MV's Inside Dogleg Bunkers at the 18th

[Matt_Ward]

Great aerial shots of MV today -- have to question what JN was thinking with the series of bunkers aligned all the way down the right side of the 18th hole. From the sky they look worse than when playing there. It's just 8 circular sand shapes meant to discourage players from attempting to cut the corner with their drives.

I've been at MV a few times -- played it twice -- I really like the original version of the 18th -- have to wonder if all the "improvements" have really served a purpose.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

There were always three from memory and it looks like he added them up the fw to accommodate longer hitters.  That tree was always in front of the original cluster, I think.

[Sean Leary]

I know MV gets panned a bit here, but on TV it looks  like an excellent course.

[John Shimony]

The bunkers on the inside of the dogleg definitely serve a purpose insofar as the better angle into the green is from that side of the fairway, if I recall from television.  but I would agree that aesthetically they do look like overkill from an aerial view.  Do they look better from ground level?  That is all that matters to the membership I presume.

[Brent Carlson]

I know MV gets panned a bit here, but on TV it looks  like an excellent course.

Have to agree here.  MV looks like a great track. 

[Zack Molnar]

I think they do serve a purpose, as they intimidate the player trying to keep it on the inside of the dogleg. It also makes the drive even more intimidating because there is a stream on the other side of the fairway, which has caught many a contender on sunday.
however, I was up at the memorial today and Phil hit it all the way over the bunkers, leaving himself about 75-100 yards in. So, i guess they do serve a purpose, but aside from the longest hitters, those last bunkers really dont come in play.
Nevertheless, I think they course is fantastic from the couple times that I have played there. 14 is an excellent hole, and the greens are also fantastic.

[Carl Rogers]

Are there going to be big changes to MV #16?

MV should be a great course with all that is and has been spent on it.

Is it the most expensive course in history?

[JESII]

Carl,

How much has been spent on it?



Would it make any sense to remove the first few bunkers and make it fairway? Would anybody ever consider that a viable option to stay away from the creek on the left? I played it once and hit it in the bunkers but do not remember much detail about how far from the green the bunkers start...

[Matt_Ward]

Some of you folks don't understand what I posted originally -- it's not the placement of the bunker(s) -- but how they look and how they mesh when viewed -- the aerial shows it quite clearly to me. It just looks like someone said -- OK, we will prevent players from doing something -- just create circular discs and keep on adding to them to the point of excessive overkill and eye revulsion.

[Bill_McBride]

Some of you folks don't understand what I posted originally -- it's not the placement of the bunker(s) -- but how they look and how they mesh when viewed -- the aerial shows it quite clearly to me. It just looks like someone said -- OK, we will prevent players from doing something -- just create circular discs and keep on adding to them to the point of excessive overkill and eye revulsion.

I think the response was, they don't look bad from the player's viewing point down low.

I've never been there but the aerial view is certainly miserable.  Plus I hate how they are way out in the rough.

I guess one problem is making the array long enough to discourage everybody from that line - but even so Phil flew them all.   

[JESII]

Matt,

Are you saying that if they looked prettier you'd be happy?

Circular discs sort of matches the clean edge style at MV, no?

From the tee it's alot less repulsive...don't you think?

[Adam Clayman]

Matt, I'm not saying it's the case here, But, I have heard of some architects who have a "piece" of a course, that do extra, unnecessary design work, just to get paid. Shocking, isn't it?

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

I don't know if you have ever been to MV or played the course.

But Jack has sometimes done things to the point of overkill in his design style. When viewed from the air it clearly shows a desire to repeat with hideous results

I don't expect the bunkers to look like Marilyn Monroe -- but they are simply done to excess and could have been done in a far less amateur 101 level design style.

Adam:

Agreed -- but I don't see how your stated point has anything to do with JN at MV.

[JESII]

Matt,

What would you do there?

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Have you ever been to MV or played the course.

I played it shortly after it opened and it was quite good then -- not as altered as it has been in later years -- no doubt some changes were needed for gallery flow and overall logistics since the tournament is an annual mainstay.

Try to keep this in mind cutting corner at #18 is not an automatic shot and before the proliferation of all the bunkers the sheer depth of the rough was quite enough of a deterrent.

Jim, I'm not saying having a bunker(s) on that side is not OK -- but fitting them in should be done without being so blatantly obvious as to overkill.

[JESII]

Matt,

Have you read my responses? I've read yours. I played it once, and caddied 2 rounds in the 91 or 92 Amateur.

You'll notice when you back and read my first response to this thread that I made a suggestion that noone has responded to, maybe you'd like to...but...short of that, please listen to what you've espoused here...

Either reduce the number of bunkers but not the area they cover, or just defend the hole with high rough. Are these really the answers you would give Nicklaus if he asked you for a solution?

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Let's go back to the original hole -- what was lacking?

For all the people who attempted a shot -- how many of them made birdie ? How many of them made bogey or worse.

Also, check out the overall stroke average there. How was the previous hole that much deficient than the one you see now.

The problem I have with Jack here -- and it's the same one I have with Hootie and the ANGC folks who changed so much of the course there -- they see one or two people doing something with a Herculean blow -- then they decide to make sure no one else can possibly do it -- when in reality many don't do it because it's beyond their execution level.

In some ways -- this reminds me of the Lon Hinkle spruce tree at Inverness in '79.

Jim, the angle of the hole really minimize the opportunity for people to cut off the dog-leg and to do so with a real high probability of success. I can tell you this for sure -- I would not have eight ( bunkers scattered in that fashion -- it's just overkill without any real thought.

[JESII]

You would have left the original version alone?

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Why don't you tell me what was so wrong with the original ?

Just think what Hootie and the gang did to #11 at ANGC because they see Lefty hit a 9-iron or PW one time. Big freakin deal !

The scoring average for the previous 18th at MV was not exactly giving away birdies -- and when the course plays firm and fast the wherewithal needed to keep a ball on the fairway if someone decides to cut the corner is not an automatic.

I don't mind a tweak here and there -- but 8 circular discs simply plopped down from the sky is hideous -- Jack has done better and this brainstorm doesn't show much on the creative side for me. Maybe it floats your boat.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Great aerial shots of MV today -- have to question what JN was thinking with the series of bunkers aligned all the way down the right side of the 18th hole. From the sky they look worse than when playing there. It's just 8 circular sand shapes meant to discourage players from attempting to cut the corner with their drives.

I've been at MV a few times -- played it twice -- I really like the original version of the 18th -- have to wonder if all the "improvements" have really served a purpose.

Matt,

My curiosity about the bunker complex was boosted when I learned that there's a water hazard lining the left side of the fairway out where the right side bunkers reside.

If the bunkers weren't there, what would prevent the long hitter from shortcutting the dogleg by bombing it down the right side leaving a shorter club into the green ?

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

Simple answer -- the probability of success is very small.

Especially when the course plays firm and fast and a "hot" tee ball lands on the far side and runs out of run before going into rough on the far side.

The other point ... why not give a player some benefit when doing so.

Let me point out another hole of a somewhat similar situation -- the 15th at Westchester CC (it's the 6th hole as the members play it).

The hole turns hard to the right and there are trees down that side -- there is also a downslope for the lucky few -- and I mean few -- who can carry all the trouble and then have nothing more than a SW into the green. For everyone who tries it only a handful succeed.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Matt,
You're a little late
the 18th got hammered a few years ago or maybe last year after the bulk of the bunkers were added
isn't this why Pete Dye has long waste bunkers so it doesn't look silly when you try to penalize all different length hitters?

[Greg Tallman]

Yet the church pews at Oakmont are so classic and natural looking. 

If Jack copied that down thye right side what would be said of the effort?

The added length has made almost any effort to defend that hole irrelevant as players now "lay up" with a 3 wood and hit a 7 or 8 iron in. Used to be one had to challenge the right side in order to get the length necessary not to leave a longish iron into the green.

Mickelson hits 2-iron, 8 iron on Saturday. What can you do?

If it is not fast and firm there is nothing to be done and that is not going to happen during the spring in Ohio.

[Doug Sobieski]

When they put those bunkers in a few years ago, I suggested a more unique approach would have been to simply erect a tall driving range net (maybe 50' high) along the right edge of the fairway. If it was angled properly, players would have the chance to shape the ball around it, or they could try to figure out their carry point. To the right of the net, you could keep the rough manageable so that players would then have the chance to shape the ball right to left around the net to access the green. It would require a lot more thought off the tee. Plus, it would be much different mentally than trees, because you could see right through it, thereby making players more likely to challenge it. You wouldn't have to rake the net, either.

As you can tell, I've put WAY too much thought into this   

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

Great thought -- who knows, if the hotel and shed at TOC can work for #17 there -- your approach might just catch on.