Alterations

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was thinking about alterations the other day in the context of reacting to increased distances produced by the I&B.
 
The simplest, reactive alteration seems to have been to move the tees back.
 
But, that seems to only affect the lower handicaps and it seems that the motivation for adding distance is to primarily protect par.
 
Rarely do I see clubs alter the "body" of a hole.
 
And that applies even more to landlocked holes.
 
A good example might be the 16th at GCGC, where there's no more room to lengthen the hole at the tee end.
 
100 years ago there were two fairway bunkers that required an heroic tee shot, or a tee shot to the left of those bunkers, leaving the golfer with a very difficult approach, and more often than not, a redirected second shot away from the green that would position the golfer's ball in the ideal spot for their third shot.
 
I've often wondered, when carry bunkers become akin to the Maginot Line, why aren't they:
1.  Moved to an intended/sympathetic location  OR
2.  Remain, with similar bunkers added at the intended/sympathetic location.
 
I understand that it's cheaper to move or create a new tee versus craft new or move existing bunkers,
but why abandon alterations in the body of the hole that will restore the intended architectural effect, solely for money ?  And, especially on land locked holes.
 
It seems that many, if not most courses take the easiest path, adding distance at the back tee.
 
Why not realign/repostion/add bunkers/features that will replicate the original intent ?
 
What courses have made significant alterations to the body of the hole/s ?

[Don Jordan]

We have just had 9 holes of a 27 hole renovation at Royal Canberra by OCCM and they have managed that to an extent. The new front nine is no longer than it was but the par 5's are much better protected with strategic bunkering 40-50m short of the green and the shortest of the par 4s having its green complex significantly changed making it a far more demanding second shot. Having said all that they have achieved this for member play which is great and follows the brief but I don't think it would hold up to mens tournament play. We hosted the Women's Australian Open just before taking on the renovations it will be interesting to see how they find it if they return.

[Sean_A]

Pat


I think its hard to build good looking, meaningful bunkers that look like they belong in just any old place.  I think a lot of routing for top notch courses takes into account where "natural" looking bunkers will fit into the design.  Of course, many now look as though they belong because its been 100 years.  One thing to be careful of when adding a new level of bunkering beyond the old level is the constant dealing with sand...to me it gets old.  I know that on some Open courses this is the case and it is one of the reasons there are so many bunkers...which really serve the purpose of reducing variety and playability for hackers...in the name of championship golf.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Pat


I think its hard to build good looking, meaningful bunkers that look like they belong in just any old place.  I think a lot of routing for top notch courses takes into account where "natural" looking bunkers will fit into the design.  Of course, many now look as though they belong because its been 100 years.  One thing to be careful of when adding a new level of bunkering beyond the old level is the constant dealing with sand...to me it gets old.  I know that on some Open courses this is the case and it is one of the reasons there are so many bunkers...which really serve the purpose of reducing variety and playability for hackers...in the name of championship golf.

A fine answer to Patrick's question.


The current version of Oakland Hills is the poster child for what Sean is describing.  Bunkers upon rows of bunkers to "pinch" the landing areas for everyone.

[Mark_Fine]

I agree with Tom that Sean provided a good answer.   Some architects built elasticity into their designs knowing added length might be needed in the future.  Some clubs/courses don’t have the luxury (maybe they sold the extra property or never had much extra to begin with). 

As most here know, there are whole host of things one should look at before “moving bunkers or frankly doing anything” but generally I look at how a course has evolved over the years, what still exists, and what has changed, and in particular is the original “design intent” still there?  The simplest thing to do to restore design intent is often to adjust the tees.  But it is not just yardage, it is restoring and/or maintaining angles of play, etc.  The next thing might be to adjust fairway hazards.  However, as Sean correctly pointed out, sometimes it makes no sense to move hazards down range when they just don’t fit or look right if they are moved or added back if they have been taken away over the years.  Flynn for example didn’t like hidden hazards so if moving his bunkers to get them “back in play” meant making them blind, you wouldn’t want to do it.  The last resort (at least in my opinion) is moving greens/green sites.  I despise this but I am more of a purist.  If the green has already been moved from its original location or dramatically altered such that the original no longer exists then that is another matter.  Again, it should look and feel when finished like it was always there and was the work of the original architect. 

This is where “restoration” work can get very subjective.  I asked Tom Doak about this in another thread (I think it was the Tillie one).  My question was about San Francisco GC.  I wondered if he kept all the fairway bunkers in their original locations or did he move some down range to restore design intent?  I might be wrong but my guess was that maybe 8, 13 and 14 were moved?  Most of the other bunkers were put back into play for the long hitters with the new back tees like on 3-9-10-12-14-15.
[/size][/color]

[Ian Mackenzie]

This is exactly what may soon be happening at Royal Dornoch, Pat.
Mackenzie and Ebert have proposed many such changes as adding distance at RDGC is not so easy.


Bunkers will be moved (or added) to be more relevant to today's game. Anyone who has played Dornoch recently may have seen detailed graphics of the proposed changes in the lobby of the clubhouse.

[Tom_Doak]

This is exactly what may soon be happening at Royal Dornoch, Pat.
Mackenzie and Ebert have proposed many such changes as adding distance at RDGC is not so easy.


Bunkers will be moved (or added) to be more relevant to today's game. Anyone who has played Dornoch recently may have seen detailed graphics of the proposed changes in the lobby of the clubhouse.

Yuck.  This is why I protested the changes at St. Andrews.  Dornoch is not hosting The Open, who are they trying to be relevant for?  Their members don't hit it 280.

[Tom_Doak]

This is where “restoration” work can get very subjective.  I asked Tom Doak about this in another thread (I think it was the Tillie one).  My question was about San Francisco GC.  I wondered if he kept all the fairway bunkers in their original locations or did he move some down range to restore design intent?  I might be wrong but my guess was that maybe 8, 13 and 14 were moved? 

?  The 13th is a short par-3 now, as it was originally.  We've put the bunkers back to where they were originally, almost throughout the course.  The bunker to the right of #8 was added many years ago, and we have tabled whether to take it out ... I don't care about having a bunker there, but it also serves as a useful buffer between the fairway and some unplayable native plant material on the bank behind it.

[JC Urbina]

Mark,


The bunker on # 8 on the right is not original but the club has two 1940's aerials.  One has a bunker on the right side and the other aerial no bunker exists.  Every other bunker at SFGC that was restored is historicaly correct.


A few bunkers have not been put back but that will always be up for debate.  Including the three bunkers on # 9 fairway which were removed early. 


That is the reason SFGC is so  technically sound, no bunkers have been adjusted for distance in recent times.  It also has over 120 of them so everyone seems to be covered no matter your ability.

[Peter Pallotta]

Though I don't know Garden City, Pat's example of the 16th there strikes me as an excellent one.


If I can accept Pat's analysis/description as fact, the hole does not play today (in either strategy or execution) the way it played in the the 1920s, or how it was intended to play.

But if I went today and played Garden
City, I have a strong suspicion that I would come off the 18th green thinking that I'd played a Golden Age gem, ie that I had just experience the choices, options and shot values indicative/reflective of that time

In other words, I would have an "As If" experience -- playing the current 16th hole and all the rest of the holes with modern equipment but nonetheless feeling "as if" I was back in the 1920s

An honest question, not a rhetorical one: Does it matter that I actually didn't play *that* Garden City, but instead enjoyed and was challenged, differently, by *this* Garden City?

[Ian Mackenzie]

oops

[Ian Mackenzie]

Tom -

Jeez, I don't intend to offer a debate, but I also seek to understand.

A simple example:


First hole at RDGC - the very one that introduced Donald Ross to the "gentle hand shake" opener - is under 300 yards. M&E is recommending moving the right side FW bunker (that is maybe 180 from the tee today) forward by 35 yards to make it "more relevant" to today's player. Many players tee off with an iron or hybrid on this hole whether you're a member or a young, visiting amateur playing in a tournament. Moving that bunker now brings it more in play for the +3 player in a regional tournament hitting a 5 iron or a 65 year old member hitting a 3 wood.


11th hole at RDGC - The drive bunkering has been changing constantly since the hole was built and a further re-adjustment is required again. Even with the addition of a back tee, the drive bunker is wide and a little too close to the tee and too far from the green. It simply stops balls from going into the bushes - not really the role that a bunker should play. There is a hump about 10 yards further on and 5 yards into the fairway which would be the ideal its relocation, narrowing the wider right route at about the correct distance.


Two good examples that I believe address one of Pat's questions in his post.
Not relevant for the 156 guys in a PGA tourney, but very much appropriate for the members and the 10,000+ visitors who play there every year.


"There's a bunker out there for everyone, Ian. This one just may not be for you....yet." - JU

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks Tom and Jim.  My bad about 13 (can't type).  Meant 14 and 16 in addition to #8.  Sounds like it was only the back tees that were added to bring these bunkers more into play for the longer hitters? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,
 
I used to feel that way until I saw Fazio's 10 hole short course at Pine Valley.
 
With technology today, while the terrain might not be identical, I doubt that it changes that much in the DZ
 
If they can rip up and rebuild greens to within a half an inch in terms of contouring, I would think that they could replicate the bunker and mimic the surrounds

Pat

I think its hard to build good looking, meaningful bunkers that look like they belong in just any old place.  I think a lot of routing for top notch courses takes into account where "natural" looking bunkers will fit into the design.  Of course, many now look as though they belong because its been 100 years.  One thing to be careful of when adding a new level of bunkering beyond the old level is the constant dealing with sand...to me it gets old.  I know that on some Open courses this is the case and it is one of the reasons there are so many bunkers...which really serve the purpose of reducing variety and playability for hackers...in the name of championship golf.


Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,
 
Fair question.
 
But, why are you so quick to accept changes in the tee locations.
Why are you so quick to play a different course (tees) and claim it's the original ?
 
# 16 is a good example because the terrain further down the fairway isn't discernably different from the terrain where the existing bunkers sit.
 
Hence, those existing bunkers could be either moved or added further down the fairway.
 
Take a look on Google Earth.
 
 

Though I don't know Garden City, Pat's example of the 16th there strikes me as an excellent one.


If I can accept Pat's analysis/description as fact, the hole does not play today (in either strategy or execution) the way it played in the the 1920s, or how it was intended to play.

But if I went today and played Garden
City, I have a strong suspicion that I would come off the 18th green thinking that I'd played a Golden Age gem, ie that I had just experience the choices, options and shot values indicative/reflective of that time

In other words, I would have an "As If" experience -- playing the current 16th hole and all the rest of the holes with modern equipment but nonetheless feeling "as if" I was back in the 1920s

An honest question, not a rhetorical one: Does it matter that I actually didn't play *that* Garden City, but instead enjoyed and was challenged, differently, by *this* Garden City?

[Sean_A]

Sean,
 
I used to feel that way until I saw Fazio's 10 hole short course at Pine Valley.
 
With technology today, while the terrain might not be identical, I doubt that it changes that much in the DZ
 
If they can rip up and rebuild greens to within a half an inch in terms of contouring, I would think that they could replicate the bunker and mimic the surrounds

Pat

I think its hard to build good looking, meaningful bunkers that look like they belong in just any old place.  I think a lot of routing for top notch courses takes into account where "natural" looking bunkers will fit into the design.  Of course, many now look as though they belong because its been 100 years.  One thing to be careful of when adding a new level of bunkering beyond the old level is the constant dealing with sand...to me it gets old.  I know that on some Open courses this is the case and it is one of the reasons there are so many bunkers...which really serve the purpose of reducing variety and playability for hackers...in the name of championship golf.


Ciao

It depends on who "they" is 

Don't forget that once you move a bunker it effects different players different ways.  Maybe the guy who now has that bunker in play no longer will and the hole becomes duller for him.  And if the older bunkering is left and new added, it just becomes a recipe for a sea of bunkers.  I know you love bunkers everywhere (or at least that is what I gather from your posts), but it does sacrifice variety.  IMO, variety is one of the main things architecture should strive to achieve.  While I am not against moving any bunkering, I think it needs to be done very judiciously and it helps a load if the land is sandy. Though, if the land is sandy, earthworks could serve the same purpose of a bunker, provide variety and visual interest.

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

The courses mentioned in this thread (Garden City, San Francisco, Pine Valley Short, Royal Dornoch)...


-do they play similarly all year round, in terms of wind, temperature, moisture?
-are they catering to a wide, skill variety of golfers?
-are the carries in question flat, downhill or uphill?
-are multiple members complaining that the course has become too easy over the years, lost its teeth?
-is the hosting of an important event the driving force behind the discussions of bunker movement?


A private club can always do what it wants; a municipal course (none mentioned thus far, oddly enough) would probably be at the mercy of a wider clientele, although politicians get things done scurrilously.


I've no problem with bunker movement. I recall that Ian Andrew (correct me if I'm wrong, Ian) moved some bunkers at Cherry Hill (Ontario, Walter J. Travis) and the course plays tougher for the longer hitter now. Previous to Ian, their typical modus operandus was to simply add a deep tee. I like the commitment to bunker restoration and renovation. Ian's team did not haphazardly drop waste pits farther up the fairway, and it was done in a manner that only the most intimately-familiar students of the course might find issue.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - I'm out of my element here, and I can't debate your essential point (and in fact, I think you are right to ask 'why not move/add bunkers'); but I thought your example was a perfect one to raise my more general/theoretical question, because:

1. Garden City is today still regarded as one of America's premier golf courses, and as a shining example of great golden age architecture
2. The inability/lack of space to create a back tee at 16 takes that option off the table
3.  The 16th, as you describe it, almost certainly played much harder originally, for those who played it in the 1920s
4. The vast majority of modern day golfers using modern equipment still find GC providing sufficient challenge

All of which brings the rubber to the road (for me, and maybe others) when it comes to the reasons for/against "renovations" or "restorations".  (Personally I would use the former term in a case like this).

In short, is the goal of such changes to bring back the nature/quality and degree of challenge that a golf hole originally possessed?  Or is the goal to tinker as little as possible with the original design while creating an "as if" experience for today's golfers?

Peter   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - I'm out of my element here, and I can't debate your essential point (and in fact, I think you are right to ask 'why not move/add bunkers'); but I thought your example was a perfect one to raise my more general/theoretical question, because:

1. Garden City is today still regarded as one of America's premier golf courses, and as a shining example of great golden age architecture.
 
Agreed
2. The inability/lack of space to create a back tee at 16 takes that option off the table
 
Agreed


 
3.  The 16th, as you describe it, almost certainly played much harder originally, for those who played it in the 1920s
 
Agreed

4. The vast majority of modern day golfers using modern equipment still find GC providing sufficient challenge.
 
Peter, why did you suddenly abandon the 16th hole.
Let's not jump to a reference of the course in general.
 
Why not present # 16 to today's golfer as it was presented to the 1920's golfer ?
 
From the forward tee the carry over the left and center bunker is 140 and 160.
From the back tee, 172 and 200
 
From the back of the center bunker to the front of the green it's 187 yards.
But, the last 40 or so yards in front of the green slope down to the green, making the shot shorter.
 
By the way, those bunkers are severe and are to be avoided at all costs, which makes me believe that play used to be to their left, presenting the golfer with a forced carry over some hostile terrain.
 
Why not replicate that arrangement today, understanding that the distance to the green will be much shorter today once the center bunker is carried ?


All of which brings the rubber to the road (for me, and maybe others) when it comes to the reasons for/against "renovations" or "restorations".  (Personally I would use the former term in a case like this).

I think this falls into a hybrid category, where you keep an original feature and duplicate it a little further into the DZ.
In short, is the goal of such changes to bring back the nature/quality and degree of challenge that a golf hole originally possessed? 
 
Or is the goal to tinker as little as possible with the original design while creating an "as if" experience for today's golfers?

Neither, it's to keep the architectural features relevant in terms of their interfacing with the golfer during their round.
 
What good are vestigial features other than for viewing and reminiscing ?
 
Shouldn't their function be preserved ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:


Why not move every other bunker on the course while you're at it?  Why stop at the 16th when the same logic applies to every other hole?


And then change them again twenty or thirty years from now?


You should find a consulting architect like those guys who are going to redesign Royal Dornoch, instead of the curmudgeonly one you've had [for the last 26 years].


P.S.  Happy New Year!

[Peter Pallotta]

Don't worry, Patrick -- yes, you have Tom Doak (who I just realized is the curmudgeon architect!) disagreeing with you and asking you pointed questions, but you have me right there in your corner, agreeing with you and tossing softballs 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:


Why not move every other bunker on the course while you're at it? 
Why stop at the 16th when the same logic applies to every other hole?
 
Because other than # 17 there are no centerline bunkers requiring a carry or play wide of them.
And, because # 16 is land locked, you don't have the luxury of adding distance at the tee end, as you
might on # 17.
 
Clearly, modern technology has diminished and/or eradicated their intended function which is, assault directly or avoid by aiming elsewhere.
 
It's a presentation unique to the golf course on a par 4.

And then change them again twenty or thirty years from now?

We're told, by the governing bodies, that distance has been maxed out.

You should find a consulting architect like those guys who are going to redesign Royal Dornoch, instead of the curmudgeonly one you've had [for the last 26 years].
 
I sort of like the curmudgeonly one, even if he's sometimes overly stubborn and resistant to change, even if it involves restoration.

P.S.  Happy New Year!
 
You too.
 
All kidding aside, at what point do you consider revitalizing a feature whose function has been lost ?

[Ian Mackenzie]

You should find a consulting architect like those guys who are going to redesign Royal Dornoch, instead of the curmudgeonly one you've had [for the last 26 years].


P.S.  Happy New Year!

There is no redesign proposed at Royal Dornoch whatsoever. Moving a bunker here and there, pushing gorse back here and there sounds like subtle tweaking. Has yet to happen and I referred to them as "proposed changes"


Third hole was tweaked very subtlety last year. I'm sure anything done in the future will be done with great care as anyone would do to a "Top 5" course in the world.


Cheers.

[Mike Policano]

Pat,


As you know Ridgewood is virtually done having all of its bunkers redone by Gil and Jaeger. They used extensive photos from the 1935 Ryder Cup (current course opened in 1929) amongst others to capture the shapes and positioning of the bunkers.


Out of approximately 120 bunkers, only a handful were "moved" (which of course means the existing bunker was removed and a new bunker built) notably on 6C, 7E and 7C.


Ridgewood lacks (fortunately?) space to add back tees and lacks elasticity of tees on many holes. Ridgewood also was never a course that used many fairway bunkers to influence strategy. The vast majority of the bunkers are greenside. Therefore the fairway bunkers on each hole have always generally impacted one class of drivers. Sometimes the short and low hitter had to deal with the short fairway bunker or the long hitter would have to deal with the bunker that was further down the fairway.


What I learned was that at Ridgewood, Tillinghast made sure the fairway bunkers fit the land. He may have been less concerned with who the bunker affected and more concerned with the natural appearance of the bunkers. As a result, Ridgewood's fairway bunkers sit in ridges across the property.


Sure enough when Gil "moved" just a few bunkers, he put them in ridges looking as natural as ever. Gil did add a couple of bunkers, such as at 4C, which doesn't come into play much, but is located in a ridge and the bunker, tree removal, fairway expansion and green recapture have made the hole sparkle.


When you visit next Spring, I am sure there will be much to discuss.


Cheers, Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I can't wait for spring and I can't wait to see Ridgewood, an underrated gem.

Tom Doak,

Why not reactivate the long trench bunker on # 7.
The depression or inverted foot pad is there, it just needs some sand and fine tuning.
It would replicate or influence play just like  the long right side trench bunker on # 3.
Risk/Reward would be great.

Hey, it's cold out and I have some limited time on my hands