Loss of historic bunker shapes - 13th at Deal

[G Jones]

.

[Mark Pearce]

That new bunker is horrible.

[Josh Bills]

Here is an aerial from 2003.  Guess that's why it was called a redesign in the blog and not restoration.  Have not been there but hate to see the loss of unique features on a course.  

[G Jones]

.

[Paul OConnor]

I like the new ones better.

[Brent Hutto]

I've never understood why people get so exercised about the shape of bunkers. Sometimes it seems half the commentary on this forum concerns shapes or aesthetics of the edges of bunkers (and the other half is about where they're located).

When I see the old bunkers, they look to me like oddly squared-off bunkers that are perfectly fine for their purpose.

When I see the new bunker it looks to me like a round, revetted bunker much the same as hundreds of similar bunkers on links courses everywhere.

The differences are so minor that I'm not sure there's anything in it. The new ones do look a lot less eroded and worn-down, of course.

[jeffwarne]

I like the new ones better.

That was my thought too......

[Paul OConnor]

I like the new ones better.

That was my thought too......

I just wonder where the large rodent that had his door located in the left front face of the old bunker is going to make his new entryway.  Perhaps the greenskeeper has "eliminated" this problem with the help of a certain Mr. Carl Spackler.

[Mark Bourgeois]

G Jones is putting forth an argument of historical loss. Individual opinions pro and con regarding one's personal aesthetics are irrelevant to his argument, just as whether one prefers or abhors the aesthetics of the painting to the right are beside the point:



Well, I say they *should* be irrelevant. We must always allow for those who believe their own personal aesthetics are more important than other considerations. Like history, original design, etc. This appears to be a trait found periodically in green committee chairmen.

[G Jones]

I like the new ones better.

That was my thought too......

Maybe so, but you don't take a famous impressionist painting and try to alter it to make it look like a Surrealist painting. I have no problem with someone creating a new surrealist painting, but I do care about defacing something that should be left for the future as an example of a particular style.

And if you don't care about the styling of bunkers, that's fine also, but surely you can still understand that many people do care about the history of golf course architecture aesthetics.

Edited to say that Mark's point is exactly what I'm struggling to articulate!

[Brent Hutto]

I do understand that some people care very, very, very, very, very much about that sort of thing. Having been around this forum for a few years, it would be hard not to know how very much some people care about that sort of thing. I've nothing against quirky originalist preferences.

Just making the comment that I personally don't care overmuch. I'm pretty much all about playing the course that's presented to me on the day. Unless the new is demonstrably lacking versus the old it doesn't bother me that's it is new.

[Paul OConnor]

I like the new ones better.

I suppose I would like a new "square-ish" bunker just as much and maybe more than the new circle bunker.  I certainly did not like the old, tired, saggy, worn out look of the old bunker all that much.   

And about the varmit making a home there... what of him?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Brent,

We all entitled to our opinions, all entitled to love or hate something. My point is just that just because I love /hate something doesn't mean I should endeavor to change it. We can all benefit from a little humility in our behaviors.

And by the way, I'm curious to hear the rationale. Maybe there's a functional argument to be made along the lines of, "We destroyed a piece of our history because drainage." Shit happens.

[jeffwarne]

Brent,

We all entitled to our opinions, all entitled to love or hate something. My point is just that just because I love /hate something doesn't mean I should endeavor to change it. We can all benefit from a little humility in our behaviors.

And by the way, I'm curious to hear the rationale. Maybe there's a functional argument to be made along the lines of, "We destroyed a piece of our history because drainage." Shit happens.

I completely get it. I'd prefer architecture to stay original at a course as fine as Deal also.(even if I prefer the look of the new which doesn't look exactly circular to me-more ovalish )


 I do question whether or not the original bunker was square, even with the old photo. Things do change over time and perhaps the bunker had evolved to that by the time the old picture was taken.
If they pulled out an old photo from day one at Deal, and the original was indeed circularish, would that be the way to go? even though everybody alive remembers the square?
just wondering-no dog in this fight
and as Mark says perhaps there"s some function to it.

Also, what exactly is the difference between tweaking, a la Ross at Pinehurst, and others, and "destroying history"
and if your course is very good, are you entitled to "destroy history"in an attempt to make it great?

[Brent Hutto]

I just think that where a bunker is situated, how visible it is to the golfer, how difficult it is to play from and how big it is are the only things that matter. If a bunker is roughly the same size, visibility, depth and playability as an older version of itself but it's shaped slightly differently then it is as far as I'm concerned the same bunker.

So I would definitely be against a course as excellent and historic as Deal being given functionally different bunkering for no defensible reason. I just don't see this as being a case. They just rounded it off and made it more conventional looking while playing substantially the same (except for the one change they mentioned in the greenskeepers blog which for all we know may be a change back toward some earlier instance of that bunker playability-wise).

[Sean_A]

If folks are going to get hot under the collar about the shape of bunkers, why not focus first on the placement, or more accurately the fairway lines.  I can understand in the old days when a cottage was off the fairway that the bunkers weren't more centreline (the left definitely was).  Now there is no cottage I can't see why both bunkers don't cut into the fairway.  

In any case, I have seen a photo from 1920ish and the bunkers don't look square.  I think they have been tidied up to look more like the 4th at Sandwich before the circular jobbies took over.  So it always gets back to historical dating from when?  I am not overly bothered either way, but I much prefer a squarish look for these bunkers and I reckon for the 3rd as well - same for the 17th.  To me circular bunkers are meant to be low lying, semi blind.  

Ciao    

[Neil White]

It would appear that the left-hand bunker has already seen some remedial work - as seen in this 2008 Google earth image.  You can make out the original 'square' shape at the leading edge of the bunker.

I do wonder what architectural relevance the shape of the bunker has - it has no more strategic impact whether it be round or square.  

What interests me more is the fact that the duo seem to be only 180 metres from the back most tee on the slice side - if anything they are more penal to the lesser player than anything else.  

Be glad that the powers that be haven't deemed them superfluous and filled them in.

[Michael Felton]

Playing into a healthy wind (the prevailing one) I can assure you that those bunkers are not always easily carryable.

Not to mention, with the angling of the hole, if you play over them, you have a better and shorter line to the green, whereas if you play "safe" to the left, you are left with a longer and more awkward approach shot. I think their positioning is just fine.

I'm not particularly fussed about square versus round.

[G Jones]

I do wonder what architectural relevance the shape of the bunker has...

I guess this depends on whether you believe aesthetics are a part of architecture.  It's clear that in the sense referring to buildings the frills added for beauty only are definitely an integral part of an architectural style. I believe golf course architecture also includes aesthetics alongside engineering, strategy, etc. But it seems you don't agree?

[Sean_A]

Playing into a healthy wind (the prevailing one) I can assure you that those bunkers are not always easily carryable.

Not to mention, with the angling of the hole, if you play over them, you have a better and shorter line to the green, whereas if you play "safe" to the left, you are left with a longer and more awkward approach shot. I think their positioning is just fine.

I'm not particularly fussed about square versus round.

One has to get quite lucky to get a good lie in the rough if you carry the bunkers.  Plus, in the prevailing wind coming from the clubhouse direction or even more quartering, that wind helps from the left side of the fairway.  Count me as one who thinks the bunkers would be much effective with fairway swinging to the right - thus creating a Principal's Nose. This is far more important to me than the shape, though the circular deals do look odd.

Ciao

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

Both bunkers on the right of 13 were changed around 8-10 years ago as they suffered from wind blow. I'm told by the current team the most recent shape could still take 30 minutes of raking to get the sand back into the right places.

Like many fairway bunkers at Deal they have become less of a hazard to the better player unless it's very windy and now catch the member while the better player uses them for a line. During the Amateur this year at times players were using irons to play short of the cross bunkers 300 yards out.

16 was one of the better par 5s in golf when a good tee shot left the player deciding how far to hit the ball into the "valley of glorious insecurity" to leave a good pitch to the green. Now it needs a 3 club wind to force the better player into this dilemma.

[Brent Hutto]

16 was one of the better par 5s in golf when a good tee shot left the player deciding how far to hit the ball into the "valley of glorious insecurity" to leave a good pitch to the green. Now it needs a 3 club wind to force the better player into this dilemma.

Now without the wind, it is "merely" one of the better par 5's in golf for short-hitting 17-handicap visitors. 

Hell of a golf hole IMO. It took me a good half-dozen times around Deal for that weirdo back nine stretch to become co-favorites of mine along with the wonderful stretch of front-nine holes running the opposite direction. Once you get it figured out they're hard but fun, at first they're just hard.

[Michael Felton]

Playing into a healthy wind (the prevailing one) I can assure you that those bunkers are not always easily carryable.

Not to mention, with the angling of the hole, if you play over them, you have a better and shorter line to the green, whereas if you play "safe" to the left, you are left with a longer and more awkward approach shot. I think their positioning is just fine.

I'm not particularly fussed about square versus round.

One has to get quite lucky to get a good lie in the rough if you carry the bunkers.  Plus, in the prevailing wind coming from the clubhouse direction or even more quartering, that wind helps from the left side of the fairway.  Count me as one who thinks the bunkers would be much effective with fairway swinging to the right - thus creating a Principal's Nose. This is far more important to me than the shape, though the circular deals do look odd.

Ciao

Ciao

Hmm, two things confuse me. One, I thought if you hit it over the middle of the left bunker and about 40 yards past it, you'd be right in the middle of the fairway. In between the bunkers puts you on the edge of the fairway. Over the right one puts you in the rough. Or, where I have played from rather more than I care to think about, right of the right one puts you in the deep stuff if you're lucky and those bushes if you're not.

Two, that fairway points pretty much directly at the clubhouse. The only way it would help from the left, but not the right is if the wind was coming directly off the sea and I know from playing the 6th, that's not common. At least not in April.

Nevertheless, the green really wants an approach from the right side. It's very hard to judge the approach from the left, with that bunker to the left of the green gobbling up anything that you tug a bit and a running shot slides across the green. Very hard to get at any pin that's on the left from the left side. Even if the flag's on the right, I'd say you still want to play to the middle of the green because that little swale on the front right leaves a very fiddly little chip/putt if you miss it in there. I think the fairway being to the left of the bunkers drags people to play to the left, which leaves the harder approach shot. (Doesn't stop my partner hitting it in those godforsaken bushes - it's probably revenge for me bunkering him on the 12th or hitting it left on 10 trying to hit the green.)

[Mark Chaplin]

Another small point which proves an earlier argument, the link Gordon posted in the first "rant" shows the bunkers, the bush and the old farm house. Brian Sheehy and others want the bushes to go as they aren't natural to the Deal scene. But this picture proves they are at least 80 years old.

At dinner at the RAC club tonight Gordon was on fine form reaching at least rant level 5!

[Sean_A]

Playing into a healthy wind (the prevailing one) I can assure you that those bunkers are not always easily carryable.

Not to mention, with the angling of the hole, if you play over them, you have a better and shorter line to the green, whereas if you play "safe" to the left, you are left with a longer and more awkward approach shot. I think their positioning is just fine.

I'm not particularly fussed about square versus round.

One has to get quite lucky to get a good lie in the rough if you carry the bunkers.  Plus, in the prevailing wind coming from the clubhouse direction or even more quartering, that wind helps from the left side of the fairway.  Count me as one who thinks the bunkers would be much effective with fairway swinging to the right - thus creating a Principal's Nose. This is far more important to me than the shape, though the circular deals do look odd.

Ciao

Ciao

Hmm, two things confuse me. One, I thought if you hit it over the middle of the left bunker and about 40 yards past it, you'd be right in the middle of the fairway. In between the bunkers puts you on the edge of the fairway. Over the right one puts you in the rough. Or, where I have played from rather more than I care to think about, right of the right one puts you in the deep stuff if you're lucky and those bushes if you're not.

Two, that fairway points pretty much directly at the clubhouse. The only way it would help from the left, but not the right is if the wind was coming directly off the sea and I know from playing the 6th, that's not common. At least not in April.

Nevertheless, the green really wants an approach from the right side. It's very hard to judge the approach from the left, with that bunker to the left of the green gobbling up anything that you tug a bit and a running shot slides across the green. Very hard to get at any pin that's on the left from the left side. Even if the flag's on the right, I'd say you still want to play to the middle of the green because that little swale on the front right leaves a very fiddly little chip/putt if you miss it in there. I think the fairway being to the left of the bunkers drags people to play to the left, which leaves the harder approach shot. (Doesn't stop my partner hitting it in those godforsaken bushes - it's probably revenge for me bunkering him on the 12th or hitting it left on 10 trying to hit the green.)

Michael

You are correct.  So why have the right bunker if the reward for carrying it is a lie in the rough?

Perhaps we play differently.  I would rather hit back more into the wind rather than thru a cross wind.  I don't seem to control my ball spin very well .

Ciao