When was the last "new" bunker designed and built on The Old Course?

[Brian Phillips]

I have Scott MacPherson's book about TOC and there is a chronology of changes there but can anyone tell me the date of the very last "new" bunker to be built on the course and where it was built as in which hole?

I don't want existing bunkers that have be re-built but the actual very last ever bunker introduced onto the course.

I have a bet with my partner Graeme Webster about it.

Cheers,

Brian

[Jamie Barber]

I don't have the answer, but I read in Golf World 2002 Top 100 Edition (TOC ranked 4th) that all bunkers had "evolved" based on natural features. Is that true?

[Rich Goodale]

Brian

I'm not sure, but according to Jarrett  the last "named" bunkers built were the 3 "Kruger" ones (two for Oom Paul and one for his wifie) at the 9th, constructed by Old Tom Morris very early in the 20th century (NB--yet another Boer War GCA allusion).  I have a feeling that some of the silly little flying saucers which Low built down the right hand side of holes 2-6 might have come later (1908 rings in my mind) but I can't remember what the source of that ring might be.

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

No, Jamie, that is not true.  Bunker building was a keen passion of the folks who ran St. Andrews in the 1850-1910 period.  Many were built and many sodded over.  The myth that the Old Course just evolved is just that, a myth.

[Mark Alexander]

In 1949, Hull's Bunker on the 15th was was filled in, making it the last one to be removed. Not quite what you were after Brian, but an interesting factoid nevertheless.

[Mark Alexander]

According to the Links Trust, during the period between 1920 and 1924, there were bunkers cut on the 4th, 6th and 10th holes.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think there were bunkers added on the 'right side' of holes 2, 3 and 6 that were recentish (1940s rings a bell).

[Tom_Doak]

"The myth that the Old Course just evolved is just that, a myth."

Rich:  It would be a myth if anyone claimed that all of the bunkers got started or filled in entirely by natural processes.  But, having some bunkers formalized and others filled in by men is a form of evolution, too, isn't it?

[Niall C]

"The myth that the Old Course just evolved is just that, a myth."

Rich:  It would be a myth if anyone claimed that all of the bunkers got started or filled in entirely by natural processes.  But, having some bunkers formalized and others filled in by men is a form of evolution, too, isn't it?

Tom,

If you take that to its logcal conclusion then what you do, ie. design and build a golf course, is also a form of evolution, is it not ?

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

"The myth that the Old Course just evolved is just that, a myth."

Rich:  It would be a myth if anyone claimed that all of the bunkers got started or filled in entirely by natural processes.  But, having some bunkers formalized and others filled in by men is a form of evolution, too, isn't it?

Tom

The "myth" relates to the word "just."  Of course it evolved, but so has every golf course ever built or found.  Also, of course, the dirt they have moved over time on the Old Course was not just confined to bunkers.

Or is it just that you are coming around to my way of thinking that as man is an integral part of nature, all golf courses are "natural?"

Rich

[BCrosby]

According to the Links Trust, during the period between 1920 and 1924, there were bunkers cut on the 4th, 6th and 10th holes.

Mark -

Does the Trust say who the designers were? Was John Low involved with those changes in the 1920's?

A related question: does the Trust say anything about relocating bunkers on the 12th? Which, technically, would involve cutting new bunkers.

Bob

[Scott Macpherson]

I have Scott MacPherson's book about TOC and there is a chronology of changes there but can anyone tell me the date of the very last "new" bunker to be built on the course and where it was built as in which hole?

I don't want existing bunkers that have be re-built but the actual very last ever bunker introduced onto the course.

HI Brian,

That question is one that vexed me for a long time. Indeed, I would still like to know the definitive answer. In the hundreds of Journal articles, newspapers, books etc that I read, and even the R&A minutes, the answer to this question failed to become crystal clear. The best I got figured out was by looking at old yardage guides and cross checking them with written accounts. So as you have no doubt noticed in my book, it seems that the last new bunker/s was added between 1920 and 1924. ( I have a couple of ideas for some good new ones though.....)

What is more clear, as Mark correctly pointed out was the filling in of Hull bunker in 1949.

The 'Hole Changes Chronologically' section in my book is designed to be updated as we learn/discover more. If  or when a updated version is published, I would be delighted to any more information on TOC.

Meantime, thanks for buying the book. Hope you enjoyed it.

regards,

Scott

[Mark_Fine]

During the preparation of our book on hazards, I recall Peter Lewis, secretary of the Royal & Ancient's Golf Heritage Department talking to us about the history of many of the changes to the links.  He said many of the changes were "shrouded in fog and I'm afraid, whins."   He also noted on the day we spoke to him, the wind was howling at 40 mph.  He said, "Sand is continually moving around across the links.  The course is changing as we speak."

[Doug Siebert]

"The myth that the Old Course just evolved is just that, a myth."

Rich:  It would be a myth if anyone claimed that all of the bunkers got started or filled in entirely by natural processes.  But, having some bunkers formalized and others filled in by men is a form of evolution, too, isn't it?

Tom,

If you take that to its logcal conclusion then what you do, ie. design and build a golf course, is also a form of evolution, is it not ?

Niall

I'd call what Tom does more akin to Intelligent Design.  He comes up with a plan to convert land into a golf course, which is completed before any golf is ever played there.

TOC had people playing it long before any man did anything to affect the design of the course.  Over time people made changes here and there, and while the cumulative effect may be large, each one was pretty small - though I guess one could argue that going from 11 to 22 holes by not playing to the same hole out and back, then later going from 22 to 18 holes, would be pretty large steps by evolutionary standards.

I suppose those who believe the world to be only 6000 years old would also say TOC was intelligently designed, as the same guy who designed people and trees would have also designed TOC's land to be perfect for golf....but you'd think that similar to the deficiencies of the human eye versus other eyes in the animal kingdom that evolved separately, a truly intelligent designer could have done a better job with the 8th and 9th

[BCrosby]

Scott or Mark -

About 1908 John Low wrote that he had recommended to the R&A (he was a powerful member of the R&A at the time, including chairman of the rules committee) the relocation of several bunkers on the 12th.

Specifically, he recommended moving a couple of bunkers that were on the right of the landing area more towards the middle of the "fair green" of the 12th.

Low also noted that the R&A was considering the changes, but they had - as of circa 1908 - not been made.

Do either of you know whether those changes were ever made? I ask in part because it is an interesting historical footnote. But the bigger reason for the question is that the 12th is one of the best short par 4's in the world. Why that is the case has a lot to do with the hole's fw bunkering.

Bob

 

[Bill_McBride]

Scott or Mark -

About 1908 John Low wrote that he had recommended to the R&A (he was a powerful member of the R&A at the time, including chairman of the rules committee) the relocation of several bunkers on the 12th.

Specifically, he recommended moving a couple of bunkers that were on the right of the landing area more towards the middle of the "fair green" of the 12th.

Low also noted that the R&A was considering the changes, but they had - as of circa 1908 - not been made.

Do either of you know whether those changes were ever made? I ask in part because it is an interesting historical footnote. But the bigger reason for the question is that the 12th is one of the best short par 4's in the world. Why that is the case has a lot to do with the hole's fw bunkering.
 

Bob, do you think #12 was a better hole in the days before 300 yard carry tee shots?  For the truly large hitters, the profusion of fairway bunkers has little relevance.  I think Tiger even likes to play his second shot from behind the green!

On the other hand, my caddy at St Andrews has me hit my tee shot way off to the right toward the Eden course, at a maintenance road.  From there the approach is straight down the axis of the green from light rough.  For a 230 yard tee shot this might be the best play.

[Doug Siebert]

Maybe #12 needs a nasty bunker behind the green, then we can reset the clock for the last new bunker to 2009!

[Scott Macpherson]

Scott or Mark -

About 1908 John Low wrote that he had recommended to the R&A (he was a powerful member of the R&A at the time, including chairman of the rules committee) the relocation of several bunkers on the 12th.

Specifically, he recommended moving a couple of bunkers that were on the right of the landing area more towards the middle of the "fair green" of the 12th.

Low also noted that the R&A was considering the changes, but they had - as of circa 1908 - not been made.

Do either of you know whether those changes were ever made? I ask in part because it is an interesting historical footnote. But the bigger reason for the question is that the 12th is one of the best short par 4's in the world. Why that is the case has a lot to do with the hole's fw bunkering.

Bob

 

Bob,
 
You are right, Mr Low was a 'loud voice', but his recommendations as regards the 12th hole went unheard as far as I learnt. In my book (p160) there is a comparison photo of that green and greenside bunker over a 100 year period. You will see that very little has changed... except perhaps the whins (gorse).

The changes to the flora around the course will have impacted on the play lines for each hole- to a degree. And Bill would not have be hitting towards a 'maintenance path' perhaps only a few decades ago too.

scott

[BCrosby]

Thanks Scott.

Bill -

As for how the pros play the hole, the scoring averages at the last Open on the 12th don't jump out at you. Looks like just another par 4.

But the 12th's scoring spreads at that Open were off the chart for a par 4. They were extremely wide, among the widest I've ever tried to calculate for a par 4. Lots of low scores and lots of very high scores.

Which is a telltale of a great, strategic hole. I think its one of the most under appreciated holes at TOC.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"But the 12th's scoring spreads at that Open were off the chart for a par 4. They were extremely wide, among the widest I've ever tried to calculate for a par 4. Lots of low scores and lots of very high scores.

Which is a telltale of a great, strategic hole. I think its one of the most under appreciated holes at TOC."


Bob:

As you know I think that so-called "scoring spectrum" is undeniable as to the strategic quality and interest of a golf hole (or lack of it).  I wonder how Joshua Crane would have viewed that wide scoring spectrum on a hole like TOC's #12. What do you think about that?

I would also submit on this thread regarding TOC back then what some like Behr and Mackenzie felt was interesting about it and that was it could be pretty hard to tell where the fairways ended and the rough began. I think they liked that particularly form of architectural amorphousness!

[BCrosby]

TEP - I'd guess that Crane would not have been a fan of scoring spreads.

Given the emphasis he placed on "shot controls" (read: rough and other hazards) and on the idea that good and bad shots were to be proportionately and predictably rewarded or punished, as the case may be, he would not have liked the 12th at TOC.

The 12th has relatively few "controls", the rewards for good shots are uncertain given the fw bunkering. And the punishment for wild tee balls is, at best, unpredicatable and not proportionate to the degree of the error.

In fact, as Bill McB notes above, you can shove it wild right off the tee and have a pretty good shot into the green. That sort of outcome made Crane cringe.

Which leads me to think that on a good Cranian hole there would be a compression of scoring among similarly skilled players. Another way of looking at things is that the narrowest scoring spreads tend to be on US Open set-ups. Crane predicted, almost verbatim, the US Open set-up philosophy.

Bob