Relocate or Expand ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

In February 2004 many of us on GCA.com were informed that Baltusrol had narrowed their rough and were considering moving their bunkers in to match the newly configured fairway lines.

Oakmont moved bunkers in.

Would enlarging the existing bunkers been a better solution ?

Would enlarging the existing bunkers have had a more favorable affect on horizontal elasticity ?

Would enlarging bunkers do more to preserve the design integrity for the general membership and guests ?

Should courses about to smell the ether reconsider the issue of relocation of the bunkers in favor of expansion of the bunkers ?

[Chris Cupit]

Pat,

Just a question for clarification's sake.  How far in are we talking about moving the fairways in or expanding the bunkers out?  My first thought is that the choice would depend on how much one was looking to narrow the DZ.

At first blush it would seem to depend.  I think the first instinct might be to try and "grow" the bunker size to narrow things up to the point where the bunker just looks overblown or too "fat" to fit the scale of the hole itself.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Of course it was the USGA that pushed Oakmont and others to dramatically narrow their fairways and to move hazards in accordingly.  If you want to host an Open, that is what they make you do.  I expect by the time the Open rolls around at Merion, you will have to walk single file down what is left of the fairways.

Scale is one of the problems with "expansion" of hazards as you call it.  You just can't go out their and make all the hazards bigger to compensate.  Unfortunately, too many people don't realize that the U.S. Open is a bad model for golf.  Even the USGA has said this, "Don't try to do this on your home course".  But the example they set doing what they do only causes golf and golf courses problems.  Their Open set up philosophy does little if any good for the game the other 51 weeks of the year.  

Just my opinion.
Mark

[TEPaul]

This may seem off the topic but in a sense it is part and parcel of this whole US Open fairway "narrowing" (and bringing bunkers into it) and ultra tight cut phenomenon in recent years.

Perhaps you had to have been there to notice these things but at Shinnecock in '04 and Oakmont this years those fairways were so tight (and fairly firm) that golf balls on certain holes almost had to collect into the same very small area on a number of holes.

This happened on driver down to the bottom of the hill on #10 Shinnecock that maintenance had to put covers on the small area in practice rounds.

It happened front right of #18 green Oakmont and it happened with really well hit drives on #12 inevitably running out to the first cut on the right and it's historically happened front right of Merion's #12 (even with putts coming off the green).

The problem with this kind of thing is obvious----eg those areas are ultra small and they just get beaten to death with recovery divot marks.

This kind of thing reminds me of Eddie Murphy's remark to the ultra conservative black LA detective who was sounding too much like a white guy when he looked at him and said:

"Look Brother, you sound like the white guys----BREATH Brother, just open it up and BREATH and let it out."

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
On some of those ribbon fairways, players didn't have to worry about divots because nobody hit them    and I'm not being facetious.  They were like false fronts on greens.  The area looks like green (or fairway in this example) but balls never stay there.  

[TEPaul]

Another thing that's relatively stupid in any era and of any width dimension, in my opinion, is the whole idea of "standardized" fairway widths throughout a golf course.

I don't care whether its the old fashioned "standardized" fairway widths of 50-60 yards per hole (that may've been the result of very wide tractor drawn gang mowers), or whether it's the modern day widths of app 30-35 yards or the USGA's Open widths in the high to mid 20s, the entire idea of "standardized" fairway widths throughout all the fairways of a golf course makes no real sense in architecture or setup.

The reasons are completely obvious----eg every and any golf hole should have it's fairway dimensions tailored to its own unique ideal strategic concepts, and not just some set standard width that is carried through ALL the fairways of the golf course.  

The most egregious example I'm aware of was how the somewhat counter-intuitive high risk/angle reward on the outside of Shinnecock's #8 fairway was completely removed and put into rough in the '04 Open. How all these people who make those decisions and who should be expected to understand the ramifications of architecture/strategies could have missed that particular important strategic aspect of that golf hole is beyond me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

This is my beef with the USGA.  Most of the time they want to go in a muck about with courses.  I don't know whether or not the USGA influenced Oakmont's decision to narrow the course, but it would be a pleasant surprise if the US Open was played over courses that weren't altered for the event.  I say don't expand or relocate - instead, we should encourage preservation without prejustice toward the Open.

Ciao

Sean,

I think at some point you have to concede that an unaltered golf course is hard pressed to present a challenge for the greatest players in the world.

I had no problem with alterations, under the assumption that the course would be returned to its pre-Open form when the big show left town.

But, these new alterations are permanent.

Since I see the trend continuing, my question is, which is the prefered of the two evils ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Just a question for clarification's sake.  How far in are we talking about moving the fairways in or expanding the bunkers out?  My first thought is that the choice would depend on how much one was looking to narrow the DZ.

I'll know better in two weeks, but my recollection is that some fairways were 24 yards wide, or possibly narrower.[/color]

At first blush it would seem to depend.  I think the first instinct might be to try and "grow" the bunker size to narrow things up to the point where the bunker just looks overblown or too "fat" to fit the scale of the hole itself.

Is that possible.

Can a bunker be too large ?

Can it not fit ?

Take a look at the leftside bunker on the 4th hole at Sand Hills[/color]

[TEPaul]

"I'll know better in two weeks, but my recollection is that some fairways were 24 yards wide, or possibly narrower."

Patrick:

Would you prefer to wait two weeks and find these things out as if noone knows or would you like to ask people who do know?

I can just see it now----in two and a half weeks you're going to come on here and tell us all the things you've just discovered about Oakmont that noone heretofore was aware of.  

And after that you'll offer your opinion that must be the only correct one.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Quite to the contrary, I'll measure the fairway widths rather than rely on speculation and guestimates.

I'd prefer to see and measure for myself rather than accept third party references.

[Chris Cupit]

Pat,

Just a question for clarification's sake.  How far in are we talking about moving the fairways in or expanding the bunkers out?  My first thought is that the choice would depend on how much one was looking to narrow the DZ.

I'll know better in two weeks, but my recollection is that some fairways were 24 yards wide, or possibly narrower.[/color]

At first blush it would seem to depend.  I think the first instinct might be to try and "grow" the bunker size to narrow things up to the point where the bunker just looks overblown or too "fat" to fit the scale of the hole itself.

Is that possible.

Can a bunker be too large ?

Can it not fit ?

Take a look at the leftside bunker on the 4th hole at Sand Hills[/color]

Should be a great trip

I do think a bunker could be too big.  I would think that fairway bunkers would need to be somewhat proportional to the greenside bunkers.  (I certainly don't mean bunkers should all be the same size but I think very large fw bunkers followed by small greenside bunkers may not look good).  For example, maybe you have large fw bunker(s) and a narrow DZ followed by a green that has a series/grouping of smaller or smallish bunkers--total sand area is large enough by the green to "fit" whereas if you had 2-4 large fw bunkers and just 1-2 smallish greenside bunkers, that may look out of scale or even a little wierd.

Oakmont may be able to grow the bunkers a little easier since with all the tree removal I think the "parkland perspective" that may dictate what a normal FW bunker size "should be" is lessened.  There is an "openness" or vastness (it appears to me) that would accomodate the expansion.  The "openness" of Sand Hills may also help accomodate enormous bunkers too.

I think a parkland tree-lined setting may be the one where the expansion would be most difficult to pull this off.  

BTW I love the notion of big even immense hazards.  And, to mix it up can look cool as well.  On my 11th hole we have 5 bunkers on a driveable par 4--one is over 5,000 sq. ft and one is 6 sq. ft!

Have a good trip.

[Matt_Cohn]

Pat,

The ironic thing is that a US Open player would often rather be in a fairway bunker than in 5" rough. Moving the fairway bunkers closer to the fairways won't make a US Open course play any harder.

That was my objection to the new fairway bunkers right of #3 at Pebble. A US Open competitor in the rough there would have no chance. Now, being in a fairway bunker, he might well pull off the shot. (Yet the hole is harder for the resort player.)

I think that fairway bunkers are the least relevant architectural element in a US Open because they aren't any worse than the rough that surrounds them.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

If it's one or the other, I'd say you have to move the bunker.

Expanding a fairway bunker will nearly always give it less penalty value because more of the balls in the bunker will be away from the face.  Plus, extra-large blobby bunkers are going to look stupid in most settings.

However, the correct answer is (c) Don't change the bunkers for one week out of ten years!!!

P.S.  For extra credit, attempt to estimate how many strokes the moved bunkers at Oakmont actually added to the winning score in the event.

[JWL]

This is an interesting topic.   When it comes to championship venues and older, classic courses, the width of the fairway has always been the area of my greatest concern in the tournament setup.
It just doesn't seem appropriate to me that the rough between the fairway bunkering and the fairway should be the same penalty as that around or outside the bunkering.   A shot a couple of yards out of the fairway but inside the bunkering should not be penalized the same as a shot outside the bunkering, and the idea of a shot hit off line enough to reach a fairway bunker being a better situation than a shot just missing the fairway, but inside the bunkering, just doesn't make sense.
So, your question on whether to expand or move the bunkering is a relelvant one.   I personally would adhere to expansion of the existing bunkering toward the fairway.  The only problem with that approach is the altering of the scale of the bunkering.   Although I wasn't at Bethpage, it appeared that that is what happened, and from pictures, the bunkering appeared a bit incongruent.  That might have also been the case at Oakmont if the bunkers were altered to fit the fairway width.  I would have preferred a shorter rough between the bunkers and the new fairway line.   Enough to affect the spin the players could put on a shot into the greens.  Not chop out when 1 foot out of the narrowed fairway or step cut.   Just mho though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

The ironic thing is that a US Open player would often rather be in a fairway bunker than in 5" rough.

Moving the fairway bunkers closer to the fairways won't make a US Open course play any harder.

Then, why are they doing this ?[/color]

That was my objection to the new fairway bunkers right of #3 at Pebble. A US Open competitor in the rough there would have no chance. Now, being in a fairway bunker, he might well pull off the shot. (Yet the hole is harder for the resort player.)

I think that fairway bunkers are the least relevant architectural element in a US Open because they aren't any worse than the rough that surrounds them.

Matt, apparently that was considered and that may be why the bunkers were deepened[/color]

Chris Cupit,

Oakmont is now wide open, like Sand Hills, with only two trees in the interior.

I don't know that there has to be a relationship between the size of the fairway bunkers and the greenside bunkers.

I would imagine that green size greatly influences greenside bunker size.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

If it's one or the other, I'd say you have to move the bunker.

Expanding a fairway bunker will nearly always give it less penalty value because more of the balls in the bunker will be away from the face.  Plus, extra-large blobby bunkers are going to look stupid in most settings.

However, the correct answer is (c) Don't change the bunkers for one week out of ten years!!!

Tom, I couldn't agree more, however, some of the bunkers have already been moved.

The question is, how many future venues will relocate their bunkers in preparation for the U.S. Open and other Majors ?

Where do you think this concept came from ?

In 2004 Baltusrol was contemplating relocation.
Interestingly, at that time, their new Superintendent had just arrived from Oakmont.[/color]

P.S.  For extra credit, attempt to estimate how many strokes the moved bunkers at Oakmont actually added to the winning score in the event.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I prefer not to look at the question the way you present it.  In any case, I couldn't choose between the lesser of two evils in a general sense because its always gonna be a case by case situation.  

There is at least one more option - don't hold events in which the organizer requires a club to muck with its course.

I don't know that the USGA or the PGA requires a club to alter their golf course.

I don't know that the concept isn't home grown, from within the club.[/color]

Perhaps this sounds like a cop out, but if all clubs stood up and were counted, perhaps so much "renovation" wouldn't happen.  

Sean, you have to understand that some/many clubs want Majors and are ANXIOUS to do whatever is necessary to get them. [/color]

At the end of the day, its down to memberships to be the stewards of thier clubs.  

Agreed[/color]

If they choose to be USGA lackeys its up to them.  

I don't know that that's the case.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWL,

Why do you feel that it alters the scale ?
Aren't most of these venues rather large golf course (7,200+) from the back tees ?

Doesn't narrowing the fairway alter the scale ?

If a fairway was 40 yards wide, which is fairly wide, and they were narrowed by 5 to 7.5 yards on each side, wouldn't expanding the fairway bunkers by 5 to 7.5 yards blend well with the fairways, especially since the eye tends to focus on the fairway lines and moves away from features further removed from the fairway lines or corridors of play ?

If you examine Oakmont and Baltusrol in the context of how they were meant to play for the members, relocating the bunkers inward would seem to take them OUT of play for a substantive portion of the membership, clearly defeating the intent of the architect.

What I can't understand is:
Why would a club do this for only 4 days out of 3,650 or more days ?

Wouldn't it be more practical to expand the bunkers and flex the rough ?

[JWL]

PM

I am not sure I follow your question.   You said that taking the bunkers "inward" would take them further out of play for the members.  Are you defining "inward" as making them smaller or enlarging them toward the fairway to stay in touch with the fairway that has narrowed.  
The scale I was referring to was the scale of the original bunkers.   If one believes that the architect's scale was correct, at whatever course, then enlargining them would generally make them larger, especially in relation to the new narrow fairways.   I am not an advocate of placing significant rough width between the bunkers and fairway edge.   I see only two ways to rectify that..one being to enlarge the bunkers toward the fairway (which we recently did at Spring Creek Ranch outside of Memphis that will soon be the home of the Memphis Open) or have an intermediate rough between the fairway and bunkers...for the reasons that I explained earlier.

[Patrick_Mucci]

PM

I am not sure I follow your question.  

You said that taking the bunkers "inward" would take them further out of play for the members.  

Are you defining "inward" as making them smaller or enlarging them toward the fairway to stay in touch with the fairway that has narrowed.

I'm referencing the process of relocating the existing bunker inward, closer to the center of the fairway, matching the narrowing of the fairway by moving the rough lines inward.[/color]
 
The scale I was referring to was the scale of the original bunkers.  

If one believes that the architect's scale was correct, at whatever course, then enlargining them would generally make them larger, especially in relation to the new narrow fairways.  

I understand what you mean, but, relocating them would serve to defeat the architect's intent as well.

It may also be a question of function versus form, where form takes the back seat.

It would appear to be the dilema of trying to serve two Masters, even if service to one is for a mere 4 days.[/color]

I am not an advocate of placing significant rough width between the bunkers and fairway edge.  

I see only two ways to rectify that..one being to enlarge the bunkers toward the fairway (which we recently did at Spring Creek Ranch outside of Memphis that will soon be the home of the Memphis Open) or have an intermediate rough between the fairway and bunkers...for the reasons that I explained earlier.

How have the members of Spring Creek Ranch reacted to the expansion ?[/color]

[Mike Nuzzo]

P.S.  For extra credit, attempt to estimate how many strokes the moved bunkers at Oakmont actually added to the winning score in the event.

The winning score would have been 1.5 strokes higher had they not moved them as Cabrera would have been rough in stead...

[wsmorrison]

I like the idea (as I understand it from JWL) of leaving the bunkers where they are (given they are appropriately scaled and were designed and built correctly as they are.  A lower rough between the narrowed fairway and the bunkers wouldn't be so penal as heavy rough nor out of balance with the degree of error.  Let them advance the ball but not get any spin on the shot.  I think it appropriate to let the heavy rough be outside the bunkers and punish more severely an errant shot.  

In this setup, the horizontal elasticity option is available and the fairways can be slowly returned to their original dimensions after the circus has left town.  Perhaps there is an agronomic limitation.  Which grasses allow you to have this elasticity and which do not?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

I think we all like the option of keeping them where they are,
But, THAT AIN'T HAPPENING.

So the question remains, relocate the entire bunker, OR
expand the existing bunker ?