[David Stamm]

Just wanted to know if anyone knew the progress of the work going on at Valley Club. Perhpas Mr Doak or Mr Urbina can let us know how things are going? I drove by it this past weekend, but didn't see much going on from Sheffield Drive.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

The construction work is complete; all you would have seen was grass growing.

I don't know if they have set a date for opening the new greens.  The last one was planted in mid-August, so I would guess they'll let the players back on the greens sometime in December ... but of course that should depend on how the grow-in is going.

Fifteen of the greens will appear not to be changed at all.  The 15th and 18th have been returned to something a bit more in character with their original design [though we couldn't go all the way back, since they were too severe even at 1960's green speeds].  The most significant change is restoration of the original par-3 11th hole, which I used to think was the only weak link among the short holes -- but not anymore!

[Padraig Dooley]

Tom

What work was done to the 11th? There is a photo of the green in the 30's in the club's history book, has it been changed to something similar?

[James Bennett]

Padraig

I assume you mean the pic on page 50.  Here is the appearance of #11 in March 2007.  I couldn't comment on the specifics of any change though.  Obviously, Tom Doak has rebuilt the green since March, but I wonder whether the bunkering will change much from the earlier work.

Others will note that the Valley Club's bunkers are a bit more demure than those discussed recently at Pasa and CPC.

A neat touch to note.  The front tee is for the red tees and the green tees.  The Valley Club solution - one tee of each colour, not two tees for each.  Much less clutter, as per so much of the Valley Club.



James B

[wsmorrison]

"Obviously, Tom Doak has rebuilt the green since March, but I wonder whether the bunkering will change much from the earlier work."

James, If these bunkers (particularly the left one) are typical, I certainly hope so!

[Rich Goodale]

Possibly surprisingly and disturbingly agreeing with Wayne, but what is the purpose of the bunkers left and back, other than eye candy?

Oh, and I should add.....

....or the torture of the complete hacker......

[wsmorrison]

Rich,

Agreeing with me should become a habit eventually.  It won't feel so bad in time...that's what I'm told in any case    

I don't know if that back bunker is original or not, but MacKenzie liked those back bunkers on raised slopes, either man-made or natural.  He seems awfully predictable in that regard. I bet things looked a lot better in the original iteration, but the MacKenzie bunkers (like many) seem to be a hard look to hold either through maintenance or aesthetic changes.

[Rich Goodale]

Don't worry, Wayne, I won't live long enough or get senile soon enough to ever fully agree with you.

The eye-candyishness of those bunkers is a slam-dunk, at least from the pictures.

Inquiring minds want to know....Why?

[David Stamm]

David:

The construction work is complete; all you would have seen was grass growing.

I don't know if they have set a date for opening the new greens.  The last one was planted in mid-August, so I would guess they'll let the players back on the greens sometime in December ... but of course that should depend on how the grow-in is going.

Fifteen of the greens will appear not to be changed at all.  The 15th and 18th have been returned to something a bit more in character with their original design [though we couldn't go all the way back, since they were too severe even at 1960's green speeds].  The most significant change is restoration of the original par-3 11th hole, which I used to think was the only weak link among the short holes -- but not anymore!

Thanks Tom. That was fast! I had heard that it wouldn't open for 8 months. I must've heard wrong.

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey Rich ??

are you promulgating a non- formulaic/ formulaic (lol) approach that precludes eye candy as good architecture...?

Particularly rear bunkering.. even ones that appear as "eye candy"..... might actually be deceptive in nature as the bunker invariably draws the eye (hence the candy )

rear bunkering at first blush might appear "classic" yet
with the improvements in sand maintenance and equipment...and the ability of the scratch player/pro to escape same

rough followed by an "eye candy " bunker is probably a better test of golf...particularly if the slope is negligible

are you arguing both sides here....because I'm about to ..

I use to think that it was bad design to punish bad golfers with hazards that weren't in play for good players  (note my argument above)

yet

the randomness of bunkering is growing on me..no matter who it might punish

a conundrum indeed it is!

rjs

[JC Jones]

Does rear bunkering only punish "bad" golfers?

I am a single handicap and I recently found a MacKenzie rear bunker.  #3 at Crystal Downs has two bunkers behind.  The pin was back and there was a significant wind.  I went after the flag, hit the ball 2 yards further than I should have, took one bounce and found myself in the back left bunker.  

Now, maybe you can argue that a good golfer would have known better than to attack a back pin on that course, and I probably wouldnt disagree with you, but I think that depending on pin position and wind, a back bunker can certainly come into play.

That being said, the picture above is the first I've seen of any valley club hole and not knowing anything about the valley club, I dont know how often they put the pin back left and how much of a role the wind plays on that hole.

I just dont think that as a general statement, back bunkering is irrelevant for the "good" golfer.

[Rich Goodale]

Yo, Archie

I don't promulgate, nor have I ever promulgated, except when I was young and foolish.....

....but, I will admit that while "eye-candy" can be interesting and even useful, I believe that it can only be so in extreme moderation.  Think of the left hand side mega-bunker at the green of the 6th at Pacific Dunes--completely out of play, but in your mind and your face.  Otherwise, think if those bunkers are really necessary.

For whatever reason, Mackenzie semed to like to place superfluous bunkers, particularly on courses where he had enough budget to do so.  If you look at courses where he had less budget (e.g. Alwoodley, Pitreavie), the bunkering is more economical and more pleasing to the eye of the strategic player.

As you imply, maybe in the "Golden Age" greenside bunkers were hazards for good players, but now they are not.  As for not so good players, they are still very hazardous--even soul destroying--but does that constitute great architrecture?  I think not.

Rich

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

I agree in principle with your concepts here - eye candy is eye candy no matter who does it - but I have to ask, for what type of golfer is the huge bunker near the green on 6 at Pacific Dunes "completely out of play"?

Good lord, I've been in at least once, and while I'm not Tiger Woods, I'm only a slouch by Judge Smails' definition....  If one goes anywhere other than right of center off the tee, it is very possible to leave a pitch shot in that horrid pit... tight lie, death long... it's a tough shot....

Please explain.  I am giving you the benefit of the doubt you can't possibly mean what those words mean on the face of things.

TH

[archie_struthers]

 

If I may promulgate.....perhaps non-bunkered slopes of rough with just enough slope to permit drainage....might be revolutionary in some respects...a death by stilletto approach vs. a real bludgeoning

as to the eye candy aspects of MacKenzies work , and I'v e not seen enough to be an expert, save thru pictures...his bunkering always stuck me as very visual ....and eye catching

the big scalloped bunkers he built are certainly unique...and often out of play for the better player...but they are awesome


what I'm asking is in trying to be non-formulaic you can become formulaic ....don't do this ...don't do that...you must include this etc..etc..  ( the reachable par four springs to mind)

Tom Doak queried me on an eye candy bunker behind green number eight at  Twisted Dune when he was kind enough to visit during construction .... he asked why ...I answered ...he thought about it, we moved on... no further discussion   (given his success relative to my inexperience I immediately questioned whether it was  bad, and if he thought same...at the time I so wanted approval)  

In retrospect....it's now one of my favorite bunkers..and there are other things that bother me...if Tom didn't like it wouldn't make it bad...it would mean he didn't like it...

but perspective changes as we age...even slightly

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

I assume you could get a 5 or at worst a 6 out of that bunker.  Big deal.  The hacker is there forever.  What's great about that sort of architecture?

Rich

[Padraig Dooley]

James

It is the picture on page 50 that I was talking about.

There is no back bunker in that picture.

I might suggest that back bunkers affect better players more then average players. How many times does an average player overshoot a green?

An ocassional skulled approach maybe?

The Valley Club has quite a lot of back bunkers. 4, 14 and 15 are really good examples. Great eye candy as well.

 

[JC Jones]

Tom

I assume you could get a 5 or at worst a 6 out of that bunker.  Big deal.  The hacker is there forever.  What's great about that sort of architecture?

Rich

Why is the hacker there forever?  Hackers who would struggle in 6 would struggle in any bunker and taking your logic to its natural conclusion, we shouldnt have any greenside bunkers because most hackers struggle in them.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom

I assume you could get a 5 or at worst a 6 out of that bunker.  Big deal.  The hacker is there forever.  What's great about that sort of architecture?

Rich

Well, taking a 6 on a 300 yard par 4 is a big deal for me.  And I wasn't asking about whether this constitutes great architecture or not - though that is a better and larger question!

I was just trying to get clarity on what you mean by "completely out of play."

As I understand it now, you mean stuff that will kill the bogey or worse player, but won't cause the better player too much harm.  You have to admit that's rather different than what one would normally ascribe to the words "completely out of play."

 

But I get it now.  And I am with you.  I absolutely hate hazards like this, that the better players can ignore but kill the lesser players.  That to me not only isn't good architecture, it's hellaciously BAD architecture.  It's in evidence all over the place at a course called Eagle Ridge, in Gilroy, CA.

I just wouldn't agree, however, that that's what's going on at #6 PD.  That enormous bunker most definitely is a hazard for the better players... Heck the really good ones can get into it off the tee if they're not careful... and while that won't ruin their round, it will VERY much complicate a golf hole that on the face of things they expect to birdie.

Nope, I am no Doak butt-boy - far far from it - but I can't agree with you re 6 PD.  That's darn good architecture in my book.  But given I don't have a book and you have several, perhaps I ought to defer.

 

[Joe Bentham]

The left green side bunker on 6 @ PD is a hazard for everyone.  It dictates the play off the tee.  And great bunker players struggle to get the ball up and down, to say nothing of us mortals.  I would call it the "anti-eye candy bunker".

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Eight months from the closing on May 1st would be January 1 -- that's probably what they are targeting for reopening.  The construction was done May 1 thru August 15.

On #11, the bunker front right was rebuilt (plus we planted a tree to make up for a long-lost oak and to hide the cart path), the bunkers in back redone, a bit of kick-in fairway to the left of the green over the bunker has been restored, and the green was lengthened and narrowed in accordance with the original design.

The most difficult decision was what to do behind the green.  In the oldest photo we have, that area is thick with trees, and it's so shadowy that it is impossible to tell if there was a bunker behind the green or not.  In the 1930's there was a mudslide down the hill behind the green which wiped out the trees, and at that time bunkers were either restored or added.  We decided to restore these bunkers, since we can't replace the original trees.

[David Stamm]

Great things to know Tom. I'm curious, was the Challenge Golf episode filmed there of any help to you? I may be mistaken, but I think the 11th was shown during the episode.

[Joshua Pettit]

Just to clarify, the hyrdoseeding process was just finished as of last week.  Construction began June 1 and was expected to be finished by Sept 4 (which is when the construction at Pasatiempo was scheduled to resume) but it took until the end of the month to wrap up all the detail work and the hyrdroseeding of the greens and surrounds.  The course will be closed for an additional 7-8 month grow in period and is scheduled to reopen sometime in May, or by June 1 at the very latest.  

[David Stamm]

Thanks Josh. I must've driven by right when the hydroseeding was done (Saturday). I take it they are playing on temp greens until spring?

[James Bennett]

David, Padraig (and Farnsworth and Wayne)

On the Valley Club Plan, laid out on pages 28 and 29 of their 70-year anniversary book, prepared by Salisbury/Bradshaw and Taylor in 1929, the 11th hole has no back left bunker.  It does have a tree at the front left though, which is possibly the tree shown in the 1930's picture on page 50.  However, the tree looks a little closer on the Plan.  On my image above, that tree has gone.

That is the only history I am aware of, and I expect those involved with the work have more information at hand.

James B

[James Bennett]

On #11, the bunker front right was rebuilt (plus we planted a tree to make up for a long-lost oak and to hide the cart path), the bunkers in back redone, a bit of kick-in fairway to the left of the green over the bunker has been restored, and the green was lengthened and narrowed in accordance with the original design.

The most difficult decision was what to do behind the green.  In the oldest photo we have, that area is thick with trees, and it's so shadowy that it is impossible to tell if there was a bunker behind the green or not.  In the 1930's there was a mudslide down the hill behind the green which wiped out the trees, and at that time bunkers were either restored or added.  We decided to restore these bunkers, since we can't replace the original trees.

Tom (and others)

interesting.  The photo on page 50 shows the old tree by the right bunker, and it certainly hides (effectively) the path up the hill to the next tee.

Any comment on the small tree at the front left of the green (NLE)?  Some might accuse MacKenzie of using that tree and the front bunker to 'frame' the green.  I wouldn't.

James B

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()