Pat,

  Do you think it is a statistical classification that misleads one to think that the easier hole by this calculation is a lesser hole? I am suggesting that using a method that includes the scoring spectrum is more valuable.  Usually these dispersed scores are not enough to change the average on the hole but reveal something about choices made and their success or failure.

"There are two drainage swales at 50 and 30 yards. I think the last two evergreens are just about at these distances. The recommendation was at 50. I think Wayne prefers 30."

In fact I prefer the placement in the earlier natural swale.  The bunker at Merion's 5th is 32 or so yards short of the start of the green.  If you look at the second to last photograph that is posted, the second tree shadow short of the green is where I would put a bunker within the fairway lines, just over 50 yards short of the green.  That leaves plenty of room to fly the bunker and feed onto the green.  Taking the safe route to the right of the bunker leaves a testing shot to the green falling away from you.  Playing the second shot as a layup on the left side of the fairway leaves ground or aerial options.

"There is some concern about whether a ball will go over a proposed bunker and end up in the left bunker. There is also concern whether at 30 yards the downslope just after it would be too steep and close to the green to allow carrying it and staying on the green."

These are uniformed concerns.  Who has these alledged concerns?  The bunker I proposed was not 30 yards from the green.


"Because of the intricacies of the slope , I think building a good bunker is difficult."

Are you building the bunker?  You really think that a good construction team could not build a good bunker there?  You don't know what you're talking about; not that that ever stopped you before  By the way, how much experience do you have designing and building bunkers?

"The width. depth, length, relation to the center of the green all seem to point to the original design as the best alternative."

What does that mean?  There is nothing of any substance in such a statement.  Explain why.  You make conclusive statements without any support at all and that contradicts expert restoration architects and just about everyone I've discussed this issue with.  

 Brent,

   That's what I'm talking about. I like your idea that the least number of pars could be a good shorthand.

 I am not judging Ron or Jim. I am saying that no specific plan has been drawn up for this proposed bunker and when it is I expect them to encounter problems. I think they will look at this in a different light when the trees are completely gone.


  In my mind this is what professionals do. They take into account new information and are willing to adjust. This is the impression I have of Forse Design. I think that view is complimentary not critical. I don't think they have finished their analysis of how the contours and playability will affect the depth, length , and distance from the center of the fairway for this bunker. They haven't been paid for a specific plan!

   If anyone analyzing this hole doesn't think there are placement problems I would doubt their abilities.


    I still say that it appears that Flynn never intended a bunker short and right of this hole. I don't think he made a mistake. I think he wanted to create a shot available only on this hole--a downhill chip to a green that runs away from you.

    The hole without that bunker is distinctive, fun , random , challenging ,quirky , uncertain. A bunker makes it less distinctive , less random, less quizzical.

       I am not trying to annoy you with this discussion. I am hoping you say something to change my mind.

Wayne and Mayday,
I’m not ready to pick sides here - especially since I've never even seen the hole in person - but how would this proposed bunker affect various types of players?

If I understand the hole correctly, this new bunker will not even be in play for the long hitter, as he'll still be able to fly the ball to the green.

Meanwhile the shorter hitter will have to contend with this new bunker in his effort to run the ball up onto the putting surface. It sounds as if the placement of this proposed bunker is in the ideal location for someone to aim a low running draw in an effort to reach the green. With the addition of the bunker, anything hit left of it will funnel towards the greenside bunker...anything hit right is likely too high to catch the slope and come down toward the green...so the only choice is to try to carry the bunker?

Do I understand that right?

Cabell,

I don't think Mike has any real grasp on the concept.  I beg to differ with you (at least you've never seen the hole).  

Short hitters and average golfers are not reaching the green in two.  They are usually well short of the bunker for their third shot to the green; about half way between the crossing creek and the bunker for the majority of players.  Their approaches are only 135 yards or so.  A bunker requires that the second shot be placed correctly and/or a more precise shot is required for the third.  Rather than the approach having little interest, it is raised dramatically.  Why shouldn't a mid to high-handicapper not be challenged with a short approach shot on a short par 5 and a placement demand on their second shot?  

The long hitter and low handicapper are challenged by the second shot so that placement off the tee is more important than with the short hitter.  The bunker gives a more go no go situation for these players' shots from the right rough.  For most shots from the left side of the first fairway it is not in play, the natural topography is the challenge.

I think the beauty of the bunker is that it is of interest to all levels of golfers.  It creates more interest and challenge.  I think it part of Flynn's enjoyable difficulty design propensity.

Wayne,
 I guess I just don’t see how this creates any interest for the shorter hitter. Won’t this bunker just reinforce the notion of laying up short, and at 50 yards out, is it really in play for anyone’s third shot at the green (from 135 in)?

At 500 yards with a 60’ drop of the tee, I’m surprised more players can’t take a go at this green and are laying up to 135. It sounds like an ideal par 4.5.

As the hole plays now (or without the trees which are scheduled to be removed), is their any risk to playing the low running draw and failing to execute?

 Cabell.

   The risks now to a poorly attempted runup from the right are (assuming no trees).
   1) hitting it right or straight and remaining up on the hill with a chip shot  down to a green that slopes away from you .This is the only place this shot exists on the course. In fact, we are famous for the number of uphill shots to the green.
  2) Drawing it into the front left bunker or short of the bunker in the rough. Forse Design recommends pulling the bunker further down the fairway to catch more balls. This seems like an excellent way to deal with the increased number going for the green today. You also can end up in a sloping fairway with a multiple choice test . There is a difficult to figure break from right to left.
  3) The recommendation to extend the fairway up to where the cart path is now and around the green will make the running shot execution even more of a challenge.

  I have been told that many guests find this to be the most exciting shot of their round.

I think the important thing is that Augusta National has a lot of 3½ and 4½ par holes for the pros.  Unfortunately, a ½-par hole for the pros (and for these particular, accomplished pros even more) can't be a ½-par hole for the rest of us.