[Matt_Ward]

One of the more interesting aspects of the Winter Gathering was the opportunity to tour the Lower Course and see a few of the holes with people who may not have seen the course lately or never before.

An interesting discussion took place concerning the new fairway bunkers on the 18th hole of the Lower Course. For those not familiar with the hole -- it is roughly 550 yards from the tips and can be reached in two with two well-played shots when conditions are favorable.

With the PGA Championship coming to Baltusrol in '05 there have been some changes to the final hole. In years past players could drive close to the left side from the elevated tee and be rewarded with not only a shorter second but a more conducive angle to the putting surface. That angle has now been altered as the fairway cut has been brought out no less than 10-15 yards.

This will now mean players playing further right away from the rough. In order to "balance" the hole a series of three fairway bunkers have been added to the hole through the services of Rees Jones. They start roughly 260 yards from the tee and extend through about 320 yards or thereabouts.

It is not so much the location of the bunkers that caused some puzzling faces but the manner by which the bunkers "look" when compared to style of other Tillinghast bunkers on the Lower and Upper Courses.

The bunkers clearly do not mesh from an appearance perspective. The question becomes how important is the marriage between "look" and "functionality?" Generally, I sway towards the functional approach, however, in the case of what's been done here it would have been a bit more prudent to have done a better job in marrying them closer to an overall similar appearance.

No doubt the inclusion of fairway bunkers will keep players on their toes as they seek to get a closing birdie. With the "new" angle it will mean more attention given to the fronting greenside bunker that protects the puting surface. In order to bypass it the preferred approach will have to be a direct flyover.

I wonder how those who saw the "new" bunkers believe if they fit or didn't fit in? Is the "look" the first among equals when compared to the "functionality" or is it a split 50/50 between the two?

[Mike Hendren]

Matt,

This is not directed at you (who am I kidding - sure it is) but I must say that while I favor frank discussion, my goodness Baltusrol seems to be a better host than some in attendance seem guest.  They should have given you guys a bunch of freebies including a free shot at the wine cellar

If I'm a blue-blood at some established club in the area, I'm not too sure I'd be inviting a bunch of opinionated yahoo's from the treehouse into my backyard next year.

Next time I suggest letting the dishes dry before pouncing on the architecture

What they do?
They smile in your face.
All the time they want to take yo place.
Those backstabbers. Backstabbers.
-The O-Jays

Forget the Philly school of architecture.  How about TSOP?

Mike

[ed_getka]

Mike,
   I think Matt makes a valid point and isn't saying disparaging things about the club or membership. There were many views expressed during the day at Baltusrol and I don't think the members who were kind enough to host us would be offended to read Matt's post.
   The bunkering on the Lower course is inferior to that on the Upper IMHO. The reason I say this is because the Lower bunkering is shallow, rarely more than a foot or two deep. The mounding that surrounds the bunkering is quite high so it is functional in keeping players from getting to the green from the fairway bunkers frequently. The problem with the mounding is that it is SO abrupt, that it is jarring to the eye IMO. I'm not sure why this approach was taken. The bunkering would look better if it was down in the ground, but I guess there must be a drainage issue that made that approach impractical.
    The courses at Baltusrol are on a nice sloping property with subtle undulations and the bunkering is tied in a little more nicely on the Upper course. There is some mounding on the Upper also, but not nearly as severe as the Lower.
   I also don't understand why the bunkers are so shallow on the Lower. The Upper course has deeper, more demanding bunkering, that will give a golfer pause for thought. On the Lower (other than right of 18 green) I wouldn't think twice about my ball ending up in the bunkering.
     I am curious how others view the trees at the courses of Baltusrol? I thought the Upper course had a nice array of specimen trees, with the bulk of the trees being well out of the line of play for the most part. The Lower course felt a bit tighter from a tree standpoint, but certainly was not claustrophobic. I did notice more trees planted in rows on the Lower course, but otherwise there were many nice vistas as I made my way around the courses.
   The most enjoyable stretch of holes for me was #7-12 on the Upper course.
    It was a special treat to stay in the clubhouse that contains some neat golf history. A special thanks to Rick Wolffe and Bob Trebus for hosting our group. Have a great PGA championship and I look forward to the next time we meet.

[Mark_Fine]

Did anyone happen to take a photo or two of those bunkers?

To me that new bunker complex sure doesn't look like Tillinghast.  The whale's tail is a dead give away    Furthermore, they look like "explosions out of the ground" that don't attempt in any way to tie in with the existing terrain.  The sides of the bunkers need to be sharper and deeper and they should have at least been set down lower and not been so symmetric in shape.  They clearly make the hole harder, but they don't make it any better.  

Moreover, there are few options off the tee (you are hitting out of a chute of trees with a huge "catchers glove" tree hanging over the fairway on the left saying "don't even think about skirting this side of the fairway".  The stream on the left is separated from the fairway by 10 to 20 yards of rough and is strategically out of play.  If anything, they should have removed that tree (among others) and considered meandering the stream to the right and expanded the fairway closer towards it foregoing the new Rees Jones bunker on the right side of the fairway.  Many more trees also need to come down to open up some of the vistas and unclog the golf hole.  

The narrowing of the fairways bothers me and as Mark Kuhns pointed out, the narrowing "takes the bunkers out of play".  Rough will be the courses main defense!  It will force all play down the middle and I'm sure Tillinghast would beg to differ with this approach.  His angles of play will be lost on many of his golf holes.  My guess is that after the tournament, they will keep the new narrow fairway lines, eliminate the old Tillinghast bunkers, and build new ones that look like the one added on #18.  Another great classic course will have fallen to the need to make it "tougher".  

Other than that, I don't really have an opinion  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I don't understand something.

If the bunkers remain in their exact location, how can narrowing the fairways take them out of play

The same angles apply off the tee, and the distances and locations of the bunkers remain identical.

I think what you might be saying is that with narrowed fairways, the bunkers appear to be further removed from the new fairways, but their playability remains unchanged.

[ed_getka]

I took multiple pix of the bunkering on #18 and back at ?#13, I will try to post them in the next week so people can see what we are talking about.

[Mike_Cirba]

I have mixed feelings reading this;

As much as I've been a proponent of openness and constructive criticism on this site, I think we also need to be personally considerate of our hosts.

Since all of you know Rick and Bob, and others in the club, don't we think that perhaps they would appreciate hearing your critical thoughts in a private note than on the world wide web?  

I bet they'd be more receptive too.    

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I'm surprised at you.  When a course hosts a group like this, what should they expect?  I think everyone was extremely courteous and appreciative of Baltusrol hosting the event.  I sure was and still am.  But at the same time, they know how most people in that room feel about the great classic golf courses around the world.  Rick and Bob sure do.  

Many of us explained our feelings to Rick as we walked around the property together.  He had two noted architects there on the tour with us feeling the same way.  Rick stated that "there is still time to get it right".  

I am usually not openly critical on this public forum, but some of the changes struck a nerve.  I suggest we get our points out now before all the work is done.  It may mean nothing to some but maybe they will think about it.

Pat,
Give me a break.  You know darn well if the fairway bunkers are left sitting "way out in the rough" because the faiways have been brought in, they are meaningless to the best players and their "playability changes".  They aim right down the middle instead of near the edges.  Yes the angles are still there, but you'll be in six inches of rough to play your golf shot.  

Mark  

[corey miller]

"I suggest we get our points out now before all the work is done."  

I think the only people that matter in this debate is the membership.  I would support a "grace period" in regards to negative comments about Baltusrol.  They were very kind to host us.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I just want to talk about concepts here and do not wish to get caught up in the guest/host protocal issue.  Pat and Mark have a disagreement about whether the fairway bunkers are out of play.  In terms of professional golf do the angles really matter anymore.  If the fairway were out to the bunkers would a pro challenge that bunker to get the preferred angle?  If they would then it is unfortunate an option has been removed.  

It also leads me to reach a little bit here but because power is now so important, or will be, will we see the need to enhance one's physical power come to the tour.  If technology does reach a ceiling, meaning the strongest player can no longer reap additional benefits from his equipment, then the best way to overcome that ceiling is through performance enhancement drugs.  The little guy that used to keep up with some of the power players may almost be forced to consider enhancement alternatives.  We may not be there yet but we could be very well into the transition from the finesse player to the power player and the game will be unrecognizeable in 10 years, the golfers looking like baseball athletes.  I think we are about to see Bonds, and Giambi and probably Sosa disgraced here soon, or least that is what I gather from ESPN, it is just to obvious as you see the investigation start to tighten around them, they sought more power which they could not get from the bats and balls.  If a golfer reaches a limit with technology what is the next move for them, as long as courses put an emphasis on power.  At what point will deep rough become less relevant because a strong player can rip through it.  

Back to the subject I think a bunker placed where you really want to be to have a preferred angle is good design, and it sounds like the angles on courses are being removed which eliminates the need for the bunkers.  I remember Tiger talking about how well he played the angles at his first Masters victory.  

[wsmorrison]

While hosting a major event such as the 2005 PGA is good for the membership in the sense that it presents to the world a club they are obviously proud of, helps to attract members, and the like, I cannot fathom why they would be willing to go to such lengths to change the golf course to accomodate the event.  The underpinning of the alterations is that they want to protect par and see the top players have trouble scoring on the course.  The powers that be don't want to see the players play the same course they do day in and day out or they wouldn't make the changes.  Making such changes permanent and moving bunkers is a drastic step in my opinion.  Unlike Pat, I believe shrinking the fairways does take the bunkers out of play during a major where the rough will be thick and long.  Like Mark said, the players will be trying to hit down the middle all day long and not challenge the bunkers.  And they are puttingin new bunkers in some landing areas.  If the club intends to keep the fairways pinched in AND move the bunkers in after the event, then the course will be compromised.  How can this be good for the members?  Granted most will not be hitting 260-320 yards from the back tees, but many will be playing the members tees and will hit the ball 210-270 so that these new bunkers and the pinched in fairways will be an issue.  

I'm sorry, to me it is barely acceptable to make changes to the fairway lines for the benefits of hosting a major--but if those changes are permanent and the bunkers moved and changed as well...I am not in favor of that at all.  Of course, I am not a member of Baltusrol and my opinion counts for nothing but I am free to express that opinion no matter how courteous they were to us.  I am not at all certain they would want us to hide our feelings.  The members probably could care less what I think, but I doubt they'd want me to hold to any artificial grace period to express myself.  Construtive criticism should not be confused with the actions of an ungrateful guest.  Granted there are diplomatic ways to express oneself and decorum should be followed but not silence.

Regards,
Wayne

[Mike_Cirba]

Guys;

There is clearly a dynamic here where the club is trying to host another US Open.

As such, the sense I have is that some elements of the club would likely favor any changes that would help them to do that.  I'm guessing that the changes we heard about and saw are probably only the beginning of numerous fundamental changes (similar to Riviera, Merion, etc.) that the club believes will help curry favor with the USGA.  The "Open Doctor" operating there already has a proven methodolgy and modus operandi.  

We don't like it, it's contrary to our belief system, and it looks like hell, but we don't have the USGA's ear, nor the clubs.  I've been down this route before.

Can anyone say Oakland Hills 1951 revisited?

Landing zones will be "pinched" with new bunkers, the fairway widths will be narrowed, rough will be grown, the course is already extended to 7,400 yards, par 70....

I mean, who can blame the club?  It worked for Torrey Pines!!  

[wsmorrison]

KBM,
I just read your post after I finished writing my own.  You made a number of excellent points about architecture and human nature.  Participants in other sports are clearly relying on more than human nature and are trying to enhance human nature.  Baseball, my other great fascination, is indeed showing evidence of a real problem.  The powers that be turned a blind eye to the problem (Selig has a lot to answer for but nobody to answer to) and have to suffer the consequences.  I too believe that Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, Sosa, and others have compromised the spirit of the game and its integrity.  Perhaps McGuire and Conseco before them.  I did not think of the possible problems that Golf might have if players look to find an edge where the technological advance is no longer available.  

Is there enhancement substance testing in golf?  Should there be?  

[Mark_Fine]

Once again, Baltusrol was a wonderful host and nothing anyone says should take away from that.  

However, if all had been given a free sleeve of logoed Pro V1's, we might be saying something different  

I sure hope no one believes that!  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Have you played Baltusrol ?
Have you played it all the way back.

If so, would you tell me on what hole would a PGA Tour Pro challenge a bunker, any bunker, to get a better angle of attack into a green ?

# 1
# 2
# 5
# 7
# 8
# 10
# 11
# 13
# 14
# 17

Pre and post changes, the centerline is THE target.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I've only played the Lower four times (all the way back twice) so I am by no means an expert on the golf course.  Sounds like you are suggesting the bunkers and angles are not of much value to begin with!  Are the bunkers just penal side hazards and put there for aesthetics?  Am I reading you correctly on that?
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Pretty much so.

There are a few greens with slopes other then front to back, but the dominant theme is front to back slopes.

On some of the greens with right to left pitch, like # 2, where the prefered angle is from the left side, there is no bunker there.

# 3 doesn't have any fairway bunkers and many of the holes merely have them as penal side bunkers as you describe.

I haven't played # 18 with it's new bunkers so I can't address how they play.

Many of the holes are ramrod straight, with only # 2, # 3, # 7,
# 11 and # 13 having any turn to them, and on # 2 and # 3 there are no bunkers at the prefered side.  On # 7, a converted par 5 the right side, near the bunker would seem to be the prefered angle, but on # 11 and # 13 the inside of those doglegs are without bunkers.

I think a hole like # 14 at WFW, Shamrock, would be a perfect example of what you'd like to find, where the bunker is a critical play factor for most golfers, but at Baltusrol, I believe that the prefered target is the centerline of almost every fairway.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
If we haven't offended Rick (I hope not) maybe he will chime in and offer his expert assesment of the golf course from a strategic standpoint.  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I'd be curious to know which bunkers were added after AWT finished his work.

[Jason Mandel]

I think Mike Cirba's latest comment certainly has some merit.  Are they doing this for the PGA or for the USGA in hopes of another OPEN?  Like Mark Kuhns said, the PGA certainly cared less about certain issues, as an example no need for Mark to consult with a "PGA agronomist".  Did the PGA ask Whistling Straits to make a bunch of changes?  I certainly doubt Rees had to go in there, or that Dye would let him!

But certainly by choosing Rees as the architect, I think the club surely wants a USGA, heck Mark Kuhns also made reference to  a few people at the USGA who he consults regularily with.  

Pat,
I have not seen Baltusrol so I can't comment specifically on the course.  But I do remember Ron Pritchard talking about Tillinghast building his courses where it was normally beneficial to be on one side of the fairway or another, as opposed to Ross who built courses where the side of the fairway you needed to be on changed daily, so is Baltusrol an exception to this rule?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JMandel,

Rees Jones has been the consulting archtect at Baltusrol long before the 2005 PGA Championship was considered.

Perhaps Whistling Straits fairways could have benefited from a USGA agronomist.

I don't recall Ron Prichard saying what you say, but perhaps I was distracted.  On holes where greens slope from right to left I think there is a prefered side to be on, but at Baltusrol there aren't bunkers immediately adjacent to that side, hence you may have missed Mark Fine's point.

[T_MacWood]

Baltusrol has a long history of hosting major championships and long history of tweaking itself in preporation for these championships.

Seeing that Wolffe and Trebus are the founding fathers and custonians of the Tillinghast Association I can't imagine they would be insutled by any discussion involving preservation of his work.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()