[Sean_A]

Concerning top shot bunkers, sometimes they don't make sense only because of a plethora of tees.  When there are five locations based on length, teeing areas can have a huge range.  A bunker may be 150 yards down the fairway one tee but only 50 for another.  So the issue isn't often about bunkers, its about tees.  How does an archie create an interesting bunker scheme which works well for such a spread of tees?  I don't think its easy and essentially compromises have to be made.  Of course, if I had it my way no such spread of tees would ever exist - its a huge scam.  

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Got an off line email from our old buddy Tom Paul, which got me to thinking in my response to him.

Actually, we had both figured someone on golf club atlas had made up the "top shot bunker."  However, he recalled seeing it in a Wayne Stiles report and also saw it in some Ross writings.

I recall the early days (I was 12…) of my interest in golf course architecture, when my Dad had gotten me several articles and I vividly recall one espousing the theory that a topped shot should never be allowed to run on greens, thus frontal bunkers left and right.  I suspect that the same theory may have held true for tee shots, especially back in the days when getting a driver airborne was a lot tougher than it is today.

That said, I do know Mac (ANGC) and Tilly (the great tour) changed their mind about such things in the great depression.  

It does raise the great question about original intent vs. changed paradigms, especially when those changed paradigms come about through harsh reality of depression era cost.  Even forgetting that, why build a top shot bunker on a 1928 course when by 1931 the gca had probably changed his thinking to a more “final” design philosophy?

I think a lot of architecture buffs have trouble thinking in the fourth dimension of time, since all the “olden days” get compressed to a mental time frame of being the same day.

Which goes back to my thinking that other than in preserving some great old course with historical value, do we design for today's game?  In my mind, you almost have to, even if removing some great looking old features sure can be tough some times.  I doubt most members (or public course owners) get all that teary eyed about a bunker 100 yards off the tee, if it slows down play, frustrates customers and cost a few thousand a year on top of it.  Not sure its entirely right, but saying that's the way it probably is.  However, not everywhere, and long live the differences of opinion!

It does remind me of a two hole addition (make up for loss of other holes) that I did years ago.  Owner sees a fairway bunker on the right side of the first hole and criticizes it for being too much in play.  I figured he would like the next hole with its fw bunker left, but he criticized that one, too, as "it would never come into play on the hook side...."

It seems like they get removed for extremes of too much and too little play.  So, I always wonder, what is the "proper amount of play" a bunker should get?

[Thomas Dai]

I'm aware of the historical architectural use of top-shot bunkers, but I wonder if they were all always sand bunkers?
I'm thinking here of the recent thread about the old bridlepath at North Berwick that has became a sand bunker. There's also that cage-like cover over the pedestrian walkway to the beach on the 1st (& 18th) hole Portsalon. Things, like hazards, sometimes evolve in surprising ways.
Generally speaking, if a sand bunker is no longer in play I'd be minded to remove the sand and leave the remaining hollow as a grass-bunker.
All the best

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas, that is certainly a nice compromise.  I recall seeing some old bunkers at Toledo CC in Ohio (Willie Park, Jr., dating to 1897 or so, at least the first nine)  They couldn't be 100 yards off the tee.  Still in place as grass bunkers.  

Saves money, leaves option open to recreate is someone really wants to.  

Actually, saw loads of those when I was living in Chicago,  and they are very common.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I think an error being made is the thought that the last bunker is a 190 carry for everyone.

It seems to ignore that a preponderance of golfers play from the forward, not the back tees.

I think you raise a relevant point in terms of preserving features at an historical course.

I think this somewhat complicates the decision to either relocate or retain the existing and create additional new bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You asked about the distances.  See below.  

The carry from today's back tee is around 190.  

And the carry from the front tee ?

What was the carry in the era that you feel exhibited the "original intent"?

The intent of the 190 yard carry was that it shouldn't be accomplished by hitting a "five" (5) iron off the tee, rather, by using a driver
Surely, even you understand that  .

What was the "original intent" of the bunkers.

Only a "flaming" moron wouldn't know the answer to that question.
Actually, only a "colossal" moron would ask that question.

To present the desired visual and to punish errant drives.

How could you not know that ?

[Mark Saltzman]

Where's the huge disconnect between softening a green to accommodate faster greens speeds and modifying a bunker scheme to accommodate today's driving distances?

Leave the bunkers as they were laid out in all cases.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You asked about the distances.  See below.  

The carry from today's back tee is around 190.  

And the carry from the front tee ?

This is your home course, isn't it?  Are you saying you can't pace off the distance from the back tee to the front tee and subtract it from 190 yards?    Hint, the tee is about 35 yards long, so the carry from the front tee might be somewhere around 170 yards.  

What was the carry in the era that you feel exhibited the "original intent"?

The intent of the 190 yard carry was that it shouldn't be accomplished by hitting a "five" (5) iron off the tee, rather, by using a driver
Surely, even you understand that  .

What percentage of your members can carry a 5 iron 190 yards?  What percentage carry the driver just a bit more than that distance?

What was the "original intent" of the bunkers.

Only a "flaming" moron wouldn't know the answer to that question.
Actually, only a "colossal" moron would ask that question.

To present the desired visual and to punish errant drives.

The moron-in-chief, that's you, stated in an earlier post:

I was thinking of the 16th hole at GCGC where there's a series of three bunkers that form a visual barrier from the tee.
In earlier times, they were highly functional.

Reading that literally, it says that the bunkers were a visual barrier and that they were highly effective in that role.  Now you've added that they were also intended to punish an errant ( I presume you mean too short a) drive.  Also, you seem to have added limiting the club selection (not a 5 iron) off the tee as part of the intent.

Given all that, in past eras, what percentage of tee shots were likely "punished" by the bunkers?  Was it it a whole lot different than now for the range of players that are members at GCGC.  Does the membership support the idea of moving, removing, or grassing over the bunkers.  

As I recall, doing the removing and moving bunkers at the second at TOC caused a firestorm of complaint.  Is GCGC not also a classic course worth preserving?


[/size][/color]

How could you not know that ? [/size][/color][/color]

You told us that we can't comment if we haven't played the course.  As the expert on playing that course it seemed prudent to ask you.  

[JMEvensky]

Bryan,you can't possibly expect him to walk the entire railroad line between Atlantic City and PVGC and then go walk off yardages from different tee markers at his home course,can you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Where's the huge disconnect between softening a green to accommodate faster greens speeds and modifying a bunker scheme to accommodate today's driving distances?

Leave the bunkers as they were laid out in all cases.

I'd tend to agree and would lean toward introducing their mirror image in the same relative position in the current DZ

The question is, how does that affect the golfers playing from the other tees.

Years ago, when fewer tees were in use, I think the issue was easier to resolve

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick, I couldn't tell from the photo if there was one big tee, or if those two bright green spots ahead were also tees.  Presumably, the average GCGC member hits it 225 or so (if in line with the national average) and I generally use 2/3 of that for carry distance, maybe up to 80% tops, or 170-180.  Works fine and maybe even questionable for many from the back of the tee.  Also, wind is a factor, too.

Obviously easier for longer hitters who play there.  Might work the same for shorter hitters on the forward tees.

Anyway, if its GCGC, I say leave them.  How many rake tracks do you see in a typical day? 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Mr Fazio doesnt think so

[Rick Shefchik]

Take it out, unless it's at The Old Course.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

The hole in qusetion though.
Those bunkers play with your head, even though you know they are not in play, they are so cool when looking down the fairway, certianly no reason at all to mve them.
Heck dont move anything at GCGC

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You asked about the distances.  See below.  

The carry from today's back tee is around 190.  

And the carry from the front tee ?

This is your home course, isn't it?  

NO, but, I play there when I can


Are you saying you can't pace off the distance from the back tee to the front tee and subtract it from 190 yards?    


No, but seeing as how I'm in another state and didn't want to be accused by being off by a yard, I thought it prudent to ask you for your linear measurement.  Silly me


Hint, the tee is about 35 yards long, so the carry from the front tee might be somewhere around 170 yards.  

I get 155 yards.
How did you subtract 35 from 190 and get 170 ?
Maybe that's the new math in Canada

What was the carry in the era that you feel exhibited the "original intent"?

The intent of the 190 yard carry was that it shouldn't be accomplished by hitting a "five" (5) iron off the tee, rather, by using a driver
Surely, even you understand that  .

What percentage of your members can carry a 5 iron 190 yards?  


Of the guys who play from the back tees, I'd say it's significant.

What percentage carry the driver just a bit more than that distance?

I'll take a poll when I next visit

What was the "original intent" of the bunkers.

Only a "flaming" moron wouldn't know the answer to that question.
Actually, only a "colossal" moron would ask that question.

To present the desired visual and to punish errant drives.

The moron-in-chief, that's you, stated in an earlier post:

I was thinking of the 16th hole at GCGC where there's a series of three bunkers that form a visual barrier from the tee.
In earlier times, they were highly functional.

That's correct, and that statement is in perfect harmony with my statements on this thread

Reading that literally, it says that the bunkers were a visual barrier and that they were highly effective in that role. [/color]

Nice try, but, that's NOT how my statement is read, literally.
That's your misguided intrepretation. 

Now you've added that they were also intended to punish an errant ( I presume you mean too short a) drive.  
Their inherent function was always to punish an errant drive and, your presumption is incorrect.

Also, you seem to have added limiting the club selection (not a 5 iron) off the tee as part of the intent.

Not at all.
I merely selected a five (5) iron to demonstrate the distance the young golfers are hitting the ball in conjunction with the location of the bunkers

Given all that, in past eras, what percentage of tee shots were likely "punished" by the bunkers?  

Significant  

Was it it a whole lot different than now for the range of players that are members at GCGC.  


Yes

Does the membership support the idea of moving, removing, or grassing over the bunkers.

Why would you introduce the "membership" to this thread.
This is a theoretical exercise in GCA having to do with bunkers that become obsolete in their function.
Here, let me remind you, this is the title and topic of the thread.

If a fairway bunker is no longer relevant for most play, should
the bunker be moved, or should the bunker be left intact with a new, similar bunker introduced in the DZ to replicate the intent of the original bunker ?

I merely cited a hole at a course I'm familiar with as a general example. 
[/color][/size]

[/size][/color]

How could you not know that ? [/size][/color][/color]

You told us that we can't comment if we haven't played the course.  
As the expert on playing that course it seemed prudent to ask you.  

That's NOT what I said, I stated that you can't comment on the play of a course if you haven't played it.
Certainly, providing accurate linear measurements and/or common sense when it comes to the function of a bunker shouldn't be beyond your capabilities, but, then again, maybe I overestimated you

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I couldn't tell from the photo if there was one big tee, or if those two bright green spots ahead were also tees. 

Jeff,

Just one tee, the bright green spots are just green grass that probably gets hit with the irrigation heads for the tee

Presumably, the average GCGC member hits it 225 or so (if in line with the national average) and I generally use 2/3 of that for carry distance, maybe up to 80% tops, or 170-180.  Works fine and maybe even questionable for many from the back of the tee.  Also, wind is a factor, too.

Yes, I forgot about the wind, which is usually from the South - Southwest.

But, from the front tee, the carry is a little over 155 yards.

Obviously easier for longer hitters who play there.  Might work the same for shorter hitters on the forward tees.

Anyway, if its GCGC, I say leave them.

I tend to agree, but, what about restoring the challenge that those bunkers were intended for. 

How many rake tracks do you see in a typical day? 

Not many, if any.

[JESII]

Pat,

I'd say it's case by case...and in this case, based on all of the evidence you've presented (and others) the best solution would seem to be to shrink the tee back from the front so the carry distance is no less than 180.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim, Jeff, et. Al.,

The cross bunker on # 3,at  NGLA would seem to be another example of a vestigial bunker.

When I first played there, carrying the high right side of that bunker was a considerable challenge.
Today, that challenge no longer exists, and in order to return the relevancy of that bunker and other features on the hole, the tee was moved back, temporarily, to a spot short right of the 2nd green, probably about 40-50 yards behind the regular tee, for the Walker Cup.

But, they had the luxury of available space to be able to do that.

[Steve Lang]

   Pat,

Some interesting discussion on your topic, ...  

i though there were some teeing spots up from the obvious one at left of picture posted.... where i first measured the 190 yards...  

If one wanted to catch the golfer's eye further down fairway, in similar landing zone, wouldn't you have to move the starting fairway's "wide rounded" shape down the fairway also?

I never knew GCGC was a mens only club.. do they take any flack for it from progressive women's groups ?

whether its kids, women, young or old men playing a course..  isn't the visual experience worth maintaining for all?

[Steve Lang]

Pat, Are you going to want blowup pics out of the old NGLA pic from 1938 vs recent?

[Joe Hancock]

Where's the huge disconnect between softening a green to accommodate faster greens speeds and modifying a bunker scheme to accommodate today's driving distances?

Leave the bunkers as they were laid out in all cases.

I'd tend to agree and would lean toward introducing their mirror image in the same relative position in the current DZ

The question is, how does that affect the golfers playing from the other tees.

Years ago, when fewer tees were in use, I think the issue was easier to resolve

Pat,

Why would you present a mirror image of a bunker, rather than a replica if the only intent is to relocate it?

I have seen very poorly relocated bunkers on a Major tournament venue where they disregarded the landscape to make the bunkers work numerically. Wrong solution to the wrong problem, in that case.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Where's the huge disconnect between softening a green to accommodate faster greens speeds and modifying a bunker scheme to accommodate today's driving distances?

Leave the bunkers as they were laid out in all cases.

I'd tend to agree and would lean toward introducing their mirror image in the same relative position in the current DZ

The question is, how does that affect the golfers playing from the other tees.

Years ago, when fewer tees were in use, I think the issue was easier to resolve

Pat,

Why would you present a mirror image of a bunker, rather than a replica if the only intent is to relocate it?

Joe,

Isn't a mirror image and a replica the same thing ?

I have seen very poorly relocated bunkers on a Major tournament venue where they disregarded the landscape to make the bunkers work numerically.

Why would you assume that the bunker/s would be poorly located ?

Wrong solution to the wrong problem, in that case.

Could it be that you're thinking of the reverse image ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, Are you going to want blowup pics out of the old NGLA pic from 1938 vs recent?

Steve, that July 1938 aerial of NGLA, SHGC and SGC is one of the most interesting golf aerials I've ever seen.

I was discussing it last week when I visited NGLA and SHGC.

I'm one of those who would like to see the bunkered areas restored at GCGC, NGLA and SHGC

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I'll just skip past the mirror image discussion. It's so elementary even a moron would know there's a difference between a mirror image and a replica.  

I didn't assume anything. My comments were limited to the example I cited, and I never mentioned your example/ situation as presented. I do feel that, in many cases, moving a bunker to a new spot involves more than just getting the distance right. Unless the landscape is void of elevation change, then there are things to consider in fitting the new bunker into the existing landscape in a way that isn't contradictory to the rest of the golf course bunker settings.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

 Pat,

Some interesting discussion on your topic, ...  

i though there were some teeing spots up from the obvious one at left of picture posted.... where i first measured the 190 yards...  
No, there's only one tee and it's land locked.  You might be able to pick up 5 yards at best.

If one wanted to catch the golfer's eye further down fairway, in similar landing zone, wouldn't you have to move the starting fairway's "wide rounded" shape down the fairway also?

I don't think so.
The visual from the tee presents all of the bunkers in play off the tee as well as the DZ.
If anything, the fronting berms on the three forward bunkers might have to be lowered if you were to introduce their duplicates further down range.

I never knew GCGC was a mens only club.. do they take any flack for it from progressive women's groups ?

Do those progressive women's groups permit male membership ?


whether its kids, women, young or old men playing a course..  isn't the visual experience worth maintaining for all?

Why do you assume that the "visual experience" would be lost ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()