[Craig Disher]

Patrick,
Your point made me want to post the pictures.

Regardless of the depth or face on the bunker, it is still the defining feature of the hole. It's "penality" will determine the acceptable level of risk for each golfer. For example, if I'm short/left of the green in 1975, I can pitch into the beveled face to put the ball near the hole - imo not nearly as difficult as what would be needed in 2000 - a flop off a tight lie. That tells me that in 2000, I should aim about 45deg to the right of the hole. Next year, I'm going right at the pin!

[JSlonis]

Bob,

For those that complain that Duval lost the 2000 Open on #17, they should be reminded he had shot himself out of the tourney before ever playing #17.  He was well back of Tiger by the time they reached the Road Hole.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, coping with your interminable ability to argue a point with fractions of facts makes me want to have a drink right now!

You are generally speaking of eyewitnesses to flash events for distorion of memory.  I agree that what is reportedly done to the road hole bunker is a train wreck.  But, people of the rich golf history and knowledge and sensitivities of St. Andrews would not suffer from flash memory distortion, even if they regularly take aid of their famous single malt aiming fluids.  And, perhaps a forgotten group of experts would be the crusty old caddies of St Andrews.   Why not take some depositions from them about the evolution of the road hole bunker!  

As for the members of some seasonal club you are familiar with that wouldn't even notice the excavation of a lake with trees left on islands, I immediately guessed ANGC!   But then I couldn't think of a lake excavated leaving trees, only the widening of Rae's creek into ponds at some points.  But, it sure sounds like that same seasonal group of septagenerians with selective or defective memory for their previous course conditions and design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley,

The ESPN highlight clips dating to 1978 and forward were quite revealing, for in each clip, the bunker was noticeably different.

Memories tend to get blurred or lose the context of the time frame in recollection

Seeing each of these highlight clips made me realize that this bunker, probably more than any other high profile bunker, gets altered all the time, and few recognized or complained about it.

What peaks my curiosity is why it gets altered ?
A change in the power base at SALM ??
and who has made the decisions to alter it over the last 30 years ?

Very few are aware that at Pine Valley the Devil's AH bunker on the 10th hole was altered years ago, in a similar fashion to the Road Hole bunker, in that, previously, balls could easily be putted into the bunker, or balls hit out of the bunker onto the green could roll back into the bunker.  Subsequently, a lip was put on the bunker such and the collar area adjusted such that balls could not roll back in, or be putted into the bunker.

For some strange reason, nobody complained.  I would guess that complaining about the change might have created a change in one's membership or guest status. I for one, would like to see the bunker lip restored to its more diabolical state.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Did you know the DA on Pine Valley's #10 is not part of Crump's original design?? Do you think it should be removed, or at least have a big cork stuck in it?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, two distinctions I see in this.  The DA alterations at PV is a private matter.  It is a course very few will ever see, and fewer have a membership owned interest in.  How they govern changes is within their by-laws written to serve them, a private group.  One hopes they have the wisdom to address these alteration issues as it is still recognized as a great work of golf architecture/design.  But, SALM is to my understanding a trust to preserve a public treasure, like the trust entities that are incorporated to preserve national public treasures in our country and places of high historical value all over the world.  They have a responsibility and they should have an accountability to the public, and to the fidelity of historical accuracy and facility preservation.

If a person (any person) wants to go to the recognized home of golf, to feel as close as one can possibly feel to the souls of their golfing ancesoters, to experience the feeling of being at the epicentre of a cultural and historical venue of this game on these evolved fields of play, one TRUSTS the faithful management to have preserved all that is possible to preserve of that commons links venue in its highest tradition.  Their preservation mission should not be to alter these fields for the sake of expediency and playing efficiency of a small group of complaining professional competitors.  Historically, the links belongs to the people of the town for their pleasurable enjoyment. What do the common people of the game want?

[RJ_Daley]

Perhaps it would be instructive to actually be able to read what the Links Trust mission statement actually entrusts them to do?  I wish I had a copy to bring more clarity to the debate.

added to above:

Since I am on a roll, here it is, a very skimpy statement if you ask me... :-/

http://www.standrews.org.uk/about/mission.htm

[George Pazin]

Can't really comment on too much, other than to respond to Patrick's statement regarding where previous outcry was.

Where exactly would you want it to be? There may have been tremendous outcry in 1960, 70, 80, 90 or whenever, but until the recent development of the internet & boards such as this one, where would people have voiced their concerns. The lack of outcry is hardly reason to continue folly.

P.S. There were lots of people in 2000 on this board that complained about the clean manufactured look of the bunkers following the most recent round of bunker work. Just because you don't remember it or weren't here, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And don't try your line on revisionist history on me - my memory is just as good or bad as yours.

[Slag Bandoon]

[
If a person (any person) wants to go to the recognized home of golf, to feel as close as one can possibly feel to the souls of their golfing ancesoters, to experience the feeling of being at the epicentre of a cultural and historical venue of this game on these evolved fields of play, one TRUSTS the faithful management to have preserved all that is possible to preserve of that commons links venue in its highest tradition.  Their preservation mission should not be to alter these fields for the sake of expediency and playing efficiency of a small group of complaining professional competitors.  Historically, the links belongs to the people of the town for their pleasurable enjoyment. What do the common people of the game want?
]

  Bravo! Well said Dick.  

[RJ_Daley]

I think it has come to the time we ask the all important question:  Where is one, Thomas Naccarato?  I don't recall seeing him pop up on the board since this issue broke in the recent news.  Is it time to put out an APB and warn the individuals of the SALM that they should lock their doors there in the grey old toon?  Airport security can only be so effective... Beware of a large Italian carrying an electricians union card :-/

[rpurd]

Saw a story in paper today mentioning that the change was made to the bunker "to make it easier for the day to day golfer" .  Why not just put a tarp over it for non-British Open golfers.  And how about Not Going Into the Bunker!  I cannot believe the holy grail of golf has done this.  It is a really distressing time..........

[tam]

Work at Road Hole has not been completed yet.  The position of the bunker has not altered, and discussion will be taking place on site next week on the final height with all parties involved with the preservation of The Old Course.  Trust me the 17th won't be destroyed.  oldtommorris2002@btinternet.com

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley & George Pazin,

The print media in the UK have been a force for many years before Television and they continue to be a force.
Golf has been a newsworthy sport in the UK for many years.
Tournaments at St Andrews have been televised for decades, exposing the course to millions of viewers, especially the hazard that crushes and defeats the best players in the world.

Never once, in the last 40 years, have I heard one objection to any alterations to the road hole bunker.

SALM is merely doing what they've done repeatedly in the past, altering the bunker.  If noone objected to the last five alterations, why would they think that the sixth or current change would stir up a firestorm ?

I'm curious to know the answer to the questions I posed earlier, and to understand to what point in time they feel they are restoring the bunker to, if that is there motivation.

[RJ_Daley]

old tam, ah wanna beleev yer ghust ha coom baak ta speek plaenly on tis trublyn subgeact, ba is i reeley yersel o sume mischivus laddie?  ah sae it tisnt so tam...

[ziggy1]

I wasn't aware that Rees Jones redesigned in Europe as well...  ....this is sad  

Apparently the "Open Doctor" (of mediocrity) is multi national
in his blandness!

[Mike_Cirba]

I think the germane question to this whole discussion is, why are they planning to change the bunker??

Restoration?  My ass.  If that was the plan, they'd change all of them because it's clear that they all have evolved over time.  

From various pics, the bunkers were clearly shallower in the OLD days (i.e. 1856-1920), although the Road Hole bunker was much deeper and steeper than that pic shown from the 70s in World Atlas of Golf.  

However, those same bunkers were more raggedly natural, unraked, and if anything, probably played tougher from a medal play standpoint than their current deeper and more formalized configuration.

So, why just the Road Hole bunker, and why now?  

I have to believe that it comes down to the fact that the Links Trust believes the bunker is too difficult, both for professionals and for daily fee players and members.  

Heaven forbid it should play like a formidable hazard.  It's only the heart of the strategic options on the hole.  Why not make it a routine up and down like most of the rest of the bunkers the professionals play.

How close are we to hearing cries of "get in the bunker" as an approach starts veering to the left of #17 at TOC?  

Guess we'll see.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dick, I just don't know how to respond to this one because the bunkers at St. Andrews  have been so Americanized in some respects, that I can only hope that one during one of these rebuilds, they get the bunkers looking like they really should, which is that rough and ragged look that seem to define the course before the 1960's.

This is from the St. Andrews Links Trust Website:

(apologies to anyone who may have posted this and I didn't see it)

05/12/02
Work in progress on the Road Hole Bunker
The most famous hazard in golf, the Road Hole Bunker, is rebuilt every two years as part of routine maintenance, and this year's work is receiving more attention than usual although the work is not yet complete.

The bunker has not been moved further away from the green as suggested in some reports - it is in exactly the same position as it has always been.

"It has become clear to us that it is not commonly known that this bunker, along with several others on the Old Course, is rebuilt every two years. When the work is complete the Road Hole will continue to be a great golfing challenge for all golfers including top professionals," said Alan McGregor, general manager.

The project was approved through the usual channels culminating in the Links Management Committee. It is being inspected regularly and work will continue according to the recommendations of the Greens Committee of the Links Trust. It will be completed before the start of the season.

[Doug Siebert]

Tommy, thanks for interjecting some facts into all the fear, worry and rumourmongering going on here.  I have followed this thread for a couple days with great interest, as I've played TOC twice but have so far not visited the RHB (though I did get to check off "up and down for par off the road" on my last visit)  I would have hated to miss my chance at facing the real thing and instead playing a watered down version.  But I hadn't posted until now because I was hoping more facts would prove this to be a non-issue.  Given that they do this every couple years, and what is there now is quite possibly a work-in-progress, I think we should all be willing to trust the Links Trust to do the right thing.  They've done a pretty fair job with the oldest and one of the most heavily played courses in the world so far, let's not string them up unless they do something drastic, like not giving you those cool Old Course pencils you can casually use for the next year to make your friends jealous

[Matthew Mollica]

If the experts on the site here can indulge me for a moment,

I'm keen to know how we expect bunkers to change over time, and whether this will, on occasion, necesitate periodic work on them, by way of rejuvination / restoration.

I'm not certain, and that's why I'm asking.

I'm not advocating periodic face-lifts, by any means.

I too felt invaded, like many of you, at merely reading that a hazard on the old course had been altered, let alone the Road Hole Bunker (RHB). I certainly am upset until proven otherwise, that it is more shallow, and further from the putting surface, irrespective of broader gathering zones in ground adjacent to the bunker.

I'd really appreciate the thoughts of some of the more experienced course architects out there...

How we expect bunkers to change over time, an will this, on occasion, necesitate periodic work on them, by way of rejuvination / restoration ?

Many thanks,

Matthew

[lesueur]

Haven't had time to read everything on this post so I'm sorry if this is a repeat. I saw a few posts looking for a picture.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/sport.cfm?id=1353092002

[ForkaB]

Mr. Le Sueur

That photograph is going to cause an epidemic of dropsy amongst this board.  Before you all go out to buy smelling salts, you should recognise that the angle is looking back from the green and from above.  Not the most flattering light.  The picture in the Times (not on the web, unfortunately) was more honest and more kind, although not showing a particularly exciting hazard, yet.  Remember, this is still a work-in-progress.

Mr. M

Bunkers change for a number of reasons including maintenance practices (i.e mowing of surrounds, failure to replace bits and pieces that fall off, each of which "softens" the look) and human play (the sand which comes out with ones ball (hopefully) deposits itself on the top of the bunker and gradually builds up).  This is probably the main reason why the two pictures shown of the RHB in previosu posts are so different.  Also, the faces of bunkers (particularlry links one) tend to crumble, though human and meteorological activity, so need to be refurbished every few years, and compleltely rebuilt every 5 years or so (new sod faces).  All parts of all golf courses change over time, bunkers more than any, for the reasons given above.

[TEPaul]

MatthewM:

When you say you're "keen to know how bunkers change over time....", it's a great question really.

There're all kinds of bunkers but generally the various ways they change is fairly similar. Probably best to consider most bunkers, even the Road Hole bunker as to their two different areas--the sand area and and then the  "surrounds" (the grass or revetted area outside the sand and surrounding the bunker).

Most all sand bunkers today have their sand areas maintained in one way or another by the course's maintenance crew. They rake the sand periodically to keep it consistent or somewhat consistent for golfers as a playing surface.

With a course that has the amount of play TOC does (42,000 rounds per year), little by little golfers displace the sand in the bunker outside it with sand shots, obviously most often towards the target (green and pin).

Occasionally, the sand has to be replaced as its been displaced from the sand bunker area and the sand displaced onto the "surrounds" cannot be replaced from the "surrounds" by maintenance. Most bunkers also have internal drainage underneath the sand areas (particularly "pots" where water does not drain off the sand surface!) and occasionally that has to be redone as it gets clogged, wears out and drains less effeciently. To maintain that the sand needs to be removed and the draingage fixed or rebuilt.

The "surrounds" though, particularly with a bunker like the Road Hole bunker can change a good deal over time just through constant play with the daily sand splash onto the surrounds that cannot be removed from the "surrounds" by maintenance. That acts like daily "topdressing" (sand application as a growing medium et al).

We call that "evolutionary buildup" because it's something that happens so gradually but so constantly maintenance has no way of removing it on a daily basis so generally  the "surrounds" (particularly in the direction the golfer swings) tends to grow and increase the size and height of the surround, often as much as a number of feet over time and particularly on top always raising the height of the top of the bunker!

That definitely changes the "playability" of any bunker as golfers will always need more and more loft and height on their recovery shots.

Some of the bunkers at TOC have "revetted" faces, and it appears that the Road Hole bunker had such a face, front face, at least recently. Revetted faces are basically thin slabs of stacked sod. Revetting apparently does not last more than 5-10 years as the stacked sod crumbles and wears out and falls apart and needs to be rebuilt generally about every 5-10 years.

It appears the Road Hole bunker over time has had both a revetted face and also the more usual grassed face.

But when those necessary rebuildings take place maintenance and the architect need to take care to create the same amount of "verticality" to the front face of the bunker and also the same height (from the sand floor to the top of the bunker) or it can change "playability" dramatically. They also need to consider very carefully the particular "angle" of the sand floor as it meets or sweeps into the grass or revetted face of the bunker!!

There are two reasons to consider that area and angle. One is definitely as to how it effects "playability". Obviously if the floor is flat right to the fairly vertical face a golfer can have his ball come to rest within inches of the vertical grass or revetted face and recovery from that position is somewhat akin to trying to hit a sand shot over a wall (with no roof). Naturally the closer your ball comes to rest next to that "wall" the unluckier you are. (That's obviously why some players in that postion elect first to putt or chip their first recovery shot back into the sand area away from the vertical face).

So on most bunkers, architects create an "architectural angle" first before they fill the bunker with sand to filter the ball away from a vertical face. That apparently was not the case with the last Road Hole bunker rebuild! The sand floor appears to have been "rebuilt" flat right to the bunker face!

That's the "playbability" reason for creating that "angle" or "architectural angle" but I'm told there's another good reason to create that "architectural angle" where the sand starts away from the "surround".

That particular angle some architects refer to as 'the most common angle in nature'. It exists on the base of tree trunks, limbs, and numerous other places in nature and the obvious reason is it's the strongest natural angle for support (of weight).

If one analyzed natural bunkers and naturally forming dunes and such that's the basic angle one can observe as sand areas both form and then break down. In natural dune areas in high winds with fine grainy sand you can almost watch it happening! It's fascinating because it's actually nature's own architecture!

So those are some of the things that happen to bunkering both through play, through maintenance practices and probably through the occasional "rebuild" processes!

But these things can alter playability dramatically over time and an architect needs to consider how and when to return any bunker to what it was intended to be and once was---that is if he even knows what that was!

There're definitely ways to discover what once was through both photography (and measurement from it) and also from coring into the top or surrounds of a bunker to see where that point is where man built it! The same is true for the sand floors.

This may be more than you ever wanted to know--but anyway!

[Jeroen_Pit]

Have a look at this video from the BBC website explaining the changes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/38549000/rm/_38549359_sport_roadhole_pkg_vi.ram

or if this does not work get it  from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/default.stm

[Mike_Cirba]

I was encouraged to read that the work is "still in progress", largely because of all the uproar, it seems.

Still, from Rich's (oops...I mean ForkaB) article reproduced in part below, one sees the "original intent", as well as the "not wanting professionals to look foolish", specious reasoning set forth for redesigning the bunker.  

Hopefully, the backlash will once again result in a punitive bunker where only a daring, heroic shot (such as John Daly played when he won) can be aimed at the hole.  



Long renowned for its ability to ensnare and embarrass the world’s best players, the hole has been made easier, prompting David Malcolm, a past captain of the New Club at St Andrews, to call the changes a "tragedy". The bunker is now smaller and its fearsome walls have been reduced by a foot and a half. Peter Mason, St Andrews Links Trust external relations manager, has defended the reconstruction which he admitted was an attempt to stop players looking "foolish".

The bunker is probably most famously associated with the Japanese player Tommy Nakajima, who took five shots to extricate himself at the 1978 Open. More recently it ensnared David Duval in the final round of the 2000 Open when he took four shots to get out while lying second to Tiger Woods.

Mason said: "I don’t think players will suddenly be able to flick it out easily all of a sudden, but it might be less difficult than it has been.

"With the build-up of sand it had become almost impossible to get out of. If you look back at Duval who took four to get out and others, golfers of that skill are being made to look foolish.

"You also have to bear in mind that there are 42,000 ordinary golfers playing the course every year who have nothing like the skill of a Duval."

[TEPaul]

I guess one of the overiding points here just may
be the "evolutionary buildup" on that bunker from time to time. If sand is getting constantly cast onto the fronting face, and most particularly on top of the face, should the golf course monitor that or should they not?

I see nothing wrong with keeping that bunker's "playability" constant or even possibly as close to the way it was designed to be--providing someone can accurately determine what that is or was!

But to do that with the constant sand splash and constant "build-up" which will make the face increasingly higher and higher and the bunker harder and harder to play out of, the time comes from time to time when the height of the face has to be returned to where it originally was--the height of the top of the face particularly.

Or is someone here recommending that the bunker's face and the height of it should never be touched and that it should grow higher and higher and harder and harder to play out of?

Certainly players, particularly tour pros, are getting more and more accomplished at hitting higher softer shots particularly with their 60 degree wedges and such so maybe that's what some are recommnending here.

But it's obvious that there comes a point when if even a tour pro's ball is within a few inches of a vertical face even he will not be able to get his recovery over the steepness and height of the face.

Is that the kind of randonnmess those here are suggesting this bunker should offer? Because if it is that could certainly be accomplished and it could certainly be maintained that way! Is that the way the bunker was intended to be though? Can anyone actually document that or is all they're doing pointing to certain times that the bunker happened to have evolved to that situation (extremely high face before being rebuilt back to what it once was?)?

Monitoring this situation is all it would really take! This is not rocket science, only monitoring and maintenance on an unusual bunker that clearly has a huge capacity to change through the evolutionary processes of constant play.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()