News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mike_Cirba

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #25 on: April 21, 2004, 10:01:46 AM »
Tom;

I agree completely with your point, as well.

I'm not sure how that convincing takes place but it's sort of sad that bunkers less than 200 yards from the tee have largely gone the way of the dodo, especially on courses where they once flourished.

But, I'm flummoxed.  How is it we agree so easily now?  We could have saved ourselves 426 posts on the Tillinghast thread!!  ;)  ;D

THuckaby2

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #26 on: April 21, 2004, 10:04:01 AM »
Adam:

I have no doubt - and also know from painful experience - that what's there today does not save golf balls from going down on the beach.

BUT... from all I can tell, both from memory and from photograph, what exists there today is nothing like what is portrayed in that photo.  

So it really looks to me like at one time, that was a saving bunker.  It looks quite large and quite deep in the painting.

The next question then is why did they change it?  I guess 16 was too easy back in the day.   ;)

TH
« Last Edit: April 21, 2004, 10:04:52 AM by Tom Huckaby »

rgkeller

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #27 on: April 21, 2004, 10:05:26 AM »
rg
You need to brush up on your Travis history. Using the word 'happily' and Travis in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Seeing that Travis completely revamped Emmet's GCGC I don't see him having a problem throwing a small bone to his old friend....especially considering Emmet's redesign of the 16th was universally praised.

If Travis wanted a pond on 16, he would have put one there (same with Emmet for that matter).

Fishing by the pond...no way, drowning architrecturally inept committeemen in the pond...yes.

Well, I used to lunch with a now deceased member who was acquainted with Travis and who said that Travis' dour deportment melted away when in the company of friends.

The term "architrecturally (sp) inept" can also be applicable to those whose sole function in discussions of architecture is to praise the deeds of long dead proclaimed masters.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2004, 10:05:54 AM by rgkeller »

TEPaul

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2004, 10:06:33 AM »
MikeC:

Matter of fact, on that note there was a remark quoted on here on another thread and subject altogether--rules and rules interpretation, logic and philosophy, even amongst the committee that interprets and writes the Rules of Golf. It was a quote from a guy who was referred to as the "rules guru". He is considered to be one of perhaps the two best rules minds in the world today.

He explained even within this committee (Joint USGA/R&A Rules Committee) that interprets and writes the Rules of Golf that the best minds in the world may disagree on the philosophy and logic and interpretation of the same situation even creating votes on decisions that may be a 7 to 5 vote, for instance (as close as it can get).

He said that doesn't mean the "5" are wrong, only that they got outvoted!

I find that remark to be one of the most realistic and also one of the most intelligent remarks I've ever seen on this website and I think it could also very much apply to almost every discussion of golf architecture we have on here!

John_McMillan

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2004, 10:16:19 AM »
Matthew Delahunty -

Stoke Poge's website certainly sounds authoritative.  Unfortunately, it is also wrong.  Alister Mackenzie wrote hole notes which were reproduced in the program for the 1935 Invitational Tournament (soon to be renamed the Masters).  Of the 16th hole, Mackenzie wrote -

"This is a somewhat similar hole over a stream to the best hole (seventh) at Stoke Poges, England.  It is probably a better hole than the one at Stoke Poges as the green is more visible and the background more attractive."  

Since the 16th has been remodeled, and no longer bears a resemblance to the model at Stoke Poges, perhaps the course decided to attach itself to the 12th hole, which is similar to the original design of the 16th.

Important to keep in mind when discusing the original 16th is that the course moved the tee around quite a bit before finally redesigning the hole.  The original tee location was to the RIGHT of the 15th green - giving a hole which played more directly across the stream.  The course played around with moving the tee to the LEFT of the 15th green, which is where the photo in Delahanty's link is taken.  This gives a different tee shot which is more up the length of the green, and where the creak is to the right - more of a lateral hazard than a carry hazard.

In Mackenzie's design, the bunker would have been BEHIND the green, and not to the green's left.  

Matthew Delahunty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2004, 10:36:36 AM »
Thanks for the info, John.

I didn't realise that the club moved the tee first and then redesigned the hole later. Has the tee on 12 been moved slightly (right) from it's original position too? Obviously the front bunker was altered and the back right one has expanded over time.

Mike_Cirba

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2004, 11:21:58 AM »
Tom;

What fun would it be if we all agreed on every point anyhow?  

I think it was a full and passionate debate and only hope that everyone took it in that spirit.

gookin

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2004, 11:40:16 AM »
Didn't MaCDonald say that there was no such thing as a useless bunker.

Mike_Cirba

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2004, 11:43:05 AM »
David;

I know Ross said that there is no such thing as a misplaced bunker, although my visit to ShoreGate in NJ a few seasons back had me questioning his wisdom.    
« Last Edit: April 21, 2004, 11:43:59 AM by Mike_Cirba »

TEPaul

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2004, 11:46:19 AM »
"But, I'm flummoxed.  How is it we agree so easily now?  We could have saved ourselves 426 posts on the Tillinghast thread!!"

MikeC:

Why are you flummoxed? If you read my posts carefully on the Tillinghast thread you'd have noticed I said a couple of times I never agreed with my club's decision to remove all Ross's top-shot bunkers (very much in the middle of the DH zone) nor do I agree with Wayne Stiles's rationale when he recommended to my club in the 1940 to remove them all. I was sorry to see that happen.

Stile's rationale and reasons for removing them were the very same reasons the club turned down Gil Hanse's recommendation to restore them just two years ago! Stiles's plan 55 years ago was run through the membership for approval just like Hanse's plan was two years ago and both times the members didn't want those bunkers and for exactly the same reasons. I wish they would've and for only that reason I wish the club made the decison to keep them--but they didn't.

Furthermore, I've probably been near where those old top shot bunkers were a few times in my life with a few really mis-hit shots so who am I to tell the little old ladies and men who had to deal with them both back then and now, if we restored them, what's best for them?

Tillinghast was obviously responding the same way and he probably had for years. He was trying to do architecturally what he thought best for the duffer probably because that's what his observations had been telling him for years and that's obviously what the duffer was telling him.

You and Tom MacWood seem to think you know what the duffer wants better than he does, and maybe you think you know even better than Tillinghast did. Are you sure that's a good idea to think that? And if so why? Do you think the duffer is leaving golf frustrated there's nothing in the game and its architecture to challenge and interest him? Did the duffer abondon playing on those courses where Tillinghast removed DH bunkers in the mid 1930s? If so let's see something that even remotely indicates that.

That thread never really was about the duffer or what he wanted or didn't want in the DH zone anyway. That thread was about Tillinghast compromising his architectural principles by changing them in the mid 1930s, again, a premise that neither you nor Tom MacWood remotely proved the accuracy of.

I've got the records that prove what the duffers at my club didn't want and why in 1940 regarding DH bunkers and I've got the records to prove what they didn't want regarding DH bunkers in 2001.

But still I'm sorry they feel that way--I wish they didn't so those DH bunkers wouldn't have been removed in 1940 or perhaps been restored in 2001.

Are you still flummoxed? And if you are I'll invite both you and Tom MacWood to come over to my club every time both me and those involved in our restoration have to deal with those duffers and what they want and don't want and what they like and don't like. It'll give you a great education in what happens in architecture and why, I'll guarantee it!  
 
 

Mike_Cirba

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2004, 11:55:17 AM »
Tom;

Do I know better than Tillinghast?  Now, that would be pretty arrogant and presumptuous of me.  Instead, I believe the impetus for my question had to do with the fact that many of his courses included bunkers at less than 200 yards from the tee and then he went on a tear in the 30's removing many bunkers (almost certainly many in that zone).  

I was left to wonder what had changed.  Was it pure economic necessity, on both his part and the clubs?  Had his thinking evolved to believe that challenging experts with bunkering was the only consideration?  Why did he talk about the new "PGA doctrine" that he claimed to be the messenger of which preached bunkering only in the zone of the expert player?
 
Now, to turn your question around, do the members think they know better than Donald Ross regarding bunker placement?   ;)

TEPaul

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2004, 12:05:02 PM »
I will absolutely guarantee the more you read about what some of those old architects (modern ones too) sometimes said and wrote and the more you become familiar with what they actually did sometimes the more you'll come to understand that it was never always the same.

Understanding the reasons why that was and is becomes what's interesting and is the thing that should be accurately determined now. I think it can tell you a ton about golf architecture and it's real evolution and many of the reasons why. Speculating if some architect like Tillinghast was comprimising his architectural principles will not tell you any of that, in my opinion.

I think some like Mike Cirba and Tom MacWood should continue to ask the kinds of questions they have been about how architecture evolved in the minds of architects such as Tillinghast or any of the rest of them who seem to be completely revered now.

But the first thing all of us should question is whether or not we really do agree with some of the principles they may have believed in. We very well may not if we look closely enough. So what?

W.H. Cosgrove

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #37 on: April 21, 2004, 12:40:25 PM »
The photo certainly makes the #16 bunker appear to be close to the left side of the green.  I guess I don't see the problem here.  The bunker is placed away from the greater hazard, the stream.  Without the bunker in the left position,I simply hit the ball to the left side of the green and let the ball roll down.  With the bunker where it was, I am forced to make a more critical decision.  

McKenzie now has me deciding between two options instead of one.  That is greatness!

TEPaul

Re:A useless MacKenzie bunker??
« Reply #38 on: April 21, 2004, 12:40:59 PM »
"Now, to turn your question around, do the members think they know better than Donald Ross regarding bunker placement?"

MikeC:

Now that's an interesting and very relevent question to ask! And it's one after all I've said to you I certainly should try to answer thoughtfully!

I don't know if they thought they knew better than Ross about bunker placement. What they all know, though, is what they want--and what they want is what interests them the most obviously, in the final analysis. Probably half of the members of Donald Ross's courses never even knew who Ross was and certainly less had any idea about what his ideas on bunker placement was all about anyway.

Certainly an architect like Ross, of all of them, had to know and understand that. I call Ross, perhaps the most "democratic" architect of perhaps all of them. Why do I say that about him? Simply because I feel he discovered his own unique way of figuring out in his architecture how to accomodate a very broad spectrum of golfer capabilities on the same golf course!

And let's be realistic here--obviously that was very important to Ross--he was an early architectural pioneer in America, he was plying territory and opinions on golf and certainly architecture that were virtually unknown if in fact there were many. He wanted to popularize the game here as much as anything not just to stick to long held principles but to make a life for himself and the game he knew and loved.

Mike, just look at what Ross said about probably this very subject of DH bunkers, certainly in a general sense at least and at some point on or before 1914. (Tillinghast said virtually the same thing on or before 1917--that we know of).

Ross said:

"The design of American courses in the early days of golf differed materially from the practices of this age (1914).

Greens were twice as large as they are now and all were square in shape.

Bunkers were square symmetrical cops or hills placed directly across the line of play.

Designers followed the idea of penalizing the poor player. He had to drive into the bunkers or over them.

Today, strategy governs the game to a large extent. The golfer can escape the bunkers but he loses distance thereby. Emphasis today is laid upon punishing the proficient player."


Isn't it interesting that my course as originally designed by Ross basically had 13 holes that had top-shot bunkers in the 100-140 yard range almost directly across the line of play? And it also had numerous basically square greens, many very  large.

So I don't really know if most all the members of my course over it's 80+ years thought they knew more about bunker placement than Donald Ross. But I do know they knew what they liked and wanted and the course very much shows that today as it has for many decades. There may have been many things done to my course over the years that weren't very well received but unfortunately (and I mean that) removing and then not restoring them was not one of them with the club's membership.

But still I'm sorry they went in 1940 and weren't subsequently restored in 2003.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2004, 12:51:38 PM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back