Is this what happens when bunkers are

[Patrick_Mucci]

built with a primary objective of making them present well to the TV cameras ?

Tiger is in the bunker on # 12 today and essentially "lays up" within the bunker, in order to present him with a reasonable shot out of the bunker.

Yesterday, he has to play away from the hole from a bunker.

Is this a by-product of design for the views, the TV cameras ?

[jeffwarne]

Not unless the OldCourse and many other classic links were designed for the reason

[Dan Herrmann]

I had to play out sideways from a fairway bunker today.  And I really doubt that French Creek will ever be on TV.

[Kirk Gill]

Patrick, you have to connect the dots for me. Lots of bunker shots leave players in a position where they have little choice on how to proceed. How is the bunker presentation forcing this issue?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kirk,

Then connect the dots I will.

Do you really believe that the two bunkers behind the 13th green at ANGC were designed solely from a "playability" perspective ?

For years everyone complained about "eye candy".

When you examine how bunkers are configued it's not hard to tell which ones were configured to be eye candy and which ones were configured to provide a reasonable hazard.

Picture if you will, the "eye candy" bunker that rises up behind a green, with a pronounced slope from the base of the bunker to the back/top of the bunker.  Then, consider the recovery from that bunker to a green that runs away from you.

Essentially, you're talking about a downhill lie, to a green that slopes away from you, often with a water hazard awaiting a recovery that runs or flies too long.

Form vs substance ?

Eye Candy vs Function ?

[Ed Brzezowski]

I had to play out sideways from a fairway bunker today.  And I really doubt that French Creek will ever be on TV.

That's a very safe bet

[Bart Bradley]

Patrick:

Bunkers are hazards right?

So, you are arguing that the bunkers are configured at Muirfield Village to enhance their TV appearance?  What makes you think Jack didn't configure them this way because they make recovery more difficult.  

Remember, Jack had the bunkers furrowed at the Memorial one year because he felt that it was too easy for the pros to recover from bunkers and that they didn't represent enough of a hazard.  

Pat, what provides a "reasonable hazard".  One that is easy to play toward the pin and to avoid disaster?  

I think that bunkers should be variable in their penalty and force players to make choices.

Bart

[David_Tepper]

Patrick -

You have regularly commented in past years that bunker design has made bunker play to easy. I thought you would have approved of Tiger being stuck in a bunker or two where he couldn't knock it 2 feet from the hole.

On the subject of "eye candy," I will be interested to hear what a real GCA might have to say. My guess is some GCAs place bunkers on a course in areas where they know those bunkers will receive little, if any, action. These bunkers could be placed as aiming points or to emphasize a contour of the terrain. Didn't Mackenzie place some bunkers to make the green look closer than it actually was to someone standing out in the fairway? In some cases, such as a blind shot to an uphill green, a bunker on the slope behind such a green might simply help the golfer know where the green is located.

DT    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Bunkers are hazards right?

Right

So, you are arguing that the bunkers are configured at Muirfield Village to enhance their TV appearance?

Not just Muirfield Village 

What makes you think Jack didn't configure them this way because they make recovery more difficult.

What makes you so sure that "Jack" configured them ?

As to "making recovery more difficult", there are degrees of difficulty related to configuration.
The penalty for a failed recovery are too dire.
Either redrop on a steeply sloped, downhill lie in the bunker, no nearer the hole, or, go to the other side of the hazard, keeping the entry point between you and the flag..

Both are excessive penalties from a hazard in juxtaposition to the downward sloping green and water hazard.

Playing from a downhill lie to a green that slopes away from you with a water hazard at the foot of that green, is questionable architecture.
But, when viewed from the tee or tower, the "eye candy" question doesn't just jump at you, it leaps into view and question. 

Remember, Jack had the bunkers furrowed at the Memorial one year because he felt that it was too easy for the pros to recover from bunkers and that they didn't represent enough of a hazard.  

That's irrelevant.
And, he also abandoned that idea

Pat, what provides a "reasonable hazard".  One that is easy to play toward the pin and to avoid disaster?  

I can't speak to a "reasonable hazard", but, I can speak to a reasonable bunker, in conjunction with what the golfer is faced with as he attempts extrication from that bunker.

I think that bunkers should be variable in their penalty and force players to make choices.

I think the "choices" have to be reasonable choices, or incremental choices not necessarily "pass/fail" choices.

When a bunker is constructed to provide optimal TV exposure while compromising reasonable standards of recovery, I question it's architectural merit.

I also don't know if you're aware of it, but, starting tomorrow, golfers with handicaps of 0 to 26 will begin replaying that course.

Ditto for October at ANGC.

Golf and golf architecture shouldn't be viewed solely in the context of what the best golfers in the world are faced with for four (4) days per year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick -

You have regularly commented in past years that bunker design has made bunker play to easy. I thought you would have approved of Tiger being stuck in a bunker or two where he couldn't knock it 2 feet from the hole.

David,

What about "Tiger" Schmaltz and "Everyday Joe"
There's only one "Tiger Woods", but, there are thousands of the other guys playing that course throughout the year.

There's a difference between "easy" and "diabolical".

There's a difference between playability and viewability.

On the subject of "eye candy," I will be interested to hear what a real GCA might have to say.

My guess is some GCAs place bunkers on a course in areas where they know those bunkers will receive little, if any, action.

That's not the case at Memorial or ANGC

These bunkers could be placed as aiming points or to emphasize a contour of the terrain

Not at Memorial and ANGC.

Didn't Mackenzie place some bunkers to make the green look closer than it actually was to someone standing out in the fairway?

That's got to do with a purpose, a function, AM didn't do it for the TV cameras.
And, AM didn't hide water between those bunkers and the green, such that the deception led to an excessive penalty.

In some cases, such as a blind shot to an uphill green, a bunker on the slope behind such a green might simply help the golfer know where the green is located.

Think of how that bunker would have to be sloped in order to send that signal to the eye.
Now put water in front of that green and then try to play from that severely sloped bunker.

DT    

[Kirk Gill]

I don't know that "reasonable-ness" plays into this at all.

To me, an eye candy bunker is one that doesn't really serve as a hazard, but as an aesthetic feature. Tiger Woods found those bunkers to be pretty hazardous. And these golfers have played this course many times. They know what getting in there can mean. Are you talking about the 12th? That's the number one handicap hole on that course. It's brutal. Maybe it is too hard, but the logical leap I'm having trouble making is that it was made that hard because of television. Where are you getting that from?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know that "reasonable-ness" plays into this at all.

To me, an eye candy bunker is one that doesn't really serve as a hazard, but as an aesthetic feature. Tiger Woods found those bunkers to be pretty hazardous. And these golfers have played this course many times. They know what getting in there can mean. Are you talking about the 12th? That's the number one handicap hole on that course. It's brutal. Maybe it is too hard, but the logical leap I'm having trouble making is that it was made that hard because of television.

Where are you getting that from?

"hard" is a by-product of it's primary function.

A bunker, primarily configured to appeal to the camera can be overly difficult to the golfer, since there's a conflict in the intended function.

[David_Tepper]

"That's not the case at Memorial or ANGC"

Patrick -

There is nothing in your original post that indicated you intended to limit this discussion to Memorial and/or AGNC. They do not represent the universe of golf course design any more than PGA Tour golf represents the universe of golf played at large. My comments were directed to golf course design in general.

Having never set foot on either course, I cannot comment on how the bunkers play or are placed at those two courses. I do have my doubts as to whether or not Jack Nicklaus and/or members of his design team ever had a discussion about how the design of the bunkers at Muirfield Village would look on TV.

DT

[Patrick_Mucci]

"That's not the case at Memorial or ANGC"

Patrick -

There is nothing in your original post that indicated you intended to limit this discussion to Memorial and/or AGNC.

Ahhh, but, I did limit the conversation to courses presented on TV.


They do not represent the universe of golf course design any more than PGA Tour golf represents the universe of golf played at large.

I wasn't referencing the "universe of golf played at large"
I specifically limited the discussion to courses on TV, especially the ones in a set rota, like Muirfield and ANGC.

My comments were directed to golf course design in general.

Then you need to reread my original post.

Having never set foot on either course, I cannot comment on how the bunkers play or are placed at those two courses.

I do have my doubts as to whether or not Jack Nicklaus and/or members of his design team ever had a discussion about how the design of the bunkers at Muirfield Village would look on TV.

Difficult to imagine that when he was copying holes from courses like ANGC that he didn't consider the visual element as seen through the TV cameral.

 

[David_Tepper]

Pat -

Perhaps you should reread your original post. There is nothing in it about limiting the discussion to Muirfield Village or AGNC.

Perhaps you should have titled this thread "Re: Is this what happens when the bunkers at Muirfield Village are" if your intention was to only discuss the topic in the context of MV.   

In addition to MV and AGNC, there are well over 30 other courses played by the PGA Tour presented yearly on TV.   

Do you think it would be interesting to know if Jack Nicklaus ever discussed with Tom Doak how the bunkers at Sebonack would look on TV?

DT

[Connor Dougherty]

This discussion is being wasted on yet another "Did Patrick Mucci say this or do that" in an attempt to trip him up. Perhaps it's warranted sometimes but this is certainly not one of those cases.

Pat -

Perhaps you should reread your original post. There is nothing in it about limiting the discussion to Muirfield Village or AGNC.

Ahhh, but, I did limit the conversation to courses presented on TV.

I specifically limited the discussion to courses on TV, especially the ones in a set rota, like Muirfield and ANGC.

My comments were directed to golf course design in general.

Now that we settled this.

Muirfield Village serves a purpose. It's designed for better golfers, to give them a stiff challenge that makes the world's best (and solid scratch golfers) think. Every member should know that. Patrick, you say that they have to take into consideration the average golfer, and I ask, why?
Pine Valley didn't and publicly said it, so should we chastise them too?

It's a shame so many golf courses think that they should be so difficult, but is it wrong to have a collection of interesting courses for the best in the world? I look at Oakmont, Olympic Club, Chambers Bay, Bethpage Black, so on and so on, and say...no.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Connor,

Thanks.

Glad you brought up Pine Valley.

Pine Valley was crafted, almost solely, as you state, for the "Championship" golfer.

It was not crafted for the TV cameras.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the bunkers behind # 13 at ANGC were crafted, in part, for the TV cameras ?

Hitting from the downslope of those rear bunkers, to a green that slopes away from you, that's maintained at a fast speed, with a creek immediately adjacent to the putting surface has to be an incredibly difficult shot for members and guests six months a year.

While some fellows playing in the Masters are capable of executing that shot, some aren't.

Those bunkers serve a dual function, and TV is one of their masters, whereas the bunkers at Pine Valley served but one function.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you think it would be interesting to know if Jack Nicklaus ever discussed with Tom Doak how the bunkers at Sebonack would look on TV?

Muirfield and ANGC were created to serve as the venue for an annual tournament.

Sebonack was not created for a similar function.
Sebonack was created to be a difficult golf course.

I'm fairly certain that Mike wanted to attract and retain a championship/s.

Tom Doak can speak for himself, but, I don't believe that Sebonack was ever created to hold an annual PGA event, ergo, I don't think the bunkers were crafted for the cameras.

However, some of them were certainly crafted for the eye.

[Connor Dougherty]

Pine Valley was crafted, almost solely, as you state, for the "Championship" golfer.

It was not crafted for the TV cameras.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the bunkers behind # 13 at ANGC were crafted, in part, for the TV cameras ?

Hitting from the downslope of those rear bunkers, to a green that slopes away from you, that's maintained at a fast speed, with a creek immediately adjacent to the putting surface has to be an incredibly difficult shot for members and guests six months a year.

While some fellows playing in the Masters are capable of executing that shot, some aren't.

Those bunkers serve a dual function, and TV is one of their masters, whereas the bunkers at Pine Valley served but one function.

This is a fair point. As you said, the bunkers serve a dual purpose. However, I would dispute what you claim to be the primary purpose. The I would argue that the bunkers are built to be difficult for the tournament (at least at Muirfield Village), and then structured and placed so they also look good on TV. However, to get the real answer to that question we'd have to ask Jack himself, because aI am merely speculating. 

ANGC's 13th, on the other hand, is an interesting example because those bunkers were there long before the event was televised. On the other hand, given all of the changes to the course over time, it may be why they are still there. Those bunkers used to be fingers on the hillside, and I can only imagine, both through television and the video game, how much more intimidating going for the green is with those bunkers looming on the left. It makes the green look so much smaller. I would assume that was the original intention.

With original green speeds, I would imagine that the downhill shot to a crowned (as it was originally) green would be reasonable for the average member, whereas with the increased green speeds, that shot is downright terrifying.

[Mark Pearce]

Hitting from the downslope of those rear bunkers, to a green that slopes away from you, that's maintained at a fast speed, with a creek immediately adjacent to the putting surface has to be an incredibly difficult shot for members and guests six months a year.

Best not to hit your ball in to that hazard, then.

While some fellows playing in the Masters are capable of executing that shot, some aren't.

So the bunkers serve the purpose of differentiating between the very best golfers and those not quite so good?

Those bunkers serve a dual function, and TV is one of their masters, whereas the bunkers at Pine Valley served but one function.

It seems from what you say about them that they serve their first function, as hazards, admirably.  If they also serve a second function that's not a problem, so long as it doesn't prevent them fulfilling their function as a hazard.  I don't have a problem with Tiger having to "lay up" in the bunker.  If the bunker was a water hazard that would not have been an option open to him.

[Rich Goodale]

built with a primary objective of making them present well to the TV cameras ?

Tiger is in the bunker on # 12 today and essentially "lays up" within the bunker, in order to present him with a reasonable shot out of the bunker.

Yesterday, he has to play away from the hole from a bunker.

Is this a by-product of design for the views, the TV cameras ?

No.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hitting from the downslope of those rear bunkers, to a green that slopes away from you, that's maintained at a fast speed, with a creek immediately adjacent to the putting surface has to be an incredibly difficult shot for members and guests six months a year.

Best not to hit your ball in to that hazard, then.

Mark, you have to remember that the fairway in the DZ has a slope that promotes a draw/hook, bringing those bunkers into play for anyone going for the green in two.   In addition, there's a creek to the right, which most golfers will play away from, again bringing the bunkers into play.
Golfers trying to hit a fade into that green can double cross the shot ending up in those bunkers as well.

While some fellows playing in the Masters are capable of executing that shot, some aren't.

So the bunkers serve the purpose of differentiating between the very best golfers and those not quite so good?

Not really.
Everybody on the PGA Tour is a great golfer.
Their games just vary week to week, day to day and hole to hole.
Just because Tiger pulls or hooks his ball into those bunkers doesn't mean that he's "not quite so good".

Those bunkers serve a dual function, and TV is one of their masters, whereas the bunkers at Pine Valley served but one function.

It seems from what you say about them that they serve their first function, as hazards, admirably.  If they also serve a second function that's not a problem, so long as it doesn't prevent them fulfilling their function as a hazard.  I don't have a problem with Tiger having to "lay up" in the bunker.  If the bunker was a water hazard that would not have been an option open to him.

[Patrick_Mucci]

This is a fair point. As you said, the bunkers serve a dual purpose. However, I would dispute what you claim to be the primary purpose. The I would argue that the bunkers are built to be difficult for the tournament (at least at Muirfield Village), and then structured and placed so they also look good on TV. However, to get the real answer to that question we'd have to ask Jack himself, because aI am merely speculating. 
Or Des Muirhead 

ANGC's 13th, on the other hand, is an interesting example because those bunkers were there long before the event was televised.

Not true.
I don't believe those are the original bunkers, in location and configuration.
Does anyone believe that those are MacKenzie's bunkers ?

On the other hand, given all of the changes to the course over time, it may be why they are still there. Those bunkers used to be fingers on the hillside, and I can only imagine, both through television and the video game, how much more intimidating going for the green is with those bunkers looming on the left. It makes the green look so much smaller. I would assume that was the original intention.

More speculation ? 
I think those bunkers were altered over time and I think, given their position, that the alteration process included giving their remodeling more camera appeal

With original green speeds, I would imagine that the downhill shot to a crowned (as it was originally) green would be reasonable for the average member, whereas with the increased green speeds, that shot is downright terrifying.

I'm not so sure that, in their original configuration, that the bunker produced the same downslope that exists today.

I'll have to look at the photos from 1933/4

[Jim Nugent]

Whenever I see maps/drawings/photos of the early ANGC, I'm stuck by how many bunkers appeared to be out of play.  At least for pro's/top players.  Some examples, based on Ron Whitten's GD article about the changes to ANGC (http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/georgia/augusta-changes):

#2 fairway bunker
#6 topshot bunker
#8 fairway bunker
#14 fairway bunker
#16 greenside bunker (looks like 20 yards left and short of green)
#18 centerline bunker about 60 yards short of green

It also looks like #12 had a small bunker behind the green, on the hill.  I think it would have required playing a sand shot from a downhill lie, to a shallow green with water on the far side. 

In the photo tour I saw of CPC, it also looked like some of the bunkers were pretty much out of play. 

Mac obviously wasn't designing for TV.  But it looks like he sometimes designed bunkers for show as opposed to function, at least where good players were concerned.   

[Connor Dougherty]

This is a fair point. As you said, the bunkers serve a dual purpose. However, I would dispute what you claim to be the primary purpose. The I would argue that the bunkers are built to be difficult for the tournament (at least at Muirfield Village), and then structured and placed so they also look good on TV. However, to get the real answer to that question we'd have to ask Jack himself, because aI am merely speculating.  
Or Des Muirhead  

ANGC's 13th, on the other hand, is an interesting example because those bunkers were there long before the event was televised.

Not true.
I don't believe those are the original bunkers, in location and configuration.
Does anyone believe that those are MacKenzie's bunkers ?

On the other hand, given all of the changes to the course over time, it may be why they are still there. Those bunkers used to be fingers on the hillside, and I can only imagine, both through television and the video game, how much more intimidating going for the green is with those bunkers looming on the left. It makes the green look so much smaller. I would assume that was the original intention.

More speculation ?  
I think those bunkers were altered over time and I think, given their position, that the alteration process included giving their remodeling more camera appeal

With original green speeds, I would imagine that the downhill shot to a crowned (as it was originally) green would be reasonable for the average member, whereas with the increased green speeds, that shot is downright terrifying.

I'm not so sure that, in their original configuration, that the bunker produced the same downslope that exists today.

I'll have to look at the photos from 1933/4

Patrick,
According to Golf Digest, here was the original configuration of the hole. EA Sports also has the 1937 version of Augusta in the game, and included similar looking bunkers. The green, as I mentioned, was more crowned in the video game than it is today, which I thought was interesting. The bunkers were built into the hillside where the current bunkers are located, so the assumption is they still had significant downslope, even if it isn't as much as today's bunkers.

EDIT: I looked at some older photos, the bunkers were built into the same hillside but did not occupy quite as much space and were not dug as deep as the current bunkers. They still presented a downhill bunker shot but not as demanding as the current bunkers.

[Tags:]

Tags: