Merion's #5 & ANGC #10 Bunkers - Why?

[wsmorrison]

No surprise there.  Too bad.  Well, in any event, I'll be playing that strategy on a regular basis  

[TEPaul]

JimC:

My idea with a bunker in that area was simply this (in theory anyway ).

Set a bunker in there on a diagonal that would basically affect the second shot strategy of the better and longer player, not the shorter player.

First that right to left cant on the right leading into that green is what I call "good golfing ground". By that I mean it should be utilized as well as possible for a strategic option.

That area had been in trees to the right which essentially nixxed the ability of a golfer to use that area to bounce a ball through and kick it right to left onto the green.

Those trees were removed, thankfully.

My idea was to put a bunker in there on a diagonal (probably using one of those gentle swales to set it into).

The idea was to force the better and longer player to challenge that bunker on their second shot by just carrying it and bouncing and running and kicking the ball right to left onto the green or deciding to lay up lay up before that bunker.

To me a bunker in there creates a really good risk/reward option---eg the better and longer player simply has to deal with it if he's going to get aggressive and go for that par 5 green in two shots. If there was nothing in there he just wouldn't have to worry much about a second shot that was a bit right and a bit short of that green.

In theory anyway, I'd expect that a bunker in there just wouldn't much affect the shorter player as he or she would probably be in front of it anyway with even two good shots.

But in a strategic sense that bunker does need to be set in there at just the right distance from the green. If it's too close to the green a second shot in firm and fast conditions might just carry it and keep on going over or to the back of the green. So I think it needs to be placed so that at least 20 yards of bounce and rollout is available if the golfer carries it. But placing it much farther back like 35 or 40 yards before the green would make it less effective for the good and long player and it would also get it into that area where the weaker player might lay up with his two best shots. You don't want to effect the shorter player that way.

I think if it was set in there about 20-25 yards before the front of the green it would be ideal for everyone.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My opinion:  On a very short par five, "feeding the ball onto the geeen" shouldn't be an option.  If you're going to hit the green in two, hit the green with a great shot.  If you miss slightly, you're penalized.  On a two shot par 5, risk/reward is the key!

Jim,

I have to run out for awhile, but, I wanted to address the above remark.

# 5 at NGLA, Hogback, is the hole you describe above.

A  hole that measures 478 from the back tee.

The green is usually blind to the golfer

The hole has several "spines" that affect play.
One of them is along the right side of the hole in the area where second shots will land.

For those who can't carry their second shot to the green, the use of the left side of the right side spine allows a "turbo boost" that feeds ball properly flighted to the green.

Balls hit left, or in the center which run left due to the slope of the fairway usually end up in a bunker or hollow with an uncomfortable approach.

Since the hole plays into the wind most of the time, the clever use of the spine is an asset to the golfer who can hit a decent drive into the wind and then flight their ball with a draw to run off the spine and near or on the green.

Why remove that feature ?

It's fun and it's challenging.

[Jim_Coleman]

TP:
    Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I was beginning to think that I was insane.  Even worse, I was beginning to think that Malone was smarter than me.  (Just kidding; I would have killed myself.)  

[TEPaul]

JC:

Mayday's idea for #7 was to simply remove those trees on the right (which has been done) and to just use that ground in there short and right of the green as a bounce in kicker to the green. There's nothing wrong with any of that at all. The idea of a diagonal bunker in one of those swales short and slightly right of the green was merely to strengthen the shot value of that second shot bounce in option of the better and longer player. In an architectural and strategic sense it's merely a matter of deciding whether that "good golfing ground" short and right should be somewhat "guarded" (by a bunker) or if it should remain completely "unguarded".  Personally, I think guarding it makes the hole both more interesting and stronger as it is and always will be a short par 5.

But the trick is to "guard" that area just in the right place. The last thing one would want to do is to guard that area so close to the green that the option of just carrying the bunker is shut down unnecessarily because there's no room over the bunker for at least a 20 yard bounce and run in shot to work effectively. And if the bunker is too far back it just begins to lose its strategic shot value effectiveness and the option of laying up in front of it would begin to lose its usefulness and equilibrium with the more aggressive option of carrying the bunker.

[mike_malone]

I think we don't really know how the hole will play without the stupid trees until we return it to its original form and PLAY IT! Then we can judge things. Tom Paul spoke of "randomness". I believe any bunker will reduce randomness and make the thinking and playing of the hole more predictable.The bunker will provide a visual clue as to where to aim your shot; it will obviously catch balls hit into it which would have had several possible outcomes without it.

  I also think you guys aren't aware of how the remaining hardwood by the green will affect the hole. We need to see that play out.Even this tree may provide too many visual clues for shots to the green.

  The ideal  is probably how it was designed. You hit a shot that goes out of sight and the result is unpredictable but exciting.

    The only adjustment I would make is to increase the running possibilities by expanding the fairway around the back of the green.


     I also think the hole should be seen in the context of (1) the other par fives and (2) the use of bunkers on the whole course.


   There are bunkers on the other par fives at varying distances to affect the second shot. So, for variety's sake this hole does not have one.  


  The HILL acts as the bunker affecting ALL of the shots hit in that direction. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Flynn preferred to use the ground as his first choice over a bunker. I can easily see why he saw no need for a bunker here.He didn't plan for one; he didn't build one; and he didn't add one later.


  I wonder if this course represents one of Flynn's fewest use of fairway bunkers. I can understand if that is true because there is so much movement in the land.There also are creeks and trees that serve the purpose of hazards.

      It baffles me that you guys want to impose your ideas on this hole when the simplicity of the original is sublime and it has been 40 years since it has been played as designed.

[mike_malone]

Tom,

   Another problem with the bunker placement is how close to the center of the fairway should it be placed? If it interferes with running shots HIT FROM THE FAIRWAY, then the hole is RUINED!. If the fairway is expanded to the right and the bunker is to be "in place of the trees",as the consultants recommend then it really is  a useless expenditure; it becomes cosmetic.Are we to put a bunker in the rough? Silly!


   I wish I knew if Flynn grappled with these ideas when he designed the hole but  all we have is his decision--NO BUNKER!

    How wide should this bunker be? How deep ? How long?


    The effort to build the perfect bunker is doomed because it's a STUPID IDEA!

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

There really is no hope for you at all.  

"There are bunkers on the other par fives at varying distances to affect the second shot. So, for variety's sake this hole does not have one."

The overwhelming majority of all holes have bunkers at varying distances that affect second shots---and amazingly par 5s have bunkers that affect third shots as well.  Are you saying that for variety's sake alone Flynn decided not to put a bunker in?  He changed bunker schemes all the time in an era when technology was somewhat stable.  Perhaps in the age of Pro-V1x and 460cc titanium drivers he might just have thought alterations would be in order on many of his holes.  I knew you'd play that lame he didn't do it so it shouldn't be done routine.  It is trite and narrow minded.  Given your predisposition, why would you want to move the fairway to the left on 5 and 11?  That is more substinative than adding a bunker.

The bunker belongs.  You don't agree.  It is not a stupid idea no matter how you look at it.  We told you where it should be placed.  Who said anything about the center of the fairway?  Be reasonable.  How deep, how wide, how long?  You don't have to come up with those answers nor do we.  The reason a club hires consulting architects is to take advantage of their expertise and listen to them.  Why don't you do the same?  

If you think bunkers interfering with running shots from the fairway ruins a hole, then you cannot like any centerline bunkers or peripheral bunkers where topography and green complexities bring them into play.  Is that a position you wish to defend?  I'm not saying put a bunker in the middle of the fairway, but an extension of your thinking is that all centerline bunkers are poor designs.  You'd be arguing against some of the great masters of the past and the present holding to that philosophy.

The effort to build a bunker (perfection is not part of the equation) is doomed because you are such a block head and think it has to be a stupid idea.  Yet you offer nothing in the way of countering the proposal.

[JESII]

That particular bunker position would seem to fit with many others I know of on Flynn courses...for what it's worth I think it would help the strength of the hole without representing a "gimmicky" type change. 30 - 40 yards from the front edge of the green to the nearest edge of the bunker would seem appropriate...


Jim Coleman, or even Wayne or anyone,

Are you certain that the bunkert on #5 at Merion is 50 yards short of the green? I would have guessed 20 - 30 between the two closest edges...

[Jim_Coleman]

   I'm not sure.  I'm going by memory.  Maybe Wayne can pace it off for us.

[JESII]

Wayne will probably have his kid do it...

[wsmorrison]

I already did it, Jims.  It is 40 yards from the front of the bunker to the front of the green and 30 yards from the rear of the bunker to the front of the green.  This would be ideal for a bunker placement at Rolling Green as well.  I seem to recall one of the swales is about 40 yards short of the green, so with a 10 yard wide bunker it would be the same as Merion's 5th.  I agree with Tom that it is best not to be too close to the green to allow a properly played ball that flies the bunker enough ground to feed onto and remain on the green.

Sully,

You're right, a lot of Flynn holes have such a feature.  Your own second hole has a bunker on the right short of the green.  I think the leading edge of the bunker is about 38 yards short of the green and the rear of the bunker about 28 yards short.  These distances work well, right?

[JESII]

So do #'s 6 and 12...

[wsmorrison]

Right.  Mikey Malone wouldn't like the lack of variety, so clearly he must not think highly of HVCC  

[JESII]

I don't know, the approach to #15 fits but he did not put one there...Mike would say he did so for variety's sake as opposed to what might be better for the hole...

[mike_malone]

OK Let's make it like every other hole everywhere. How boring is that?

  For those who say it "strenghtens" the hole, what does that mean?


   

[wsmorrison]

"OK Let's make it like every other hole everywhere. How boring is that? "

How is it like every hole everywhere?  Stop going to such extremes if you wish to make a point.  And stop being so brief in your replies.  There's too little substance and insight.

"For those who say it "strenghtens" the hole, what does that "mean?"

What does it mean to you?  I think Tom explained it adequately that you wouldn't need to ask.  Why don't you explain why the bunker is not good for the hole.  I will ask that you not mention that Flynn didn't build it since we've established you are not wedded to sticking to a snapshot version of the course when Flynn died.  Second, please do not fall back on the variety question.  There's nothing like the topography on the second half of the 7th at RGGC anywhere else on the course and there would be no bunkers like it either.  

You have to admit that the course does suffer from bunkering problems (right and left green end bunkers on 8 for instance) and high leading edges that hide bunkers.  Yet it still has some excellent bunkers but overall the bunkering is far short of the restored bunkering at Philadelphia Country Club which were modeled off the RGGC bunkers and others.  I'd like to see some of the bunkers that were divided decades ago returned to single larger bunkers.  The scale of them would complement the scale of the holes with continued tree removal.

I think the 7th hole would be enhanced with a bunker addition--it will add interesting shots and precision for all classes of golfers on a regular (but not necessarily everyday basis) and also demand more precision on a short downhill par 5.  Call it strengthened if you will, especially once all the evergreen trees along the right are removed.  The fact that 2 were removed and 2 left shows the difficulties inherent in decisions by committee.  Adhere to advice of the expert architectural consultants, that's what they're paid for and what they are eminently qualified to do.

[JESII]

 For those who say it "strenghtens" the hole, what does that mean?
 

For my part Mayday, "strength" adds to the mental interest and physical challenge of a hole. Not necessarily one more than the other, but in this instance I think it would add more mental interest to the hole.

Truth be told however, I have not seen the hole since the couple of trees on the right have been removed...is there a significant change since I was there last about 4 years ago?

[wsmorrison]

I like your general definition of strengthening a hole, Jim.  As you say, it also pertains specifically to RGGC 7.

Two of the four evergreen trees on the right short of the green have been removed.  I think there is an ongoing tree removal process but I cannot understand why all four trees weren't removed.  The hardwood, the last tree on the right, even with the middle of the green, should be removed as well.  

[mike_malone]

 There are three holes at Rolling Green that do not have bunkers on both sides at or near the green #1-#7-#13. #1 was designed to have rough across the front and around the right of the green. It has fairway now . If we had rough as it was designed I would be fine with that. But, that is unlikely, so, I agree with the fairway around the right of the green because it adds more interesting shots.  There are plenty of other places where one rolls the ball off the green into heavy rough and and is left with an awkward stance.

   For #13 the slope of the hill  on the right is quite dramatic; it kicks balls away quite significantly.  A bunker there would just be less of a challenge because it would hold balls up.

  That leaves #7...


    My approach to this this issue is to TRY to figure why Flynn did not put a bunker there. Wayne has pointed out quite nicely that in similar situations he placed bunkers. So, I must believe that the lack of a bunker here is intentional.

    I don't think many people understand the randomness of that slope to the right of the green. There is no way to control the roll of the ball. It is a crapshoot. So, it seems consistent with a three shot hole to me. By that I mean the long approach has some hazard associated with it. If one could just predictably run the ball in from the right then it would be much less interesting.


   Based on JES II's definition of "strengthening", the hole as designed is plenty strong. A bunker would lessen the mental test because it would create a visual target, if placed well. Without a bunker the uncertainty that affects one mentally is enhanced. Some may see a clear choice as mentally challenging, others see a mental challenge as dealing with uncertainty.  I see "uncertainty" as more mentally challenging. It was mentioned that the bunker is for the mishit drive. Well, that's a silly reason to put it there. The original design is much better for that purpose. You then have to deal with the hill by the green from a bad lie or a longer distance than you want. And the cost is that "uncertainty". A bunker would just gobble up balls like every other average hole in the world!

   I also think you are missing the  left greenside bunker in your analysis. If you don't get the ball far enough right and come up a little short you are going into that bunker---AND IT IS ALL THE WAY ON THE OTHER SIDE!. Where else on this course can you land on the right side of the fairway and end up in the left bunker?


      There is a tree that was not part of the original design that sits just to the right of the green. I LIKE THAT TREE!.It creates a problem for balls missed to the right and just short of the green. In fact, I believe it will likely affect balls stopping in the general area of the proposed bunker. Some will then speak of the dreaded "double penalty".


  All of this leads me to say "Let's play it as designed". The tree would be different but it rarely affects balls running onto the green. Enhancing the roll would also strengthen the hole .I believe Flynn's plans show some fairway intended for the right side of the green,as Wayne pointed out earlier.

     It also might be helpful to know that this is one of the few greens that could easily have been placed MUCH farther away than it ended up. There is 100 yards between the green and #13 tee.

   Why did Flynn decide on that location for the green when he had more possibilities easily available?

  I think the fact that it comes right at the flat area just past that wonderfully enigmatic slope  was crucial to his decision.


        BTW the eminently qualified architect wanted to keep the last evergreen ; I suggested to him that "Flynn was rolling over in his grave" and he changed his mind.

     I have great respect for these consultants, but they make mistakes too. I think that they would rescind their recommendation if they had a chance to rethink it with some new information.


         I believe it was you ,Wayne, who said that Ran said RG was a wonderful expression of Flynn's style. Why mess with what he did on this hole for little benefit and open up Pandora's Box to many other ideas that would scar the course permanently?

   I think we can be the closest to his original design of any of his courses. Why would you want to lose that ideal?

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

I'll try to follow you, but it won't be easy.  

What slope of the hill kicks balls away on 13?  The slope up to the green?  That just stops balls.  The slope on the right above the green?  If it weren't rough, it would kick balls onto the green.  By the way, I'd take that bunker out completely as it was wrongly put in.  If kept, it would be better as Flynn had it, lower in the hill and turned 180*.  But as it is, I think it would be better out altogether.  The slope on the right of the green?  That does deflect balls away from the green but the green is missed regardless and that is a good thing and obviously in the architect's mind when he conceived the green site.

In any case, the proposed bunker is not a greenside bunker but is a fairway bunker well short of the green.  You are not comparing like holes at all.

I don't think there is any way you can determine what Flynn was thinking.  You can make empirical observations about Flynn's designs but that's about all.  If you cannot grasp that Flynn was prone to making changes at his courses (OK, he didn't make one here) and that he would consider a broad range of factors 80 years later in a more open mind than you do, I think you are mistaken.

What is obscure about the slope to the right of the green on 7 that some people wouldn't understand?  How is there no way to control the ball and where is all the randomness?  It is in rough right now and needs to be returned to fairway height as I mentioned many posts ago.  The crapshoot you speak of is not something I think of after studying the grounds on that side of the hole.

A bunker would lessen the mental test?  Preposterous.  Nobody mentioned that the bunker was meant for a mishit drive.  It was discussed what the ramifications are with a mishit drive, as well as other scenarios.  Holes don't play one way because our results differ from day to day.  We aren't Hogan landing the ball within a few feet of prior shots all the time.  Our own randomness is a factor and this needs to be expressed in hole designs.

I don't miss the left greenside bunker in an analysis.  What gives you that idea?  It is obvious I understand the design features a lot better than you do based upon your posts and previous discussions.  The point in Flynn placing the green where he did (you wanted to move it 50 yards down and 30 yards to the right) is to utilize the ground contours.  The area is not flat, the green slopes right to left.  Times have changed and a bunker is better today than it would have been 80 years ago.  That shouldn't be too hard to consider.  I think the greenside bunker should be pinched in a little more than it is and reconfigured as it was originally designed and built.  It is a poor derivation of its former self as is the case with too many bunkers at RGGC.  It is a major flaw at this time.

If you like that last hardwood tree, why would you want to see the fairway returned around the right side of the green?  I think it is less onerous than the evergreens because it is even with the green and not in front and it is not an evergreen.  But it is still a dumb tree.  You like it and it isn't Flynn.  What's that all about?  You can't have it both ways when you use original Flynn as a be all and end all standard.

"BTW the eminently qualified architect wanted to keep the last evergreen ; I suggested to him that "Flynn was rolling over in his grave" and he changed his mind."

Are you sure about that?  In any case, just because you had one good idea (even if it is evident) doesn't mean you're on a roll and have other good ideas  

Please don't tell me about Ran's opinion of RGGC when he and I played it.  You want to make more significant changes to the course (moving 2 fairways) so don't act like you are some steward of William Flynn's design.  The course has a long way to go to become close to his original design.  While the greens are very close, except that atrocious 16th, there is a lot that needs to be done in terms of trees and bunkers.  A fixed point in time as it relates to a design isn't necessarily ideal, especially when considered 80 years later.  Come on, that is utter nonsense.  And to say building a new bunker would open Pandora's Box?  That too is crap.  You want to make more significant changes and accept ones already made.  Pandora's Box is opened when committees decide things without a complete understanding and when they compromise architects' suggestions.

I go out in the field and discuss work with architects a fair amount.  I think members add a lot to the discussions because of their greater familiarity and play experience.  But the wrong advice can be given as well.  The consulting architects should listen, but as Flynn suggested, after a while, they have to be left on their own to utilize their expertise and experience.

Remember, a bunker is not permanent architecture.  A golf course isn't a monument either and you shouldn't continuously think of it as one, except when you don't as it relates to your own ideas  

[JESII]

Mayday,

Without the bunker, and with the tree issue diminished the left front bunker becomes is an after thought...it is not a concern. Put in a short - short right bunker that demands consideration and all features of the hole light up, as do the shot demands.

[mike_malone]

 Jim ,


  If a hole at Huntingdon Valley had been screwed up for forty years and it finally could be restored wouldn't you want to see it play the way it was designed before suggesting other changes ?

[JESII]

Mayday,

I should have prefaces my last post with a comment about your passionate post #44. Only a member can evoke that sort of passion and you are the one the course is for anyway. Therefore, my answer to that question is, yes I would.

Not to be a total pain in the ass, but are you certain you are going to get it back to exactly how it was designed?

[Jim_Coleman]

  I think that Corey's observation and "The Knucklehead's" latest opus are instructive when it comes to hiring consultants.  These guys are no different than the hundreds of experts I have hired for litigation.  They won't lie for you, but you can usually get them to say what you want if you're reasonable.  Malone allegedy talked the consultant into keeping a tree.  I assure you that, given the chance, I could talk that consultant into removing the tree and putting in a bunker tweny yards short of the green (as Tom Paul advocates).  And I have no doubt Wayne could convince him to leave (or keep) the tree and place the bunker 50 yds short.  If the consultant only heard one opinion (assuming it was reasonable, and I'll posit that we are all being reasonable here), that opinion would find its way into his report.  The question is what the consultant would advocate if he heard the three of us argue the points at the same time and had to choose one and piss off the other two.  I'm afraid he'd take the "middle ground" as a safe choice.  Yes, I'm cynical;but I think I'm also right. Needless to say, no architect would agree with me.