that the top end of the bunker was well above the surface of the green, by what looks to be two feet.  In fact, like many bunkers of the sort (i.e. 13 at Merion, 15 at LuLu, 9 at Philly Country Club), either through design or buildup you have a "downslope" created on the green surface just over the bunker, and it over time it becomes part and parcel of the "surrounds".  

I personally believe in "management maintenance" of those areas to ensure that they don't become wholly uncharacteristic of the design history, if you know what I mean.  "Taking a little off the top" from time to time is probably a good idea to not let things get completely away from the original functional purpose of a bunker, but one should also note that many times it's the evolution of a bunker that provides interesting and unique playing characteristics.  

However, I also believe we have to look at the "intent" of the type of changes that were implemented on the Road Hole bunker, which are now seemingly being "reconsidered".  

It seems that this idea of "not wanting to make top players look foolish" is something that you and I have heard before, locally as well as globally, and I really question the assumption.  I know you believe as I do that bunkers should play as "true hazards" for them to have any REAL strategic value.  Efforts to make them "consistent", "fair", etc., often result in their neutering for better players, especially equipped with today's equipment.  

I find it ironic that new tees continually are being built on historic classic courses in an effort to increase challenge for top players, while their historic defenses...the bunkers...are changed and maintained in such a way that they become just another "alternative playing surface".  

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

I hear what you say and it just shows the necessary extent of research and analysis that's needed and required in certain situations, probably best exemplified on the holes you mentioned--The Road Hole bunker, Merion's #8 & #13 fronting bunkers, Lulu's #15, certainly GMGC's #8 & #11 and many others. These are all bunkers that are in front of greens and get a tremendous amounts of play, sand splash and tremendous "evolutionary build-up".

I would tend to side, though, in the area of daily play more than worrying about how it will effect a touring pro a few times every 7-10 years or what any tour pro might say about it or complain about.

If you think about it the reason I say that, is that bunkers like those that are tremendously penal that way, have daily play that's ever increased by players just standing in front of those faces blasting more and more shots and more and more sand onto them and increasing the "evolutionary buildup" probably in ever increasing extrapolation as time goes on and those bunkers continue to grow and grow due to that. That's what should concern the club and maintenance and not what a pro says ever few years!

But we, on here who are really interested in these kinds of details should first understand that all bunkering is easy or hard for primarily two distinct reasons and in two different areas.

1. The condition of the sand surfaces (and rugged grass)
2. The architecture of the bunker!!

Merion's bunkers themselves, are perfect examples on a course that took the applied difficulty of their bunkers very much from one area to the other. Before the Merion bunker project their bunkers were difficult and "iffy" to play out of because of the sand surfaces (basically they had very little loose sand in them)! Now after the bunker project that's been about completely reversed! They're much harder to play out of now because of their altered architecture (far greater architectural depth). And now the sand surfaces have plenty of loose sand in them!

And Merion also had the question to deal with about extreme "evolutionary build up" on certain bunkers, particularly #8 & #13 in their restoration project! What did they decide to do with that? They decided to leave it the way it'd become. Why? Obviously to make the bunkers play architecturally even harder because in most cases they went down to the original sand floor too (increased overall height).

As far as returning the bunkers on #8 # #13 to their original configuration (of Wilson and Flynn) from the 1920s they might have taken the advice of one Mel Lucas who offered an independent report on that which stated that if the bunker tops were taken down to where they were originally built, considering the greenpeeds today those two holes might turn into a freak show of sorts! Basically golfers could or would spin their approach shots off those greens into those fronting bunkers or even putt them into those bunkers and was that what Merion wanted to do? Obviously not!

The Road Hole bunker isn't much different. The management of TOC should just decide what they want the "playbability" to be on the Road Hole bunker and try to constantly maintain that through time. But with constant buildup that will take constant monitoring and maintenance for sure.

Do they want to return the relative difficulty of recovery from that bunker to something akin to what it must have been like long ago due to the lack of a SW and such? I have no idea but if that's what they wanted to do it probably wouldn't be all that terribly hard to do.

This very subject is just another example of how far into research a club wants to get or thinks they need to get. The relative difficulty of recovering from bunkering today compared to yesteryear is the point I came to know Chip Oat. He stated to some of us that did Merion consider the relative difficultly of recovering from bunkering in 1930 compared to today given the difference in equipment between those two eras?

That sure got my attention and is just another great example of the levels and important details of research!

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

This from today's "Golf Wire:"
Tradition is going down the tubes, so it seems to Casual Friday. All this discussion of women being admitted to Augusta National, awarding professional tournament titles to two players simultaneously, and now we hear the good folks at St. Andrews are considering changes to the infamous Road Hole.

Apparently, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. Course officials completely deny the deep greenside bunker that tripped up Ernie Els as recently as last month and that gave David Duval grief at the 2000 British Open Championship has been moved, or even fiddled with beyond removing about six inches from its lip. Some reports indicated that the wall had been taken down as much as two feet, which would put it back to the level it was at in the 1960s, but officials decided the change was too much and ordered it rebuilt.

As well, the gathering area on the green that sends so many balls down into the gaping maw of that bunker has been made a bit larger. But no other moves or changes have taken place. That's a good thing, Casual Friday thinks, because otherwise golfers both far and wide may have been up at arms.

"The whole town is in uproar," Dr. David Malcolm, a previous captain at the New Club at St. Andrews, told a columnist for The Times of London. "Tampering with the bunker is going too far. A lot of players have cursed it through the years, but a lot more will mourn its passing like a dear and familiar friend."

Controversy over minor changes to this beloved and cursed hole have popped up before.

"The critics remind me of the people who disagreed with us when we said we wanted to resurface the road at the back of the green," complained Peter Mason, a spokesman for the Links Trust. "They said it would ruin the hole. We did it nonetheless and it has made no difference. It is still an exciting hole. Do you honestly think we would deliberately make a mess of the most famous bunker on the most famous hole of the most famous course in golf?"

Well, we're sure that the best intentions have not produced the best results on courses elsewhere in the world, but for now the Road Hole and its bunker have endured only minor alterations.

[Paul_Turner]

The old road was much better, now it's relatively uniform tarmac and it does make a difference.

The links (dis)trust have so many poor decisions:  undermining the ballot by selling off tee times, destroying part of The Eden course for a driving range, poor renovation of the bunkers; I hope the town disbands them.

There was plenty of objection on this website on the redone bunkers before the 2000 Open.  There was no inconsistancy here.

[RJ_Daley]

Just a couple more tid-bits for consideration.  There's a  picture from 1920s in Hunter's "The Links" on page 119 (my reprint copy) that shows the relative height of the build-up where the two gents are standing toghether on top of the lip off across the green slightly to the right.  That pic doesn't actually show the bunker or vertical wall.  Then there is a sketch of the 17th hole by MacKenzie on page 47 which at least shows the relative position cut into the green, relative area and position of the left front green gathering slope and relative dimensions of the bunker compared to the green size.  

I am fully aware of the ongoing maintenance and repair of the bunkers on a 3-5 year cycle.  But, changing the dimensions and playability factors is not maintenance.  The quotes by people ther on the ground have clearly pointed out the original efforts to defang the RHB.  There is a lot of back tracking and CYA going on by these officials.  

As appears to be the case, and what I think is most important is, 'what do the townspeople want'?  It is their course.  Is the old course not their historical treasure?  Do they not revere its tradition and keep faith with integrity to its evolution?  It seems to me that Redanman's comments can't be overemphasized.  The American influence based on PGA notions of fairness and consistency and maintenance standards to perfection have crept into the psyche of the trust keepers of the old sod, like the ebola virus.  Perhaps the members of the trust have gone off to the new world once too often to play reciprocals at ANGC and the like and are influenced by the fluff and lingo of the "open doctors" whom they must speak to often.  That isn't a good thing.  It is insidiously destructive of a long tradition of a game and a place of origin.  If that is the case, that the "Trustees" are under the influence of... then they need to be replaced by people that aren't so impressionable.  

[Slag_Bandoon]

 I just got off the phone with the Philkidd Hawsteel Design Corporation and they have been commissioned to remove the bunker and put in railroad ties, water and coy.  
   One stated "We were flummoxed with the redesign of the bunker in an attempt to both appease the pros and educate the golfing townfolk that failure to recover from sand is an indignant spectacle. This was the only solution to a highly volatile debate but using the equation that the pro's opinion is 99% value and the amateurs is only 1% and that the pros only play it 1% of the time and amateurs play it 99% of the time, well, I'm sure you must agree with our conclusion. Numbers don't lie.  Next up is that road on the other side of the green.  We're drawing up plans for a canal and bleachers."  

  

[George Pazin]

There was plenty of objection on this website on the redone bunkers before the 2000 Open.  There was no inconsistancy here.

Thanks, Paul. Pat thinks if he says something enough times, we'll forget the truth.

[John O'Connor]

George  Pazin,

mr turners post never mentions the 17th hole road bunker.
He mentioned bunkers in general.

I don't remember anyone objecting to any bunker work at TOC and I don't remember anyone being aware of bunker work at TOC every 2 years.

mr Mucci correctly pointed out that the 17th hole road bunker had undergone changes over the years without anyone raising a fuss.  He repeatedly suggests that the complete facts be obtained before drawing conclusions, something many don't like to do.

Initiallly we were told that the bunker was moved 4 feet and now we find out its not being moved at all.

I recall a similar outrage without any facts when Geoff Shackelford implied that Nationals members were unaware of the value of their course and were  planing changes.  All of which proved to be false, but not before this some were outraged toward the members and the architect.

he seems to be one of the voices of reason,
what nerve he has, suggesting fact finding before drawing conclusions.

[RJ_Daley]

John O', I must disagree with you.  The issues of periodic maintenance of crumbled bunkers at TOC and elsewhere have been discussed on GCA any number of times.  The issue was discussed in depth during the time leading up to and while the 2000 Open was played.  TRHB renovation with its revetted wall, its degree of slope on the wall face, and the issue of pre open practice rounds where the sand bottom was found to be too flat and a bit of flash into the interface with the sod wall was added the night before the competition.  We talked about the other bunkers on TOC as well.  Not many (any) participants on GCA are so purist that they don't recognise and are fully aware of preservation maintenance.

Unless I can't read, the articles discussed above on this thread state that the the RHB had been moved away from the green, that the lip was taken down about a foot and a half, and the gathering area square footage increased two fold, and the floor raised some foot or two.  They are now responding after the horse has left the barn with a hue and cry from the townspeople that it has been emasculated.  Those in charge are now backtracking and saying it isn't a completed work yet and that it can be put back.  It seems the art of 'spinning' is also invading politics in the old grey toon.  

We are at the mercy of interpreting the written articles on the subject.  You tell me; are those quotes just a few squeaky wheels in the 'city' of St Andrews crying foul, or are the quotes a reflection on the prevailing attitude?  I still maintain that it is their course, their community interests, and we are priveledged guests that get to play there as visitors to a place of seminal historical importance to the game.

Perhaps the only way to resolve this is for GCA participants to make a field trip to the old sod and see for ourselves.

I'm all for fact finding, so long as one could recognise a fact if it jumped up and bit them in the butt.

[TEPaul]

John O'Connor:

We're all interested in the facts here. One fact I'd like to know is how much did Pat pay you to say that about him? Come on, you can fess up!

[Paul_Turner]

George's memory is fine, as is mine and RJ's.  This discussion group definitely discussed and criticised the old course bunker renovations before the 2000 Open, including the road hole bunker.  I distinctly remember Tommy Naccarato, Andrew Bernstein and Tom Doak discussing the new bunkers on TOC and in particular the Road Hole bunker.

The criticism was mostly directed towards the hard edge of the new bunkers and the move away from the beautiful contoured bunkers that we've seen before on TOC and are still present at Muirfield.

I have little time for the Link Trust, but perhaps they were simply working back towards that older style  i.e. with gathering curves and less of a hard vertical face.

[TEPaul]

Another attempt by Pat to establish "bias" and a lack of even-handedness and FACTS on Golfclubatlas bites the dust!

[TF]

The R&A proudly announced that they brought in the top architect in the world to work his magic on that old fashioned relic. Here is a the bunker as it was intended to be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

ForkaB,

Are you saying that the angle that that picture was taken from is unflattering, and that it doesn't present the true nature and playability of that bunker ?

That sounds familiar, where have I heard that before ?

TEPaul,

Brick sod faced bunkers, especially deep ones, are not effected by sand splash the way most bunkers in the US are. Nor, are they effected by edging like most bunkers in the US are.  Hence their evolutionary process differs.

Typically, one dozen golf balls is the fee you charge for agreement, John held out for two dozen.  
How did you insert BIAS into this thread, or was it the altered photo presented by TF, aka: Ian Andrew, that inspired you ?

George Pazin, Paul Turner, RJ Daley,

I don't recall any discussion regarding the changing of the beveled-down top to the up-crested top of the RHB.  
Not once did a discussion occur with respect to the impact of that change on the roll/flight of a golf ball, which was a total reversal of ball direction due to the construction to the top of that bunker.
Not once was the height/depth of the bunker in 1978 compared to the height/depth of the bunker in 2000, which was substantial.  
I don't ever recall a discussion regarding configuration linked to the chronology of the regularly scheduled changes to that bunker.

That bunker didn't get changed from its 1978 configuration to its 2000 configuration through maintainance and repair.
Those changes are substantial and deliberate, the result of intent not accidental side affects.

While it is always possible, and quite probable that TEPaul is wrong, it is rare when I am wrong.  
So, if you could cite the threads where you allege that the above specific conversations took place regarding these detailed changes, it would be enlightening.

I suspect that the extent of the previous changes went largely unnoticed.

[Paul Turner]

Patrick Mucci

So you don't recall it, but it didn't happen; the discussion  focus on the Road Hole Bunker and then spread to others like Hell.   The changes in the top bunker edges was discussed.

This was, I guess, almost 6 months before you posted on this board.  I don't know how long you lurked prior to posting, but you may well have missed it.  Shame the archives don't go back far enough, so I could prove it.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Paul, You are correct, Andrew, Tom D and myself haad some pretty lenghty disucssion about the Old course bunker renovations and their bi-yearly renovations.


We talked of the false front of the 17th, and how I felt it was easily 1 to 1 rise, about three and a half feet tall. Tom disputed this and said it was about two feet, I posted a picture, and I think it ended that portion of the discussion, however, Tom Doak is more then likely right somehow simply because I'm measuring it from my construction standards as an electrician and he is doing it as a golf coruse designer--A HUGE DIFFERENCE!:)

We also talked about just how artificial Hell bunker really is now, and it seems to be getting worse and worse with every restoration, every other year. The Old Course Bunkers are so much different now then when I saw them in 1996, that I'm aghast to visualize the future. What a horrible thing for Golf!

But I still oove the Old Course, just like I still love Merion and somehwere in all of this, these so brilliant minds that make this decision to change something that is so perfect...suffer a painful death by public stoning.

That maybe a little harsh, but so is _______ing with my course.

Patri.....I mean John O'Connor, I thought posting anonymously was beneath you? If it isn't you Pat...I mean John if you aren't Pat, you certainly write just like him.

[ForkaB]

Mr. Mucci

I was indeed implying that the picture was taken from such an angle as to be unhelpful.  Surely such incompetence/chicanery has not occurred on this fine site?

Mr. TF

That cyber-bunker of yours in fact looks closer to the WAG one posted by Mr. Disher than either last month's or this month's version.  As I first played that hole in the 70's, I have a nostalgic feeling for its look and feel at that time.

Mr. Naccarato

As you saying or implying that every golf course should be forever maintained to look exactly as it was presented to you when you first played it?  This is a novel, but possibly useful, notion.  Rather than having greens committees/internet discussion groups interminably argue about alternative standards and dates for restorations, we can hold them all to the Imperial Standard.  We can collect and keep photographic evidence of how every great golf course looked when you first visited it.  We can issue bracelets inscribed "WWTD" and send them out to memberships all around the world.  Let us know what we can do to help this movement.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

So then, you're saying they're wrong that the RH bunker has not grown on top by app. 2 feet (since whenever--as they say it has)?

I've sure never seen the bunker nor done any kind of photo analysis on it but there sure is a way of finding out. That would probably be to core right through from the top of it to see what the layers look like! If the revetting comes right to the very top of the height of it then that would probably be another matter. Where would the constant sand splash be going though--right to the base of the bunker?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Thats correct.

If you look at pictures of the bunker, the brick sod is right to the top of the bunker, not sand.  Remember also that the face of the bunker is a vertical, not an angled wall, hence the retention of sand in the face is less likely.  Lastly, depth is a factor.  If you look at Duval in that bunker you can see that a golfer would be hard pressed to splash sand out of, and on to the top of that bunker.

Meaningful changes in height are all man made, as is the shaping of the bunker and the surrounding area.

One of the videos showed a recent bunker shot that barely cleared the top, landing about 6-12 inches from it, with the ball rolling a considerable distance to the pin.  Earlier videos show the same shot hitting onto the beveled top of the bunker rolling back into the bunker.  The alteration and effect on the shots is dramatic. Think of the shapes of a volcano and a whirlpool to understand the geometric differences, they are quite dramatic.

When the bunkers are repaired/redone, the old brick sod is removed and new brick sod installed.  The increasing or decreasing of the height of the bunker is a function of the number of layers of brick sod.

Greg Norman used this technique quite well at the Medalist in Florida, but some complained that the steep bunkers walls were too difficult to negotiate even though they were mostly shallow by comparison, hence some have been beveled or reduced.  Others didn't like the "luck of the draw" when a ball went into a bunker, close to the vertical face.  I liked them, tried to avoid them and when I couldn't, was content to get on the green, forgetting about the pin.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

That all makes logical and perfect sense to me! You should go over there and talk some sense into those people. Tell them they're not analyzing things clearly, which it certainly appears they're not. If any sand is landing on the top of that bunker, though, it definitely is not hard to tell by coring.

[ian]

The picture is 1989, the face of the bunker is 2 feet (yes I actually measured it) higher than the surface of the green. The roll off the face extended back about six feet (memory this time). They have knocked this face down before, and contrary to Pat's comment, the sand does go up and over the face.

If you can put together everyones photos over the years, you will find this face goes up and down, and back up again in a shorter period of time than you expect. The group I was with hit seven shots out even though nobody actually went in it on their approach. Its like the Devil's A at Pine Valley. Two of the guys hit multiple shots trying it out. I'm not into splunketeering, unless I fall in.


August 1989

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich...er...Forkab;

For chrissakes, it's a ridiculous assertion to claim that TF's photo doctoring bears more in common with the pic in World Atlas of Golf from around 1970 than the present bunker.  Being contrary for the sake of discussion only is valuable when there is a germ of truth.  In this case, there is none, zilch, nada, and the only similarity is that they both contain sand.

Have a look at the pics I mentioned that go back to the turn of last century, including the one Craig Disher posted on this thread from the 20s.  The Road Hole bunker was always a pot bunker, was always cylindrical in shape, almost always was deep, nearly always had a steep greenside face, almost always had a higher greenside lip than the green surface itself by about two feet, and assertions to the contrary are not only revisionist history but potentially damaging in the best traditions of Orwell.  When peace = war, as your comparison contends in trying to stretch this recent work into something resembling "historic restoration", we have gone beyond honest architectural debate to the type of fast and loose, indiscriminate, non-discerning rationalizations so often offered to defend thoughtless, careless, amateurish, insensitive design changes on many courses over time.  

The fact remains that this work was done ostensibly to prevent future occurrances of professional golfers being made to look "foolish".  Nothing more or less.

You know I enjoy and respect your challenging personality on this board but this time you are simply calling the sky green to get a rise out of people.  You've succeeded with me.

You'd better watch out or I'm going to be sending my friend Allan "Puffy" Robertson up to Dornoch to "restore" the bunkers there!    

So, just to sum up here, you contend that this bunker...



...looks like this bunker...and..



...this bunker....



...doesn't look like this bunker...and..



...this latest work is the TRUE historical representation of how it should be, from whatever angle.  Hmmm?  



Patrick;

I also recall the discussion between Tommy N., Doak, et.al. that was highly critical of the last round of bunker "formalization" at TOC, as well.  They did not pull punches.

RJ Daley;

You're totally correct.  What was presented as the finished bunker and what was reported by a former Captain of the R&A and others is that the bunker had been moved four feet away from the green, that it was two feet shallower, and the fact that the 8 foot wide bunker now had "32 feet more of "gathering area" is totally consisent with indignation.  The simple math says 4 feet away by 8 foot wide equals 32 more feet that are not "edging into the very vitals of the green" as Darwin so eloquently reported.

The fact that it's now being termed an unfinished work in progress is simply political backpedaling at the justifiable backlash.  

[ForkaB]

Mr. Cirba

The "evidence" I see shows me that the RHB has gone up and down like a yo-yo over its relaitvely brief life.  I also have the benefit of having seen the "Casper" picture in the Times article I referenced, and there do, in fact, seem to be some "capes and bays" at that time (the 60's?) and the bunker did in fact look at least a little bit like the "TF" one, and it was hardly "cylindrical."  I'm really not trying to be ornery, "just reporting the facts, Ma'am, nothing but the facts."  Surely in the WAG photo that I initially referenced, the bunker hardly "cuts into the vitals of the green."  It seems to me to have been a very fine bunker then, however.  Better than the 2000-2001 version in my opinoin.  Why do we worry if the LMC wants to bring it back to the 60-70's state?  Is it just because it doesn't measure up Imperially?  Finally, if you read the various press excerpts carefully, you will see that the "work in progress" description is in fact an honest depiction as to what has happened and is happening.  The sky is not falling, and the LMC are not, at least this time, complete idiots.

Rihc says "Hello."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

When Tommy Nakajima was in the RHB in 1978 the top of the bunker was not 2 feet higher than the green.  In fact the collar of the green sloped down into the bunker.


How was the RHB was formulized in 2000 ?