Road Hole Bunker Changed!

[Mike_Cirba]

Robert Walker;

Then explain John Daly's wonderful save from there in the playoff?

What's more, is anyone forcing the players to hit it in there?  Is it less "impossible" than a pond guarding the front left on an American course or does it provide opportunity for recovery??

Patrick;

In answer to your last question, in the past 25 years, the bunker was not moved four feet back from the green, nor was it made two feet less shallow.  If Tommy Nakajima could putt into it in 1978 and couldn't today, what are you suggesting?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,

25 or so years ago, I recall Tommy Nakajima putting into the Road Hole bunker.  The fact that it now seems "almost impossible" should answer that question quite clearly.

I'm not judging the work in any way but the articles I've read all say that the gathering area for balls to be able to run into the bunker has increased twofold.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim;

This is from the article;

In the 1990 Open, from the front edge of the green, the Spaniard putted into the Road Hole bunker - and then took two to get out. Despite that, he says: "If they have moved the bunker back from the putting surface and made it shallower then they are taking the personality from the hole - its character."

According to Malcolm, the repositioning will make it "very difficult, if not impossible, to putt into it." He added: "The old bunker was eight feet wide at its base and gathered errant shots from twice that width."

If you think about it, how exactly would a "gathering area" be doubled in size?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I think you would agree, that rather than jump to conclusions, we should be in receipt of all of the FACTS.

I believe that bunker has been worked on a good number of times over the last 25 years.  When that happens, usually changes occur, inadvertant or deliberate.

IF the bunker is being returned to its form of 25 years ago, as has been alleged, and if same is accomplished,
what's the beef ?

If it's being moved to a NEW location, which NEVER existed before, especially in its relationship to the green, then you might have a case.  

But do we know all the facts, the entire history of that bunker

I disagree with you with respect to Merion's attempt to replicate the look of their bunkers circa 1930.
In fact, 1930 makes perfect, historical sense to me.

The evaluation of whether the duplication was accurately achieved is another issue.

Other than the bathtub nature, and what I perceive as a maintainance headache, I like the bunkers, they played quite well.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Here's what I do know;

From the article...

"It has been replaced with 32 feet of gathering area to a pot bunker set four feet back from its original greenside setting. The crest has been lowered and the face reduced by some two feet."

Also;

It is alleged to have been done because of issues of "fairness" for professional golf.  

Also;

Tommy Nakajima putted into it in 1978, as did others, and the past President of the St. Andrews "New" club (Mr. Malcolm) states that would be virtually impossible with the new bunker.

Also;

It seems from the article that most of those in town who've seen it are "in an uproar" and "cannot recall the bunker EVER looking like that".  

All of that seems to be reason enough to bemoan the passing of a great hazard, and to be saddened by the continued homogenation of the game...

I would have thought the modernizing of the "white faces" was tragic enough.  If you think that's what they looked like in 1930, through the combined efforts of Wilson, Flynn, Valentine, et.al, then we clearly agree to disagree.  

[ForkaB]

Mssrs. Mucci and Walker seem to have the logical high ground on this issue.

[Mike_Cirba]

ForkaB;

Would you care to explain why you think it's preferable that the Road Hole bunker seems to have been redesigned, repositioned, and reduced in challenge by all FIRST HAND accounts?

Where's the "logical high ground" in that?

[ForkaB]

Mr. Cirba

I'm not aware of any "FIRST HAND" accounts on this website.  From what I read the bunker may in fact be more like what it used to be ("restoration") and may even be "better" in a strategic sense.  Really, do we want to have a hazard where a minor miscue could lead to a quad on the 71st hole of a major championship?  Maybe so.  Maybe not.

I'll check it out before the Spring and let you know what it's really like, if you wish.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Peter Mason:

The changes included shortening the lip by about 18 inches -- it is now between five-and-a-half and six feet -- which will also have the effect of gathering more balls from the green into the bunker, he said.

Caroline Nurse:

the bunker should be far more difficult to avoid. The gathering area is greatly expanded and the balls are far more likely to roll into the trap than roll away from it.

David Malcolm:

The old bunker was eight feet (2.44 meters) wide at its base and gathered errant shots from twice that width, said Malcolm, who said the changes were made without consultation. It has been replaced with 32 feet (9.75 meters) of gathering area to a pot bunker set four feet (1.22 meters) back from its original greenside setting. The crest has been lowered and the face reduced by some two feet.

This is what I was referring to.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ahh...I see we finally get to the crux of the matter!!  

ForkaB asks;

"Really, do we want to have a hazard where a minor miscue could lead to a quad on the 71st hole of a major championship?"  

I'll let others answer that question, but I'd hesitate to call any ball entering that hazard a "minor miscue".  Everyone has the option of bailing short, right, left, or even just trying to get it into the front portion of the green. Nobody HAS to challenge that bunker or left back hole location.  

Also, all FIRST HAND accounts are provided in the article, linked and largely reproduced though this website, so let's not nitpick with the learned impressions of the good people of St. Andrews, shall we?

If you get there in the spring, we'd surely enjoy hearing your impressions.  

[RJ_Daley]

Mr Kimball approaches this from the correct angle, I think.  He wants to see the new bunker, photographic evidence of the extent of what has been done.  From the article, it is obvious that vandalism has been done.  Kimball asks who comprised this committee, Links Management.  It is well known how the public think of their home of golf in the Village of St Andrews.  How could this become a done deed in the first place.  Were they out there with bulldozers in the middle of the night?  Without the benefit of being in constant contact with the old grey toon's local news, it is hard for me to understand what information was out there before this act of vandalism occurred.  But, what the hell were the old boys doing at the R&A clubhouse while this was going on?  Isn't the 17th green in sight of the windows of the clubhouse?  Like Mr Kimball says, there is something fishy in the proclamation by Mr Dawson from the R&A.  Are they smokin opium in there at high tea time!

I want to know: what architect supervised this;  what construction company performed the work; who is accountable?

I believe the notion that you can rebuild the exact quality of what was there is fantasy.  You can't unring that bell.  You can't rebuild the characteristic of turf and soil that were there for centuries.  Perhaps you can regrade it to some extent, but the evolved compaction and interface of the turf and soil-sand seem to me to have enough nuance in the evolved characteristics, that newly disturbed soil, reformed can not achieve.  I could be wrong, but I'd like to hear some of Doak's guys or Hanse's Waggoner or JIM Tully or other knowledgeable people on that subject.  

Pat Mucci, you are just playing your devil's advocate, aren't you?  Please tell me you are

[JSlonis]

Mike,

Well said...You have presented the facts as they were written.

I don't see how this can be called a "restoration" to 1960. The article clearly states that the bunker has been moved away from the green.(away from its original position)

I'll try to search for some old photos of that hole, but I don't recall the bunker ever being any place but where we've always known it to be.  I recall stories about construction to the face and revetting, but never anything concerning the location.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim;

I must admit that I hadn't read the "Guardian" article until you referred those quotes.  Sorry for the confusion.

But, let's think about this logically for a second...

The 32 feet of "gathering area" is simply the 4X8 foot space that the original road hole bunker has been MOVED AWAY from it's original location!  What used to be bunker is now "gathering area", as if the ball needs some "prep time" before making it's descent!  

Using euphemisms of that sort, I suppose they will also call the 1 1/2 feet to 2 foot depth change a "turf clearing" which "adds visibility and thus, further challenge" to the bunker shot!    

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley,

The bunkers at TOC are worked on/repaired/rebuilt from time to time and noone objects.

If over time, the bunker became altered, I don't feel there is anything wrong with RESTORING them, whether it's to 1977, 1960, 1945 or any other year.

What I objected to was the blanket condemnation of an alleged restoration at St Andrews, as if any departure, from the courses current configuration, is heresy.

If restoration is good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

I may or may not admit to being the devil's advocate, stirring the pot and rattling a few cages.    

Moving it to another location is another issue entirely.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

That's the point.  It has been moved, even according to those defending the work.  

Four feet further away from the green.  

A bunker that Bernard Darwin described early in the last century as "cutting into the very vitals of the green".  

So, let's agree to drop the word "restoration" right here, shall we, because that word is starting to become a four-letter one in golf course architecture, used to mask a variety of redesign and construction liberties that are taken in the interest of "fairness", medal play consistency of scoring, and maintenance homogenity.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Once the term "restoration" is used, it conveys a set message,
that the feature is being brought back to a former position or condition.

Hence, the term should be used only when appropriate.

On that we agree.

[Jeff Goldman]

Does anyone have a tape of the shell golf match between Sarazen and Henry ____ (Picard??)? done around 1960?  My recollection from the show is that they give a good look at the bunker (and that the weather was so bad they both had a tough time breaking 80.  In any event, that could tell  us where the bunker was at that time.

              Jeff Goldman

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

That's a very good suggestion.

Does anybody have the tape ?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, repair of crumbled bunker lips, or replacement of sand that has filtered out, or has been blasted out of said bunkers is one thing.  The renovation of the road hole for 2000 was done to preserve its revetted sod wall face, and the arguement was if the bunker bottom was flattened and changed the facility to get out by advancing the ball towards the green.  But, the location of the bunker in context with how it must be avoided by approach strategy, or putting care, and its proximity to the green and placement guarding the approach was not changed.  The bunker's historical furosity and potential penalty it can extract if not played over, around, or from, intelligently, was not lost in 2000, particularly on Mr Duval.  That same bunker has been there from long before any discussion on this thread has pondered restoration from whichever year.  These links have evolved, and evolution happens from day to day in nearly imperceptible ways, to noticable changes over great amounts of time.  That is a world different from mucking around with a bulldozer and changing its location and dimensions.  

What would you do if a committee of trustees decided that realistically speaking the virgin's face of the sculpture "Pieta" appeared unrealistically young, and decided to chip a few wrinkles around her eyes?  

I still want to know who did this.  If there was a supervising architect, he needs to be damned for the unmitigated gall and ignorance to have participated in this vandalism.  What kind of a putz would do such a thing?  

[Robert Kimball]

RJ: thank you for the nod.  
My main trepidation of posting on a (what has to be) "hot" topic was the dearth of information on the subject.  Take for example, would the USGA deny knowing of the recent bunker restoration at Merion (sorry Emperor, shouldn't have brought it up), or the changes made to Oakmont/Shinnecock, et al?  Of course not!!  
Why does the R&A find it a shock that the city would find this revolting?  And while I'm at it, who actually owns the course?  Is it Links Management?  The R&A?  The City of St. Andrews?

I can't wait to settle in my Lazy Boy and see what The Golf Channel has to say on this!!!    

As always, thanks for giving me the chance to learn from everyone here!!  

[RJ_Daley]

One stanza of a paean written by John Low at Old Tom's passing:

Most single was the love of Tom Morris for the old links of St. Andrews--
Great gift of nature to a world full of golfers
Nothing he recked of its value to city or stranger,
But the old course, for the love of itself, he nurtured most tenderly.

Who has the audacity to 'reck' its value to city or stranger?

The word is "nurtured", not remodelled, revised, renovated etc.  In nurture, you repair, you tend, you maintain, you don't gouge, relocate, reshape and resize.

Redanman is so right, the ebola virus of golf redesign is about, and some strong medicine is needed here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley,

I don't think you can compare a static work of art, which is only observed, to an interactive feature on a field of play.  
A feature which is subject to alteration by the very nature of play upon that field.

I have no qualms with respect to restorations, be it to 1977,
1960, 1945 or any other prudently dedicated year.

Moving the bunker is another issue.

Casting a wider net to entrap balls is another related issue.

At times, work is done on a feature and no one knows about it, and the revised feature becomes the accepted feature.
I'd like to examine the bunker in the context of time.
How was it in 1900, 1924, 1946, 1960, 1977, 2002 and after this current change.

If this current change is a departure from anything that previously existed, one would have to be critical.  But, if we come across a similar configuration at some point in the past, then you would seem to have to applaud the restoration.

But, I am curious with respect to the genesis of this idea, how it took hold, and who is supervising the project architecturally.

[Pete_Pittock]

 I'll dig out the tape and then look at some photos from 2000 and get back to y'all. Another view would be the British Open tape of the Nicklaus/Sanders duel.
  For restoration purposes, on a course that is 400 years old, how do you settle on one photo just 50 years old, that is unamericanizing.

[Bob_Huntley]

Jeff:

It was Henry Cotton and the golf was pitiable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pete Pittock,

From the perspective that there may be far more photographic evidence taken in the last 50-100 years than there is from 300-400 years ago, and a few more aerials to boot.

In addition there may be a few living individuals with accurate recall of the bunker as it existed 50 years ago, and very few to recall the bunker as it existed 300-400 years ago.