The Bunkering at The National

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

The black flag has to be the flag in the green, not a directional flag.

I say that for the following reasons.

That flag isn't visible from the tee, it may not even be visible from inside the bunker

Look at the elevation change between the man in the white's head, the top of the bunker, the bottom of the stairs, the head of the fellow in the bunker and the floor of the bunker.

We know that that bunker sits high on the top of the hill, thus that flag is invisible from the tee if the golfer has to traverse the bunker from the tee.

Knowing that the land to the right falls off sharply, that flag wouldn't be visible to anyone hitting a second shot.
And, why would anyone place a directional flag in the middle of a green or fairway for approach shots of 50 to 100 yards.

And, if I go to the aerial, your bottom photo in post # 340, you locate that "directional" flag right in the middle of the fairway, a fairway that can clearly be seen from the tee.  Hence, there's NO NEED to have a directional flag there because the entire fairway is visible to the golfer as he stands on the tee within the footpad of the 1st green.

In addition, on your aerial, you've got that black flag 30 to 40 yards distant from the edge of the bunker.
In the 1920 photo it's barely 5 yards from the edge of the bunker.

The other item of note is the following.

Look at the black flag in the 1910 photo.
Look at how the land behind it, starting at its base in the ground, right up to the top of the flag, rises sharply.
There is NO land that rises like that on top of that hill, where you've positioned the black flag in your "google"aerial.

Again, the land forms don't match.

Please measure from the 2nd tee, within the right side of the 1st green, to the black flag in your google aerial.

If you're familiar with the topography in that area, as you stand at the base of the windmill/watertower, or up inside it, looking west or WNW, the land does NOT rise up like it does in your photo.  The "high" side of the bunker is NOT to the right, it's to the left.
Yet, the photo shows just the opposite

The landform, where you indicate the American and Black flags are, doesn't fit the landform in the photo.



If, the black flag is in fact the "green" flag, there is no terrain flanking or behind that green that bears any remote resemblance to the terrain on top of that hill, as you've depicted.  The topo's where your black and American flags are positioned don't match.

TEPaul,

The building in the backround is NOT the clubhouse
The clubhouse is much farther to the right, much closer to the windmill and a far more substantial building.
If this was a photo of #2, that structure would have to be the pro shop next to # 1 tee or a building on Saban's property, but, it's most definitely not the clubhouse.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

That flag would be visible from the tee.  See my other images with the flag in the same spot.   

From the perspective of the golfer on the tee,  the flag has rising ground next to it (to the right) not behind it.   

In the photo one of the men in the bunker appears to have just hit.    Had he been hitting at the dark flag he'd have been aiming right at CBM's face.    I don't think Wayne was around then so that isn't likely. 

Go check it out Patrick, and you will see what I mean. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Look at the land behind and left of the black flag in the 1910 photo.

Then look at your google aerial where you inserted the black and American flag.
There is NO land that rises high, to the left of the black flag.
If anything, the land falls off into a deep bowl in that area.

If I didn't have a function tonight I'd drive out to NGLA right now.

Could you address each of my questions, including why you have the black flag 30-40 yards into the fairway instead of tight to the bunker as it appears in the 1910 photo.

And don't tell me that the land bordering/behind the bunker falls off steeply as the contours on that hill don't support that premise.

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

David,

Look at the land behind and left of the black flag in the 1910 photo.

Then look at your google aerial where you inserted the black and American flag.
There is NO land that rises high, to the left of the black flag.
If anything, the land falls off into a deep bowl in that area.

Patrick that high hill is about two hundred yards away, and it is in both the google image and the old image (in the google image it has been flattened very slightly for Sebonac's parking lot.

If I didn't have a function tonight I'd drive out to NGLA right now.

Could you address each of my questions, including why you have the black flag 30-40 yards into the fairway instead of tight to the bunker as it appears in the 1910 photo.

And don't tell me that the land bordering/behind the bunker falls off steeply as the contours on that hill don't support that premise.

Thanks

Patrick,  I really have tried to address your questions but I fear we are going in circles.   The land from the bunker toward the flagpole bows slightly downward and then rises back up.  So it is only a trick of perspective that makes the flags (both flags) look so close to the bunker.    

Take a look at what you early thought looked like the highest point of the bunker in the old photo (to the right of the man on the ladder.)  Between that point and the rough behind it (in the photo) there is about 60 yards of fairway that we cannot see because of the angle of the photo and the trick of a flat perspective.  

I think the last five photos express pretty well what I am saying, take a look at the old one and the one from google earth both from the same angle.  The similarities are uncanny.  In fact you can even make out the lower finger into the bunker in both photos!
Take your camera when you go, and an open mind.  

By the way, I came across a photo of the real Sahara (the bunker, not the desert) from 1894 the other day. . . . 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Look at the land behind and left of the black flag in the 1910 photo.

Then look at your google aerial where you inserted the black and American flag.
There is NO land that rises high, to the left of the black flag.
If anything, the land falls off into a deep bowl in that area.

Patrick that high hill is about two hundred yards away, and it is in both the google image and the old image (in the google image it has been flattened very slightly for Sebonac's parking lot.

Dave, the hill begins on the green, continues to the areas where the grass heights differ and then continues upward.
That immediate configuration, within 50 yards of the black flag, does NOT exist where you've indicated.

I will take my camera and photo the views from the water tower, starting north and panning all the way to the south.
And, you will see that NO land form that remotely resembles the 1910 photo exists to the west-WNW of the water tower.

If I didn't have a function tonight I'd drive out to NGLA right now.

Could you address each of my questions, including why you have the black flag 30-40 yards into the fairway instead of tight to the bunker as it appears in the 1910 photo.

And don't tell me that the land bordering/behind the bunker falls off steeply as the contours on that hill don't support that premise.

Thanks

Patrick,  I really have tried to address your questions but I fear we are going in circles.   The land from the bunker toward the flagpole bows slightly downward and then rises back up.  So it is only a trick of perspective that makes the flags (both flags) look so close to the bunker.   

Take a look at what you early thought looked like the highest point of the bunker in the old photo (to the right of the man on the ladder.)  Between that point and the rough behind it (in the photo) there is about 60 yards of fairway that we cannot see because of the angle of the photo and the trick of a flat perspective.   

I think the last five photos express pretty well what I am saying, take a look at the old one and the one from google earth both from the same angle.  The similarities are uncanny.  In fact you can even make out the lower finger into the bunker in both photos!

Take your camera when you go, and an open mind.   

By the way, I came across a photo of the real Sahara (the bunker, not the desert) from 1894 the other day.  Pretty cool.  I will try and dig it up if you are interested.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  I wish I could join you on your expedition. 

I added the 1894 Sahara bunker above, not that it means anything to the discussion but it is pretty cool.

The land does slope slightly down from the bunker then back up on the other side. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

What fascinates me about those old photos is the difficulty of the bunkers and features, yet, those golfers enjoyed the challenge of interfacing with those features with equipment that seems inadequate to the task.

Yet, courses like Hollywood, NGLA and others were softened, to diminish or mute the challenge, despite the fact that the equipment was improving and golfers were getting bigger and stronger.

I attribute some of that to the broadening of the spectrum of participants, along with the increase in medal play.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

The building in the backround is NOT the clubhouse
The clubhouse is much farther to the right, much closer to the windmill and a far more substantial building."


Pat:

I really don't agree with that. If that is a building in the background I definitely don't think it was a pro shop building because I don't believe NGLA had anything like that back in those early days. You can also see in some of the old photos that the original clubhouse wasn't the size it is now.


I did ask you before if you don't think that photo is of the second hole what hole do you think it is of. I don't remember you answering but by process of elimination the only possiblity, in my opinion, would be the 3rd and there just seems to be too much difference to make that a probability.

[DMoriarty]

David,

What fascinates me about those old photos is the difficulty of the bunkers and features, yet, those golfers enjoyed the challenge of interfacing with those features with equipment that seems inadequate to the task.

Yet, courses like Hollywood, NGLA and others were softened, to diminish or mute the challenge, despite the fact that the equipment was improving and golfers were getting bigger and stronger.

I attribute some of that to the broadening of the spectrum of participants, along with the increase in medal play.

Part of it was likely the improvement of maintenance techniques that allowed them to have some control over that sort of thing.  Once we have the ability to control something, it is pretty hard for us to keep our hands off.  Whigham credited the Haskell with making the growth of the game possible, because it was not only easier to hit, it was also easier on the equipment.   Apparently mishitting the old ball was pretty damaging to the clubs.  Not sure how much the softening of the courses had to do with more people playing the game.

You mentioned that maybe the green in the photo was from the third.   Here is a photo of the third green from 1914, followed by a photo of the green at Prestwick from the same issue of GI.  As you can see, it isn't the same green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,

The building in the backround is NOT the clubhouse
The clubhouse is much farther to the right, much closer to the windmill and a far more substantial building."


Pat:

I really don't agree with that.
If that is a building in the background I definitely don't think it was a pro shop building because I don't believe NGLA had anything like that back in those early days. You can also see in some of the old photos that the original clubhouse wasn't the size it is now.

TEPaul,

The 1938 aerial seems to show a large rectangular structure adjacent to the 1st tee.
The clubhouse is located much lower on the property and much further to the right.
If you extend David's lines in the aerial, you'll see that the location of that structure is on high ground, not low ground, and it's well to the left of the clubhouse location which is slightly left and behind the 2nd tee, which is in the footpad of the 1st green.

I did ask you before if you don't think that photo is of the second hole what hole do you think it is of.

I don't think it's the second hole, but, if it is, that structure can't be the clubhouse as its location if far removed from the clubhouse location.
I indicated that it's probably the pro-shop/maintainance buildings or something on the Sabin property.
Yet, the 07-06-38 aerial doesn't reveal any structure on the Sabin property in that general direction.


I don't remember you answering but by process of elimination the only possiblity, in my opinion, would be the 3rd and there just seems to be too much difference to make that a probability.

There are also many similarities.
Tell me if the area with the black flag doesn't look exactly like the 3rd green ?
As does the area immediately adjacent to it.
Look at how that area slopes/falls away to the left, just like # 3.
In addition, you may be viewing that fronting bunker in the context of today's bunker, or even the 1938 bunkering scheme.
If the photo was taken in 1910, it's quite possible that the huge swale that exists today, could have been that bunker.
The photo could have been taken from up on the hill, short and to the left of that green.

I know that David maintains that the hill in the backround, which looks like it flows directly from the green, is 200 yards removed, but, I doubt there's any hill with that steep elevation anywhere in that area.

David's premise would seem to be that the land behind the American flag falls off and that a second hill is what's visible in the photo, yet, there is no terrain anywhere near the plateau, the top of the 2nd fairway that remotely looks like that or has those elevations and land flows.

I'm with George Bahto and Tom Doak on this in that I don't think it's the 2nd hole.
I'm about 90-95-99 % sure, but, there's always a 10-5-1 % chance it is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty, TEPaul, et. al.,

While we've spent 10+ pages on the "Sahara" bunker, there are so many other unique, fascinating, strategic, penal bunkers on that golf course, off the tee, on second shots on par 5's and around the greens.

The bunker complexes on the first hole are rather unique, starting with the fairway bunker complex on the left, the one that challenges a drive to clear it in order to achieve the most ideal approach angle into the 1st green.

To carry the last of the bunkers in this complex a drive in excess of 230 yards is required.
That's not always easy to do, even though the tee shot is down hill, due to the heavy air that frequents the site.
And, to some, the angle of attack off the tee, to clear the left side bunker complex, is awkward and has additional dangers if the drive is hit too far left.



Drives hit into this complex face a daunting approach to a green surrounded by bunkers.

This bunker complex begins at about 132 yards from the center of the green and continues until about 78 yards from the center of the green.
A 55 yard long bunker complex.

The right side fairway bunker is unique, it is flashed, and prevents the golfer from seeing the green or the flagstick.
There used to be a tree behind the green that served as a target, but, that's no longer there, leaving the golfer with a skyline shot over the top of the bunker.

This bunker is a little over 250 yards from the tee and a little under 54 yards to the center of the green.

And, the bunkers that surround the green are deep and steep

Thus, the first hole gives you a glimpse of the different bunker types you will encounter on the golf course.

Shorter tee shots hit to the center "safe zone" are faced with a blind approach to one of the most frightening 1st greens in golf.
A small, narrow green with spines/ridges, hollows and plataus, surrounded by deep, steep bunkers.

When the course is playing fast and firm, the approach, albeit a short one, becomes even more difficult.

Those who successfully challenge the left side bunker complex are left with the ideal approach into that green, an approach where the use of almost every club in the bag can be used, including your umbrella.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

That's an excellent description throughout of the 1st hole. For such a short par 4 it certainly does have an awful lot going for it throughout not to mention that it is one of the oddest to look at for the first timer.

The only thing I think you forgot to mention is how much those fairway bunkers come into play off the tee (for some club selections) because they are actually inline from the tee to the green and they are blind as is the fairway just to the right of them (at least from the back tees). That's a tee shot I've always found it seems almost impossible to play too far to the right. Of all the times I've played there in recent years I've only hit a long iron off the tee which certainly does bring those blind left fairway bunkers into play. A few times in the beginning I thought I hit the tee shot on the perfect line only to find myself in one of those bunkers. It is a deceptive tee shot for clubs of less than a driver.


I know what you mean when you say that photo in question looks like the 3rd green to you but as I said there is enough different about the 3rd green that would indicate that photo is not it. One of those things is the substantial berm behind the entire 3rd green, including the right side of it (you can see it in the photo of the 3rd green above) that just isn't in that photo labeled the 2nd or Sahara hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's true, every club selection off that tee has its own unique peril to face.

I hit driver every time.

I aim at the left corner of the rightside fairway bunker, trying to draw the ball into the fairway just in front of the green.

If I hit the driver straight, I'm left with a 50+ yard bunker shot, which I don't mind.
If I push or fade the driver I'm in the rough, which can be dicey, but, it's still a relatively short shot, albeit from a very bad angle.

I rarely hook the ball and can't ever remember being in the left rough except on one occassion.

Fairway woods or irons hit short face that muliti-bunker complex on the left, and are also left with a blind shot.

Drivers face the right and left rough and the rightside fairway bunker, so it's a matter of "picking your poison.

It's a GREAT opening hole.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You've hit driver every time and I've hit iron every time. That kind of thing is something of a barometer for an interesting strategic hole, in my book. It didn't take me long to figure out how far right to hit that tee shot and so I always had a wedge of some kind as an approach shot and as long as I have a pretty good yardage I've never cared that much if the approach is blind.

I know what you mean about that tree behind the green and its removal. In the last some years I played there I always seemed to be in the same place in the fairway and I got used to aiming at one of the left branches on that tree but obviously I wouldn't have that anymore.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm sure you heard about the fellow who drove the green and made a triple bogey 7.

When that green is fast and firm some of those hole locations were incredible.

I know they filled in the back left bowl, but, that had to be one of the most difficult hole locations to get to.

I always enjoyed standing on the 2nd tee and watching the variety of approaches and the fates they met.

You could stand there all day and plot the tee shots, approaches and results.

It's a wonderful hole and it plays less than the 327 yards, downhill, yet it produces some big numbers and has spoiled many a round.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

Here is the first from the 1938 Aerial . . .

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I miss that back left bowl but I suppose having removed it now could be considered something of a restoration---eg when they originally changed that area from tee space for #2 to greenspace on #1. I believe it was Karl Olsen who put that back left bowl in there.

That frontish left bowl is also pretty amazing and I think I was there the first time they tried it. I was still in my pajamas and I hit a bunch of putts from outside it. Some of them went right off the green but there seemed to be a way to get it fairly near that pin. The greens were at 11 that morning, by the way---and speeds like that really exaccerbate two putting to pins like that one if you aren't in that bowl.

I've actually never noticed how approach shots get into that frontish left bowl but I have to that old back left bowl----eg essentially they pretty much had to hit right on top of the sort of inline ridge and filter left very quietly! That was a margin for error of about three feet. I did it twice in one day, and so did one of my opponents (on the 19th hole no less) but I was not up there to see how it happened.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Thanks for the aerial photo.

It clearly indicates the two DZ's, the big one to the right of the flanking bunker to the left, and the second, more difficult DZ closer to the green, sandwhiched in between the left, right and left side bunkers.

Missing from the aerial is the uphill slope starting about 65 or so yards from the green, which sits perched up on a plateau of it's own.

You can see how open the green is to approaches short and left, however, getting your drive to that location isn't easy.
The old risk/reward.
Drives hit there have an unobstructed view, while drives hit right of center are blind.

It's a great opening hole.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, in this thread or another you mentioned how much the bunkers had changed since the 1938 aerial.  Here is a rough overlay of the current bunkers over the 1938 Aerial.  The bunkers are pretty much in the same spots, but the sand coverage seems to be significantly different. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

It would be hard to imagine the bunkers remaining static at the 70 and 100 year mark.

The forces of Mother Nature and Man have a way of altering things over time.

The fact that there's not a substantive change in the shape and position of the bunkers is good news.

It would be interesting to overlay the 1938 aerial with a current "Google Earth" aerial

It would seem as if that result would be a great aid to NGLA as they prepare for the 2013 Walker Cup.

The 1938 aerial would certainly seem like a great restoration benchmark.

[DMoriarty]

David,

It would be hard to imagine the bunkers remaining static at the 70 and 100 year mark.

The forces of Mother Nature and Man have a way of altering things over time.

The fact that there's not a substantive change in the shape and position of the bunkers is good news.

It would be interesting to overlay the 1938 aerial with a current "Google Earth" aerial

It would seem as if that result would be a great aid to NGLA as they prepare for the 2013 Walker Cup.

The 1938 aerial would certainly seem like a great restoration benchmark.

Patrick, that is essential what the photo above is.  In fact you can see a bit of the google aerial on the right side.  I colored the bunkers and then lined up the course as best I could, then took away the rest of the course.    I would not attest to a high degree of accuracy on that one because it was being done quickly.  But it wouldn't be too difficult to do with very little margin of error.   A better aerial would help though.  Is the one you have better resolution than what I am using?

With a cleaner overlay we'd probably not only be able figure out the difference in size, but the actual edge of the sand. 

Here is the google photo with the bunkers shaded and the overlay. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

What dawned on me when looking at the photos you posted is how NGLA has resisted bunker consolidation over the years.

Most clubs, for maintainance purposes, would have morphed a few bunkers into one, to save on time and money and to make those smaller bunkers less onerous and/or penal.

I think NGLA and other clubs with those types of "cluster" bunker configurations should be applauded for respecting and valueing their architectural uniqueness and history.

If you examine the 07-06-38 aerial showing Southampton, Shinnecock and NGLA, you can see where there's been significant bunker loss.

The 07-06-38 aerial should be the benchmark for restorations at all three.

[DMoriarty]

Pat, They've certainly haven't let the bunkers consolidate and I agree that is a good thing. But in some cases the bunkers are all but gone.  

Here are two photos, one from google maps then the same photo with the old bunkers overlayed (the yellow is the approx sand area of the current bunkers for comparison.

[Gary Slatter]

I have been wondering when GCAs restore older classics do they deepen the bunkering to reflect the changes in equipment? I don't mean digging equipment, I refer to the fact that when most were built sand wedges had not been perfected nor even invented.