I understand that most on here will not have played Edzell, but I wonder if I may ask the DG for their Opinions on this ?
These last few years I kind of have despaired as so much of what I consider the history of Edzell and the Braidness of the course has been ripped out, for what seems the sole purpose to me, to add length and increase the par of the course.
The 10th hole is a straight ahead par 4 of 367 yards, with a semi blind tee shot, and has 2 large cross bunkers in front of the green.
Its far from a difficult hole, but its a nice breather hole, and IMO has a tricky second shot.
[Images from Edzells website :
http://www.edzellgolfclub.com/ ]
Click on for full size :
http://d2tbfnbweol72x.cloudfront.net/647283/files/2015/09/Long-summershadows-on-the-10th.jpg?gncdn=oeTTe07T
The following is their thoughts on the hole :
CROSS BUNKERS AT THE 10 HOLE Martin Ebert, our retained architect, visited the 10 Hole during his visits in October and agreed with the views of our Head Greenkeeper (see below).The Committee has discussed the subject and now feels that the Members should be consulted and a decision made at the Annual General Meeting.`I would like to take this opportunity to outline my reasoning for altering the 10th cross bunkers. At Edzell Golf Club, we are very proud of our association with James Braid, who carried out a redesign of the course in 1933. I would like to start by giving you a couple of quotes from the man himself."As a general rule cross bunkers should be avoided.""Long bunkers in front of a green should be avoided"Indeed when he redesigned the course, from the original notes, you find he filled in several cross bunkers and asked for the 10th green to be moved back. Possibly this was to lessen the impact these bunkers had on an approach shot to the green (remembering it was played from the front tee only).On the back nine, at the moment, we have three holes that all have to be played in the same way. Approach shots to the greens at the 10th, 14th and 16th all must be played through the air with no other option available. With this in mind, here in another Braid quote:-"There should be as frequently as possible (at least) two possible alternative methods of playing a hole."At the 14th and 16th, there is no option but to play it through the air but, at the 10th, it is possible to achieve an alternative route down the left side to allow a shot to be played along the ground to the green, whilst a bunker on the right would still have to be negotiated.My opinion of these bunkers is that they are just not fair to the majority of golfers. The people who are possible least well-equipped (skill wise) to deal with the approach shot or the resulting bunker shot are heavily penalised. I am all for a golf hole to be a challenge, but these bunkers to me are too much of a road block offering no strategic options. I am not convinced that if I suggested a row of cross bunkers on the ridge on the 7th at 250 yards off the tee, which would look aesthetically pleasing, it would be received as a good idea and quite rightly so!I do realise these bunkers look nice set into the ridge. But I do think we could achieve something pleasing to the eye and, more importantly for me, for golfers of all abilities whether at the start of your golfing career or in the twilight, a golf hole that offers a fair challenge.Graham MackieDoes anyone know where those quotes come from, because it seems strange considering how many cross bunkers James Braid could be attributed to, that he would have said that ?
In my opinion, they don't seem to understand the purpose of the bunkers.
They are set back from the green slightly, which sort of acts as an optical illusion (?) making the green look closer than it actually is, and many golfers then come up short leaving a chip and putt for par.
Yes, I understand that the modern bomber can get a drive down there, but "what's the point, it will only go in the bunker" is the claim I hear ...... good I say.
Thoughts Please
