What's a bottle hole?

 The 7th previously when it was a Bottle Hole. You can see the natural tee landform in the contours too - it is the teeiest tee we have on the course. I also had a hell of a name for this version of the bottle...

Which was...?

Origin:  C.B. Macdonald modification of original 12th hole at Sunningdale's Old Course, Berkshire, England - No Longer Exists

Ah, NLE, I was going to say.  The current 12th at Sunningdale Old does have cross bunkers diagonal to the line of play starting in the lower left, but they begin at ~90 yards from the green on a 440 yard par four.  They are not in play unless one has to layup and wants to do so in the area that is 90-40 yards from the green.  Does anyone know what the original configuration of the 12th was?

Approach:  The narrowere fairway segment (set on the upperfairway segment) offeres a less hazardous approach shot.

From the overhead view I don't see any obvious reason why the narrower, upper fairway leaves a "less hazardous approach shot".  What about the hole makes that side appealing?

Mike, what was the distance to the blue line of play turning point on the original drawing of the botte, and to the red.  Was the red still 266 yards?  It is hard to tell what the width of the FW from begining of the LZ at both the blue LOP and red combined, between the first and second diagonal bunkers might be.  I'm guessing about 90yards.  

Was the change somewhat brought on by a more practical maintenance budget consideration?  I can see why the budget of most clubs and courses is adverse to mowing that much width, irrigating it, and maintaining that much bunkering.  I reckon it might be an issue of extravagance of cost to maintain that just is overwhelming the nostalgia that many of us might feel to have as cool of a bottle hole as it appears you had designed.  I love it, but understand, if it is budget maintenance, irrigation scheme generated compromise.

One last question; could the 4 diagonal bunkers of the authentic bottle you have shown, and the #5 shaped bunker and mound on left approach,  be substituted with a series of 3-6 ft, mounds and slight grass depressions that could be practically maintained with a rotory mower at about 1.5-2 inches?  Maybe even the last of the 4 diagonals be a FW height cut nose/deflection contour of 2-3ft.  Thus, a sort of split FW with bottle considerations/strategy for carry off tee and place to go for desired approach, risk and reward.  Leaving the bunkering at the greens and surrounds.  I take it those are bermuda turf FWs and Roughs...

I think you take the risk of getting all us armchair archies in the act with "armchair change orders" by posting this...  

George,
As we got closer to building #7 I thought the cross bunkers might look too similar to #1 and it was also much easier to build what we have now.

Jeff,
You'll have to come and play the as-built first hole to see some cross bunkers in action - which side of the bunkers to hit to very much depends on the flag location and your preferances for having the green above your head and or the ability to putt from 50 yards off the green.

As for making it work... The 7th green was going to be strongly contoured to favor one side of the fairway over the other - also a little too similar to #2.  Now the green is different from all the others and pretty cool too.

RJ,
I forgot your questions...
The current red centerline yardage is about 380 - about the same as the old.
The green/blue line is about 260 - the green centerline is a 4500 yard course.
I think you are about right with your scales.

The general evolution of the rest of the course - when compared to my original drawings - were the reduction in size and number or bunkers.  We pushed the tees closer to greens as the shapes took place and found neat teeing options.  Also it is hard to sketch a 200 sft bunker - it looks tiny on a drawing.

So probably we would have eliminated some of those bunkers and just kept the essentials to keep the strategy in tact.  The fairway probably would have remained nearly as wide - the new fairway only reduced the number of irrigation heads by 5 or so.

The change was only initiated because I thought we could do better that the preliminary design - Don easily agreed for that and many other practical reasons - which in our case has also led to a better design.

And yes we have had a practical side with $s to maintain - we have tried very hard to keep to our goals - and lower.

If we thought it would have led to a better hole we would have built it - it would have taken quite a bit longer with our very small crew.

There hasn't been a case of not being able to do something more costly - if it was worth it - like build a big bunker - the trick has been being able to do it with the size of our crew.  Our labor has been mandated far more than anything else.
That would be a mandate of cost if it weren't for the fact that we have no time or schedule mandate.

We now understand what a bottle hole is.  Why was it called a bottle hole?  A bottleneck influence perhaps.  Any better answers?

James B

.

J & J
As a derivitave of a bottle hole I would have suggested it be named after the preferred bottle of our client - which has a fitting name - sort of like ginger beer is to The Old Course.

That's too kiss-up....you need to go a little more obscure!

 

Is 16 at Kapalua a bottle hole?

Mike,

I like the old centerline design, but understand the need to change to accomodate a different look than the other holes.

A few questions:

- Is mainting the one larger bunker significant to the smaller centerline bunkers?
- Is that also what happened to the bunkers long? I liked those.
- Given the new look is the green tougher away from the bunker?

Best of luck!

John,

The cost of centerline bunkers as compared to the one big one...
When I first sketched the new hole I had a big bunker - a tad bigger than the one shown - and as I worked on paper with the design - the drainage/irrigation/shaping - I started making refinements to the bunker and started shrinking it -- I eventually split it into two to protect the right side and the green separately.  I showed Don the final sketch - not the original with the big bunker - he liked it but thought it would be a good idea to make the bunker bigger...  
I was shrinking it with the intent of keeping it more maintainable with the same playing characteristics.

So that is a long answer - but if it is worth it and the builder, client and superintendent are all for it - it will be easier to maintain.  Some times the benefit is worth the added expense.

The bunker behind the green went away so we could tie into natural grade better - there is an entrance path behind the green so it would have looked a little forced had we built it.

The green is more receptive from the left side of the fairway - right by the bunkers.

Thank you for the questions and wishes.


Here is one last insight.... from tonight's blog....



 To share one additional insight with the 7th hole – During the redesign to its current form (see here), I had sketched a small 200 square foot bunker in the middle of the fairway. As it was built the hole plays down wind and the tiger can try to carry the ball to the approach inbetween the left fairway bunkers and the green side bunker. The right side of the fairway is protected by native grasses and the greedy player will find their ball in a tough spot frequently. The current play, without the centerline bunker, is to try to hit to the neck and not through the fairway into the left fairway bunkers – which are quite severe.

One can also play safe anywhere in the big left portion of the fairway –- a hint: the green is far more receptive the closer one hits their tee shot to the left fairway bunkers. The center line bunker was an attempt to create a lay up option – with a long iron or utility club – or lay up left. Don felt that instead of creating options that it would reduce options as the lay up left would not be used -- unless accidently. We discussed it for a few days and together decided to leave it out.

I’m looking forward to seeing it tomorrow with mature grass…