Peter/Patrick/ForkaB;
Thanks for your feedback. I was looking at the World Atlas of Golf this morning based on what you mentioned and INDEED (is that word copyrighted by Tom Huck and do I need to pay a royalty for using it?
), the bunker pictured in the 1960's, 70's is shallower and further away from the green.
Instead of being dug in to the rising slope of the green, it seems to be set out further away, less steep, more shallow, and much tamer.
Sounds like a perfect candidate for a "restoration" to that time period, right?
Well, not exactly in my opinion.
I say that because the pictures of the very same bunker that go back to the turn of last century, as well as up to the 1920's look considerably different, and MUCH more like today's (or yesterday's) bunker than they do to the 1970s pic.
The pic on page 166 of "The Scrapbook of Old Tom Morris" (from virtually the exact angle) is in fact, cut up into the slope, just under the green, and is considerably steeper, deeper, and larger than the bunker in the World Atlas.
It also looks as though the top edge of the bunker is higher than the green surface, altough in both pics, all of the surrounding land flows "into" the bunker.
Another good look from what seems to be the 1920's is available in "THe Spirit of St. Andrews", on page 150. Although that angle if from the other side of the green, the placement and dimensions of the bunker are pretty clear. One sees the bunker "cutting into the very vitals of the green", with the top edge of the bunker again higher than the green surface by what looks to be two feet. It's size is also similar to what we are used to than the pic in World Atlas.
So, what are we to surmise? One good guess might be that the bunker was changed, or regrassed, or redone sometime between 1930 and 1970. Perhaps the top end was regraded and levelled off, and grassed. Although it might seem that evolutionary forces would make the bunker continually deeper and the high end higher with splashup, I've seen any number of bunkers over the years (many at Yale) who's evolutionary forming was just the opposite and where bunker space and depth was lost due to encroaching grass growth and overfilling with sand.
So, it seems that photographic evidence supports both views (anyone who owns both books, please weigh in here with your visual observations...I'm certainly offering just my opinion and opposing views are welcomed) so that leaves us with the question and reasons for changing it back to the 1960's version.
From everything I've heard, it seems a concession to the complaints of professionals that the bunker is too difficult of a hazard at present. Is that a good reason?