Old Head's hole #4?

[TEPaul]

This thread is merely a question about the architectural arrangement of bunkers on Old Head's ultra dramatic and beautiful hole #4 (Razor's Edge). It's a question of architectural concept and what the bunker arrangement accomplishes or is supposed to accomplish strategically.

For those interested you can find a photo and "fly-over" of the hole on the website artforegolfers.com.

I also remember the hole well and playing it. It's so dramatic looking it's almost impossible to forget but I remember it because the hole is not short and the ground was hard that day with really strong wind and I hit a 2 iron off the tee by aiming way right and hitting a huge draw way out to the right which hit the fairway on the right and eventually rolled to the middle. From the middle of that fairway it was a pretty simple approach to that green (although the thought of missing the green left is certainly not unapparent).

Looking at that hole in that "fly-over" I forgot that there were at least two smallish bunkers staggered down the left side of the fairway relatively close to the cliff area.

In a conceptual and strategic architectural arrangement I can't see why an architect would do that. Along the left side fairway there's a sort of jaggedy line that rolls over some excellent and undulating topography which is interesting for the bounce and roll of the ball. But the highlight of the entire drive is perhaps one of the most dramatic and dangerous cliffs I've almost ever seen.

Why in the world would an architect put two staggered bunkers in there along the left side of that magnificent and highly risk/reward area? Talk about unnecessary or glaring architectural redundancy. Why wouldn't the architect put those bunkers up on the right side to basically force the golfer to think hard about risking a placement near the cliff on the left side? Perhaps even better would be to create a much wider fairway and put those bunkers somewhere in the right middle of the fairway with more fairway out to the right and arrange that green so the ideal approach would unquestionable be along the left near the cliffs and the safer play right or way right would be much harder for an approach running with the right to left slant of the land and the cliff more dangerously angled beyond?

I remember that hole and I remember the drive I hit really well and I remember there was no question in my mind when I stood on that tee that I wanted to hit that iron way right with a draw and land it way up on the right side! Did those bunkers on the left steer me away from perhaps one of the most incredibly beautiful and dangerous but potentially rewarding natural areas I've ever seen in golf? I think they did.

Talk about an architectural missed opportunity due to the use of bunkering that probably visually and psychologically steered me away from one of the best natural opportunities I've ever seen for exciting strategy.

What was that architect thinking? He should've intensifed the right or middle somehow on the drive or approach to bring out everything strategically that unbelievable left side naturally is!

What do you think?

[Neil Regan]

Tom,

  A very intersting question.
  To make it easier for discussion, here are some pictures.

[TEPaul]

OK, before somebody else says it----I can sort of understand the architectural concept of the "safety bunker" up against some common everyday OB line in golf---but up against perhaps the most dramatic LATERAL water hazard on EARTH!

Who designed that golf course? Jeeesus what an oversight and missed opportunity! He must've forgotten his flask or even his mind!

Or even worse---is this a case of an architect holding the poor little golfer's hand and mind bigtime and visually yelling at him not to come too close to the fire or he might singe his little fingers?

[TEPaul]

On that note, I'll tell you a funny story of that one time I played that course. I was playing with a good friend of mine, a Canadian, who like most Canadians I know hits it long and wrong and is incapable of thinking intelligently on a golf course. It was windy as hell that day, he'd bought two sleeves of balls in the pro shop and he was flat out balls by the 7th or 8th holes which afforded me the opportunity to sell him balls out of my bag for 100 pounds each! You've gotta take advantage of these suckers in golf every opportunity you get!

[Kyle Harris]

Bunkers can be used as deterrants... perhaps the architect didn't want the golfer to bring the water into play so much on the first shot?

It appears that the green is cut way closer to the cliff than the fairway is anyway.

It may not be nearly as dramatic as a standard "cape" hole, but that approach shot looks just as fun as anything I could imagine.

[Kyle Harris]

ALso looks like that back tee is a bit more pointed to the water than any of the other tees...

Anybody else see that? It's the one cut off by the photo on the right...

Another thing... maybe the architect couldn't do anything with the left side

I am talking government restrictions of some form... does that really happen in Ireland?

[Brian Phillips]

Tom,

Patrick Merrigan is the 'architect' and I will put this question forward to him in April as I will be meeting up with him again at the EIGCA Conference and AGM.

Brian

[TEPaul]

Brian:

How are you pal? Happy New Year. That would be excellent if you'd ask him. Would you do me a favor though? Punch him in the mouth first---and then ask him!    

[TEPaul]

Brian:

Would you mind doing me another favor? After you've punched him in the mouth and he's gotten up off the floor and answered the question about what he was thinking on Old Head's 4th with those bunkers on the left---would you mind asking him if he subscribes to that old cliche that even people like the great Macdonald, MacKenzie or even Ross used that no bunker is misplaced----and if he happens to say yes that he does subscribe to that cliche and architectural theory, punch him in the mouth again, and as he's getting up punch him in the mouth again, for me!

[Kyle Harris]

What if the traps were to stay where they are and the fairway be brought in closer to the cliff, even surrounding the traps... that way you'd have several options:

Sneak it left of the bunker
Try to carry the bunker (The closest one to the tee is only 180 meters(?) from the tips)
Bail out way right

I don't necessarily think the bunkers are the problem so much as the contours of the fairway. More fairway around the bunkers could make this a more interesting hole.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom

Sorta reminds me of adding a couple of bunkers on the left of another great par four, adding to the fear of a meandering stream.

Willie

[Robert Thompson]

Mr. Paul: Not sure about this Old Head thread, as I've yet to play it, but your typically jingoistic attitude towards Canadians makes me want to hit you with a package of back bacon.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I'm wondering what kind of safety issues come into play on a location like this one. What do you have to do to get insurance? Is the architect working to appease these types of concerns?

Robert Thompson

I've not seen this jingoistic attitude myself.

[Mike Hendren]

The bunkers make more sense in the context of the second photograph.  Perhaps they serve as aiming bunkers to give the player on the tee a better perspective of the required carries?  

The bigger question is why has the fairway been narrowed in the first photograph (looking back from behind the green), having been moved away from the cliff  and narrowed so that the bunker near the green is now in the rough instead of the fairway?  The reduction is fairway width is appalling, IMHO.

Mike

[TEPaul]

RobertT:

Sorry about the jingoistic remark about mindless Canadian golfers. That guy I was playing with over there is a Canadian. He's probably my best friend and we've been playing together for eons. Hardly a round goes by when I don't remind him of how potential his game is and how mindless it is. Most of the time I just tell him all the Canadians I've ever played with can't string two good nines together and all they are is a bunch of big winter bears who only care about hitting the ball out of sight (obviously not the case since I've played up there against Ervasti, Thomas, Roberts and Cowan etc ). But anyway---it's a an on-going joke. I probably shouldn't have said it on here though. Sorry about that.

[Rick Shefchik]

I haven't been there, but I'd guess Adam Foster Collins might have hit on the answer. That's one hell of a cliff, and it's very possible that the architect put those bunkers there to keep people away from it. Not the greatest architectural use of the land, obviously, but let's say you took the bunkers out and cut the fairway close to the cliff. I'm guessing you'd have many, many more players each day walking along the edge of that cliff, either to play their second shot after an excellent/lucky drive, or to hunt along the cliff's edge for a $3 ball that went over it. Sooner or later a golfer or a cart is going down to the beach below. The owners of Old Head probably wouldn't want that.

[Matt_Cohn]

My two cents...

Without the bunkers, there's nothing to carry. The bunkers give everyone (first the shorter hitter, then the longer hitter) the possibility of a "heroic carry" over something. It looks like the cliff is totally to the side. And, it was a good point about having someplace to aim and give some distance perspective.

[TEPaul]

Rick:

You know I think you probably have a very good point there about old Head. It's the only course I've ever heard of where they diligently and dedicately warn golfers not to go near those cliffs. Matter of fact, really dense fog up there is very common and they really do warn you if you get caught in it to basically not take another step. I think they even advise to call them on a cell phone if that happens. Look at their website---it certainly mentioned that on there before I went there and played there. And then there's that story of the hole on the other side called "Hawley's Leap". Apparently Hawley was a dozer operator who was working over on #15 or #16 too close to the cliff and he and his whole rig went all the way down to the water below---maybe 200-250 ft!!!! Somehow he apparently wasn't killed.

Brian:

When you ask him about the bunkers on #4 on the left would you do me another big favor and not punch him in the nose first?

Matt:

I could be wrong but it was my sense the one time I played there that the whole fairway had some pretty good tilt from right to left.

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul,

I go along with the idea that they are there as directional and distance references.  What I like about that hole (done on many holes there) is that the shorter tees are the ones with the "dramatic" cliff edge views.  Give the masses their money's worth, instead of saving the best views for the championship tees like Turnberry.  Presumably those playing the short tees know not to try the carry, the bunkers can serve as a more traditional warning sign those players will notice better.  But with the longer tees aiming you a bit more toward the trouble, it is harder to gain perspective and find a line with the way things visually lay out on a course with such high cliffs.  I think it would be far more difficult to find one's line if those bunkers weren't there.  Those who believe in architectural ambiguity would say that's a good thing, but I don't think you can play the "ambiguity" game on a hole where a bad shot will drop several hundred feet!

When I played there last summer, after a look at things I took a 1i and aimed it just right of the edge of the bunker on the right.  Figured the wind would blow it left and it'd end up in position A.  Problem is, sometimes when there is a strong wind, when I visualize the shot in my mind I see it with that right to left curve, and my brain decides "oh, he wants to hit a hook" and produces the proper swing for it.  So I hooked it off into disaster.

But it produced the most memorable shot of my day there because I had to drop it pretty much where the upper left corner of the box is (the corner near the 182) with the ball well above my feet.  With the cliff falling off left of the green, the rock wall right up against the right side of that rather narrow green I don't know why the hell I thought I could do it, but I played a slinging hook with a 4i that came off perfectly and ended up pin high 30' from the pin.  Just missed making what would have been an all-world par, but bogey still felt pretty good.

Oh, and Haulie's Leap -- the heavy equipment made the drop sans rider.  He was able to abandon ship before it fell.

[Mitch Hantman]

Tom,

One possibility is that the bunkers do indeed give the player depth perception.  This is especially true of the first time player, which for a course like Old Head is a frequent occurance.

[Mike McGuire]

There is  a danger factor at Old Head. The cliffs are so high and close to some spots its scary. I played with a guy who asked me to hold onto him because he had to get close to the edge on one hole.

He also said he's played pebble 10 times and its a goat track compared to OH.

[Don Dinkmeyer]

Very interesting discussion - i will play OH on 8/19 and looking forward to it.

I think there is something to the safety/deterrent factor. The cliffs are completely amazingly high and potentially fatal.

Then again, they'd have to create a (w)hole waste bunker down the ocean-side...

[Jack_Marr]

I don't know if this adds to the discussion, but it's very safe to walk left of the fairway. There is a lot more safe space than you'd imagine from the pictures.

Anyway, I ended up left of those bunkers, even though the line on the day was straight at the mounding on the right of the fairway, due to the wind.

Didn't about 5 "architects" design this course, including Joe Carr and Eddie Hackett?

[TEPaul]

I think there're some very good answers to this thread's question. In my opinion, having read them, and having been there, the best of them are that in the case of Old Head and what it is, the bunkers on the left of #4 serve a purpose that's less an appropriate one in the sense of a strategic concept for such an excellent natural feature as the left side of the hole is, and one that's more practical---that being safety. The question would be different, I think, if the water in that lateral hazard on the left was perhaps a few feet below the fairway rather than 250 feet or more. In this case the primary reason for those bunkers being seemingly redundant to an excellent natural feature is probably to simply steer the golfer's play away from a situation that could be dangerous to his life.

Brian Phillips knows the architect who takes some major responsibility for the course and he says he'll ask him about this when he sees him shortly. It's pretty cool when a site like this can get right to the source and then report his answers, don't you think?

[Sean_A]

I have never played the course, but it seems a bit "health and safety"ish to claim the bunkers will warn players from the cliff.  It looks like there is a path well left of the bunkers for walkers.  This headland has been well traveled for sightseeing.  I visited it twice before there was a course there and I was never alone.  Plenty of people walking near the edge.  In many ways it is a shame the course has been built.

Ciao

Sean