News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Please note, each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us and we will be in contact.


NAF

I'm just curious if anyone knows why Baltusrol took out the gnarly, rugged and ragged bunker look on the crossbunkers on #17?  I'd imagine it used to look like the restored bunkers at Fenway's 3rd..  It made them much more open to being a hazard or being some sort of mini penalty..

Why did they change them?

1) The club wanted a manicured aesthetic?
2) They were unfair for championship play?
3) Greens chair or consulting architects recommended it when modernizing...

any thoughts..?


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2005, 02:58:46 PM »
Sorry to stray a bit from the subject at hand, but I was shocked when I saw the photos of Baltusrol in Golf Digest's PGA Championship preview.

The restyled bunkers in the photos make Baltusrol look like a Rees Jones course. Kinda like Bethpage Black, I guess.  
jeffmingay.com

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2005, 03:33:38 PM »


Just look at old pictures of #4.  Clearly the bunkers have been cleaned up and are not as pleasing to the eye.

T_MacWood

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2005, 03:55:19 PM »
It was done prior to the 1967 Open, I believe maintenance was the issue. What are the chances RTJ was involved?

Mike_Cirba

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2005, 04:06:17 PM »
Sorry to stray a bit from the subject at hand, but I was shocked when I saw the photos of Baltusrol in Golf Digest's PGA Championship preview.

The restyled bunkers in the photos make Baltusrol look like a Rees Jones course. Kinda like Bethpage Black, I guess.  

Kinda like.  

I don't get it either, Jeff.   ::) :P :-X

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2005, 08:24:17 PM »
I just saw a fly-over of the 17th on The Golf Channel... wow. Is that Baltusrol?

With all due respect (I'm not trying to insinuate anything), Baltusrol Lower definitely looks a lot different than it has in the past.
jeffmingay.com

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2005, 08:43:44 PM »
Jeff, I wrote about this in the Aug. 13 Golfweek. Baltusrol is now long and green. That's basically it.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2005, 08:56:31 PM »
Brad..why?...if you don't mind.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2005, 09:09:37 PM »
Noel,

You make it sound as if something was done recently.
I'd call it piling on.

Where have you been for the last 40 years ?

Those bunkers have changed very little since the 1980 and 1993 US Opens.

Why raise the issue, an old, old issue, on the eve of the PGA ?

Brad Klein,

I think there's more to the golf course than its length and color, but, for whatever the reason, Baltusrol seems to be the whipping boy of the cognoscente.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2005, 09:11:07 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Tom_Egan

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2005, 09:21:38 PM »
To: Pat Mucci

What IS it with the Baltusrol bashing?  Do you suppose any of the bashers would LOVE to belong?

You're up there in the neighborhood.  Can't you do anything about this calumny?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2005, 10:01:29 PM »
Tom Egan,

I've never understood the bashing, most of which isn't grounded in fact.

Anyone who says it's unremarkable probably needs to be hit by a shovel to know that they've encountered an outside agency.

It's got 14 or 15 direction changes, interesting green surrounds and putting surfaces.

It's also not a flat golf course as many claim.   There are a number of holes with elevation changes, some more pronounced than others like # 2, # 3 and others.

I think part of the bashing comes from the rivalry with Plainfield and being in the same state as Pine Valley which has very hilly topography.

There seems to be a need to compare Baltusrol with Pine Valley, and even Somerset Hills.

Certainly, it can't be claimed that the 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th and 16th greens at PV are highly contoured or highly sloped, yet Baltusrol gets bashed with greens that are the equal or better than the ones mentioned above.

I also think there's an element of envy.
Baltusrol has hosted innumerable championships, and for whatever the reason, some seem to take offense at their history and tradition.

My theory on the real reason that I think the golf course gets bashed is as follows.

Historically, it's been the non-golf staff and how they treat guests, and members too.
I've observed rude, discourteous behavior on the part of the staff.  To the point that I'd classify it as systemic.
There was an attitude that the staff were more important than the members and guests.  
I've always felt that this was directly proportionate to the number of outings that the club hosted, and the number of transient golfers that would flow through Baltusrol on a one time basis.  When so many outings take place, perhaps the participants weren't the best of tippers, or the most respectful individuals in the world, but, that's no excuse for improper conduct and service to others.
There appeared to be an institutional arrogance about the club.

However, it was just the opposite with the golf staff, who were fabulous.

So, my read on the bashing of Baltusrol is that it's not so much rooted in specifics dealing with the golf course, but an uncomfortable feeling that permeated the staff and left its mark on outside golfers.

I once mentioned this to two prominent members.
Their response was that those same staff treat the members the same way.   My response was, "then they should be fired tomorrow".  The non-golf staff seemed to have forgotten their role as employees and blurred the lines of demarcation between staff and members and their guests.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

T_MacWood

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2005, 10:37:00 PM »
Could the problem be the club has had a long history of being discourteous to Tillinghast?

Since the founders of the Tillinghast Society are based at Baltusrol...is there any talk of restoring his lost features?

NAF

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2005, 07:39:18 AM »
Pat-

I wasnt piling on in the least.. I didnt know when Baltusrol did their changes etc and wanted to ask the ?. My Rick Wolffe Tillie books didnt have the answer--perhaps I should have asked Matt Ward for a copy of the club history, he was involved in the publication..

I'd imagine Rick is one busy guy this week so I didnt want to ask him.  My ? was not meant to bait, in fact it was generated by an online golf digest article I saw.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2005, 10:14:01 PM »

Could the problem be the club has had a long history of being discourteous to Tillinghast?

NO
[/color]

Since the founders of the Tillinghast Society are based at Baltusrol...is there any talk of restoring his lost features?


Are you suggesting that the golf course be restored to the original 18 holes ?

What lost features are you refering to ?
[/color]


Redanman,

How many times have you played Baltusrol, and over what time period did your play occur.

When the members acknowledge impertinent staff, it's obvious that a problem exists, irrespective of whether you experienced or observed it.


T_MacWood

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2005, 08:50:47 AM »
Here are a couple of interesting articles:

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/gsr/1950s/540714.pdf

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1960s/1967/670322.pdf

"Are you suggesting that the golf course be restored to the original 18 holes ?"

Pat
That is the question. Since the founders of the Tillinghast Society are based at Baltusrol...is there any talk of restoring his lost features? Sahara bunker and the bunkering scheme/original green at the 7th for example.

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2005, 08:53:45 AM »


Rees Jones on Golf Channel said he has restored all the bunkers on the course.  Some he restored to look like the original "Tillinghast style" and some to his fathers style.  

T_MacWood

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2005, 12:43:21 PM »
Corey
What do you think? Was he successful?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2005, 01:07:28 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I don't believe so.
If anything, Baltusrol is headed in another direction.
That of continuing to host Major Championships.

But, out of curiosity, if Baltusrol decided to do what you would like, to restore the golf course to the original 18 holes,
how would they get rid of 500 members or alot tee times amongst 1000 members for just one golf course ?

This is where you go off the deep end.
This is where your zealous beliefs conflict with reality.

Baltusrol has 36 holes and a large membership.
You want them to take all 36 holes out of play for a year or two to reduce the facility from two golf courses to one golf course, at a huge expense and a huge incovenience, leaving them with just one golf course for a 1000 members and their families, despite the club's long established policy of inducing prospective members to join based on access to two very distinct AWT golf courses.

Has the Board of Health and the DEA inspected that Ivory Tower in Ohio lately ?


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2005, 01:14:04 PM »

I have played each course at least 10 times over a 10 year period

Oh, so basically, you're just a rookie, a johnny come lately.
With no knowledge of the atmosphere and service over the last 40 years.  Now I understand.
[/color]


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2005, 02:28:41 PM »
The discussion did not exactly follow this course Pat, but are you serious when you say those 6 greens at Pine Valley are not highly contoured? If they were not at PV they would be among the 6 most contoured at virtually any course I've seen.

I am not comparing them to any at Baltusrol because I have very limited experience there but the reports I've heard seem to imply the greens are not overly contoured. They seem to say that with the 12.5 foot stimpmeter measurement you may get a little movement. Many greens at Pine Valley, including the 6 you mentioned, become brutally difficult at that speed.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2005, 03:04:18 PM »
JES II,

Let's go over them hole by hole.

Where is the high degree of contouring in the first green at Pine Valley ?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2005, 03:16:04 PM »
#1 - The consecutive humps and valleys you must deal with on every single putt on the green.

Also the edges that significantly decrease the overall playing surface of the green as compared to its actual surface area.

#4 - The significant front to back slope which not only encourages approach shots, pitches and chips to roll off the back of the green, but make putting and pinning rather difficult. At the speeds mentioned, only about 10% of the green is pinnable.

#7 - Admittedly could not be considered highly contoured, but when the periphery of the green is used for the hole location it is by no means easy. Probably the easiest on the course though.

#10 - So much going on here I can't imagine you referrenced this one on purpose. I'll chalk this up as your free pass as #7 was mine.

#13 - With the size of the green and the deceptiveness of the front to back grade in combination with the right to left every putt seems srawn much stronger than appearance to the back left corner. If by contour you are simply referring to internal variety (for lack of a better word in my immediate vocabulary) this may be on the weak side but still beyond the reports I've heard of Baltusrol and seen at many, many other courses.

#16 - Ditto #10. With the exception of the front left quadrant (short of the little ripple) this green is diabolical as you know.

These may be the 6 least contoured at Pine Valley but that has no bearing on how they compare to other courses.


T_MacWood

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2005, 08:09:30 PM »
Pat
I was referring to Tillinghast's Lower course.

Remember the question was "Since the founders of the Tillinghast Society are based at Baltusrol...is there any talk of restoring his lost features?"...not restoring Louis Keller's original eighteen.

Phil_the_Author

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2005, 08:33:49 PM »
Tom,

It is my understanding thatthe membership at Baltusrol is proud of its "birth Parent" as it were. They enjoy being a Tillinghast creation. Yet at the same time, since so much has been changed from what Tilly had created, and remember, this process of "modernizing" began over 50 years ago, the present membership loves their courses, the ones that they have seen. With each change and/or refinement that they have witnessed, the reason behind it, the ability to host championships at the highest of levels, has been the driving force and the means of acceptance of change.

Today, much of what Tilly designed is gone, but just as a child who outgrows and goes in directions different from what was planned his parents, Baltusrol has evolved. Both courses are wonderful and remain a testament to the ability of Tillinghast to design courses that could evolve and be memorable when others have been left in the past. True, the elasticity of his designs have been stretched here, some might even say to near the breaking point, but Tilly is the one whose design allowed for it to be stretched.

It is my understanding that there is some consideration being given to making certain that any changes take into account Tilly's design parameters, i.e. challenge and angles, for those recent and any future work.

That being said, I'd try talking to Rick Wolffe about it... next week.  ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why did Baltusrol take out the Sahara esque nature on 17 bunkers?
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2005, 12:53:42 AM »
JES II,

You have to differentiate between subtlely contoured and highly contoured, there's a drastic difference.

The greens I mentioned at Pine Valley or not highly contoured, nor are they as sloped as the 2nd green at Baltusrol.

Tom MacWood,

Had you been at Baltusrol on 02-28-04 you would have learned that the club continues in the direction of hosting Major Championships and not returning to their origins.

Philip Young comments are on target.

But, the core of the golf courses, the routings and holes remain mostly intact.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2005, 12:57:42 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back