News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


T_MacWood

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2004, 01:24:04 PM »
BillV
With the smokestacks the skyline clubhouse better....without smokestacks I think like the trees.

Rich
1.  I did not realize you were up on maintenance practices over the years, but that would make sense...I guess. Are you saying the naturalistic bunkering requires less staff?

2.  Is there significantly more play at St.Andrews, Muirfield, Machrahanish, Princes, Westward Ho!, Sandwich, Brancaster, County Down, Islay, etc today than say 1926?  If the bunkers are haphazard and naturalistic...why repair them...a little 'damage' is a good thing, no?

3.  I'm not sure I agree with your "look good" theory, and that is the first I've heard the date placed that late--the 1980's.  I would have thought the date was much earlier (although I'm not certain) and I don't believe you would have noticed the bunkers in 1980 anyways due to your legendary focus/tunnel vision.

4.  I've never known you to be corcerned with preserving playability or architectural intent...are you now singing a different tune? Does County Down have difficulty preserving the playability of her bunkers?

Are Steel, Dobereiner, Ryde, Wind, Pennink etc apart of the MacKenzie Tendency extremist clique? I've always thought a clique was a smallish group; I reckon the friends of Dr. MacK has a fairly large membership.

May I suggest you research and write an 'In My Opinion' piece on the evolution of the links bunker....you've been in Scotland for a couple years now (although I sometimes wonder if you ever left San Jose)...please take advantge of your local and help educate the greater GCA and increase our knowledge.

ForkaB

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2004, 02:19:36 PM »
Tom

1.  I'm jsut saying if you don't have enough staff/money you have no choice but to go to the "natural"/scruffy look.
2.  I think yes, but I don't know.  There certainly is more play now than there was in the late 70's.
3.   My "tunnel vision" is only a figment of your and Tom Paul's imagination.  I'm just telling you (adn others) what I have observed.
4.  I've always been principally concerned with playability. You must have misread my last 2800+ posts, or otherwise misinformed ;)  Don't know what RCD does or does not do.

Tom, I thought you were a Commisar in the MacKenzie Tendency.  Surely you would know who has their party card and who does not?

I agree that the evolution of bunkers (links or otherwise)would be an interesting project, but I only have 25 years of relatively focused experience to draw on.  I'd be happy to share those experiences with anybody who wished to take that project on, however, as I have tried to do above.

Cheers

JSlonis

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2004, 03:24:28 PM »
Nice Photo's.

The older more natural looking bunkers look eminently more playable to me.  Looks like there is more room to recover from and are less difficult to get out of.

I prefer the newer look.  They look more menacing and punishing.  Given their shape, size and depth, they are more difficult to play from.

T_MacWood

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2004, 03:39:57 PM »
BillV
It looks to me there was a severe smokestack-ectomy.



Rich
I'll take that as a no on you authoring an IMO essay on the evolution of links bunkers....that is a shame. It would be great to get some IMO contribution from Scotland....how about an essay on the state of golf in San Jose?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2004, 04:06:00 PM by Tom MacWood »

ForkaB

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2004, 04:09:20 PM »
Tom

In my brief sojourn in San Jose, I hardly played any golf.  Huckaby is your man for that assignment.

ForkaB

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2004, 04:14:23 PM »
....and, Tom , as you know, I've already done two IMO pieces on Scotland, and am still waiting for the movie rights to kick in on those ones......

THuckaby2

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2004, 04:32:02 PM »
Tom

In my brief sojourn in San Jose, I hardly played any golf.  Huckaby is your man for that assignment.

Thanks, Rich.  But good lord, that must be #999 on the "1000 interesting topics for IMO pieces" list.   ;)

I can save the trouble and do it right now;

It sucks.

TH

ed_getka

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2004, 05:29:11 PM »
Tom,
  You'll need to move that opinion over to the appropriate section or no one will ever find it. ;)
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Paul_Turner

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2004, 05:57:09 PM »
Even I know that San Jose golf stinks...quite literally at the Santa Clara Muni.  Sunnyvale was covered in goose crap when I played there too.

Here's the final set of pics to complete the set.  From 1912 over a decade before Colt's redo.  


Huge cross bunker very close to the 18th tee, I believe.  Can just make out the perpendicular cross bunkers in front of green too.



can't get to heaven with a three chord song

T_MacWood

Re:Muirfield's Bunkers
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2004, 06:00:15 PM »
Rich
I recall you My Home Course essay on Dornoch and I believe that was written while in SJ...what else did you write? Seems a shame not to take advantage of your home in the home of golf.

Paul
I like the latter on the 2nd...thats a new one.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2004, 06:45:09 PM by Tom MacWood »

Tags: