What would you change ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you could redesign any feature, or any hole, on any course.

What feature or hole would you change? on what golf course?
WHY would you change it, and......
EXACTLY how would you change it.

[John_Conley]

Was talking to a guy on this board about that very topic.  The 16th green is a modified Biarritz and a bear to play.  It has gradual inclines, kind of like a snooker pocket.  I would have three flats - front and back on same level and a drop in between.

The way it is, too many balls collect in the same place on the middle tier and there really aren't enough cupping areas.

Good thread, but I wonder how many will be familiar with the courses we throw out.

You failed to mention one for yourself.

[Paul Turner]

I'd restore the awesome bunker at St Georges Hill's 8th, back to how it appeared in Hunter's book (see below).  Currently, the top right hand portion has been broken up into two pot style bunkers (probably helped maintenance).  It has lost some of its intimidation.



Maybe the fiercest inland bunker?

[Ran Morrissett]

In no particular order:

1) restore the 12th at Garden City, as per the photographic evidence, to its general appearance around 1930. I would back the tee up as far as possible to near its original position which may leave you with a half par hole in the 250 yard range to the loosely - but interestingly - bunkered "fence" green. By getting rid of the worst hole on the course by a factor of 10, and returning to the course one of its most famed holes would benefit GCGC immeasurably.

2) restore the boomerang 9th green and solitary bunker at Augusta National, as per the photographic evidence. I imagine that the boomerang green would give the hole infinitely more options than the existing one, where the only play now is to hit to the middle section of the green, regardless of the day's hole location.

3) restore the double punchbowl green and its location at the 3rd and the Alps bunker on the 12th at Yale GC.

4) re-capture Egan's size and strategic playability of the 12th and 17th greens at Pebble Beach; the lameness of the present day one shotters undermine the quality of the back nine.

5) remember that George Thomas designed the front nine at Bel-Air and return some - ANY - of his features to this side so that it could better compliment the awesome back nine, which could also use help on the 11th, 12th, and 17th holes in particular. Though the 1st, 3rd, and 8th have been ruined by the stone work and water hazards  , I would still most like to see the 2nd hole brought back to its full glory.

Cheers,

[A_Clay_Man]

I emailed  Ken Dye on this just yeaterday.
I would like to change the 5th at Pinon. As of now the tees are all in a straight line one behind the other. This hole is a 373 yd par 4 with about 220 yds to the arroyo(canyon for you easterners) The cart path runs up the left side. The look from the tee is awesome. You'd think the hole is 500+ yds from the illusion the arroyo and the rightside greenside bunker hold. First off to get to the tee you have to climb a small hill that takes you back into the direction of the previous hole. So, I would like to see the cartpath removed from the left side and the teeing ground placed on or near the same level as the 4th green. There is a natural gas well directly to the right of this area but since it's such a major part of the states economy, its eyesoreness should be overlooked and can be easily ignored if a sign were put up telling everyone who cared what it is.  This change would give the course an added dimension of variety, being the only  blind uphill tee shot, and simultaneously improve the flow and routing of the course. I understand some of the really big knockers can attempt a go at the green from the tee. But by making this hole more uphill that option should be restricted to the very brave or the very stupid.

Ran- Restoring isn't changing designs is it?

[corey miller]

A_CLAY_MAN  
  
i think you had mentioned an other time about work that the golf pro had suggested on a hole.  Is Ken Dye being consulted on that?  I have heard it is a fine course and it seems like he should be kept in the loop.

[TEPaul]

Paul Turner:

The bunkering in your photo of #8 St. Georges's Hill really is  incredible bunkering and parts of it seems to almost defy gravity. Not unlike #18 Pasatiempo but a bit less so!

I'm getting more and more curious to try to determine exactly when and by whom that look of bunkering with its extraordinarily "natural" look or at least "natural line" look first entered architecture.

I've been suspecting that MacKenzie may have been the one to bring it into architecture, likely as a result of his known curiosity with some of the techniques of camouflage of the Boers.

It seems that he might have influenced the likes of Colt, Alison, Abercrombie and maybe Fowler particularly as it appears he may have met and colloborated with Colt as early as 1907.

The particular reason I'm so curious about pinning this down is that particular "look" is just in such stark contrast to other looks and styles of bunkering from the likes of MacDonald, Travis, Raynor, Ross etc, from maybe 1910 until near the crash.

It's just such a stark juxtaposition of bunker styles and I would really like to find out from where and whom it evolved and when.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Another reason I'm interested in pinning down some of the details of this style of bunkering is something I just discovered while analyzing one of Colt's PVGC hole drawings. There's much to learn from analyzing old drawings like these but in a very subtle way there might be as much to learn from the text that appears on some of the drawings.

On a Colt PV hole drawing his instruction is to "tear out" bunkering on this particular hole. I'm familiar with this hole and just looking at the topography it's very possible (and efficient actually) to just "tear out" a bunker from the topography, in much the same way it would appear that the bunkering on that photo of #8 St. George's Hill was "torn out" of the topography.

It just looks from that photo that spades were taken and the outline was edged out in extremely natural lines, the earth was removed and sand or dirt thrown in! Another interesting aspect of this appears to be the places they chose to do this, some of which appears somewhat TOO precipitous---as almost to defy gravity--which if you know the fate of some of PV's bunkering it actually was TOO precipitous and could not defy gravity for long and had to be altered!

Even some of MacKenzie's bunkering at Cypress, years later, appears to be so detailed in its natural look and almost too fragile so as to appear to never be able to withstand the elements and apparently did not in many cases.

Very interesting!

[Gib_Papazian]

I have to agree with the Beloved One - particularly Bel Air. That flat-stone workon the front nine is absolutely hideous.

But here is the one that screams the loudest for change:

#12 NGLA. The tee belongs behind the 11th green or far to the left, not to the right where it is today. Have a look sometime at that line of yawning bunkers from the correct angle. Also, the putting surface is just a silly anthill.

Nothing about the hole works, and although I understand there is a safety issue with the 7th fairway, my vote would be to rip out the bunkers on the left and rebuild them further over and try to parrot the shot as it was designed. Obviously, the splash bunkers on the right side will not be at the same angle as before, but the slope of the fairway makes it close enough.

As for the putting surface, if you go into Karl's shed, on the wall is a plasticine model of each of the holes. #12 has a distinct punchbowl and looks to be far more interesting that what is there today. Nobody on this planet is better at fixing the course than Karl, so if I were king, I'd say he ought to make major modifications to it, making it as close a possible to Macdonald's vision. As it is now, it is the only nondescript hole on the course.

One other hole that looks terrible: #13 at SGGC. This Jones (I think) redesign is as bad an abberration as GCGC #12. The arrangement of the bunkers is too symetrical and they lack shape besides. Lifeless ovals . . . . what a shame. Also, the putting surface contours do not match a single thing on the rest of the course and look awful.

Okay two more: #15 on Olympic Lake. There is no remodeling this abortion. Just get a bulldozer and start over again. An abrupt hump on the right side of the putting surface was removed last year, but the contouring does not begin to match the rest of the holes. We have either multi-tier greens: #4,7,8,11 or severely pitched ones. The only oddity is #1, which is a collage of complex movements that would take 500 words to describe.

#15 needs to be shorter, with a smaller, more intimate tee. I would draw inspiration from #10 at WF West - but on a more appropriate scale to the length of the hole.

Final thought: #4 at Lake Merced is the worst hole I have ever seen designed by a serious architect (so, #1 at Peninsula CC and #13 at Sequoyah don't count ).

Move the tee to the right to give it some shape (Bo links and I played it that way and it works far better) and blow up that awkward green. The approach - often from a hanging lie - needs to present a green with some ground game options. A Triple-tier monster, jammed into a hillside and fronted by an enormous carry bunker, is not appropriate for the length of the hole. He put in a silly looking chipping area to the right of the green, but the entire composition is terribly forced and even worse than the hole it replaced. A complete failure in my opinion.

[Gib_Papazian]

While we are on the subject, I originally thought the recontoured putting surface on Olympic Lake #18 was okay because there is a subtle spine at the front of the green, segmenting the putting surface into two sides along the line of play. This spine gradually flattens out the further you go back towards the rear of the green, but I have changed my mind.

It is much much too tame, and although the splashing of sand and natural settling will eventually give it more slope, we need to take a different look at it. I am staring at a photo of Jack Fleck on the 18th and the green looked as flatish as it is now, but Olympic is a product of evolution and not original pedigree. Maybe two tiers, and perhaps something as complex as the 1st green, albeit on a much smaller scale. I have to think about it more.

Two more:

#7 at Lake Merced. Long dogleg left, down a gentle hill. The putting surface has two sections, divided by a hump. The opening in front of the green is about 5 paces wide. I would open it up a bit and give shorter and low ball hitters (yeah, that is me) a crack at hitting it onto the green without an aerial approach on such a long hole.

#15 at Lake Merced is a pseudo-Redan. I would slope the approach more severely from right to left - the drainage of the hill moves that way anyways. It is just a little blah for my taste right now.

How about #2 on Olympic Ocean? I have said it before. We should have stayed with George Bahto's Reverse-Redan. As a matter of fact we should have just built Lido to Raynor's plans, but that is another story for another day

I'll let Huckster explain what can be done about #17 at Monarch Bay.

[NAF]

*I'd like to see the 9th hole at Pebble restored to the dual fairway option I saw in Geoff Shack's Golden Age book.  It would be a much more risk reward shot if you had to challenge the ocean more into the right fairway.

*The bunkering that bleeds into the backdrop and landscape at Cypress Point.  Or at least a rougher edge to the bunkering that used to be present.  Especially on holes #11 and #13.  Also like to see the knoll/pimple that used to be short of the green on the 8th hole put back.

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Last week I was at Archie Baird's museum in Gullane and he showed some photos of the Old Course...I think they were watercolors.  

Anyway there was a pic of the way Hell's Bunker used to look.  It looked more like what hell seems to me if I was in a bunker, instead of the reveted face that is typical of the course now.

Plus there was a photo of where the caddy shack sits now.  The course finished on the coast next to beach.  I would change that.  While I was at it...I would blow up the maintenance facility and relocate it!

Back 9 of the Eden I would locate the maintence facility and get rid of that terrible back nine.  Many locals just play the front twice.

I will try and get a copy of these images for the website...maybe one of you have them.

#17 at Royal County Down....I would get rid of the water feature.  I know they have problems with the drainage there but hey use some technology and figure that hole out.  Just dont care for man-made water features on the links.

There are so many I would like to change....I am sure you all feel the same and it gets a bit depressing to think of them all.

Bring back the caddy and replace the golf cart in the US!

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
That bunker on #8 is pretty awesome but I have to say the one there now is pretty amazing as well.  
Mark

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You know Mark Fine, I would think courses like St. Georges Hill would have some affect. (Sorry, I just couldn't help myself!)

Heres mine. #13,14 & 15 of SFGC, brought back into existence, but it would very tough to do it, #14 & 15 in paticular.

[brad_miller]

Tommy, you must have had a conversation with Tom Doak

[A_Clay_Man]

Corey Miller- I asked the head pro, Chris Arand, that exact question and he seemed to think that they would keep Mr. Dye in the loop. Realize that this talk of the changes to the hole are all very preliminary. The truth is the course lost money last year and any plans to spend more will be highly scrutinized. My justification for suggesting the new tee box was in reaction to thier thinking of extending the grass on the front right greenside. To me that will ruin the awesome look from the upper tee box. So, if they are gonna ruin it, why not just remove it from the equation and make the hole a blind tee shot and improve the routing. IMHO

[Paul Turner]

Tom P

Yes you could be right about Mackenzie's influence.  The old photos of Alwoodley, in T Doak's book, have a similar, ragged, torn out look. Colt worked with Mackenzie on this course (Mackenzie's first).

Colt had a wide variety of bunker style.  The above style on heathlands, a more subdued style for parklands, and then there's Muirfield, which had those beautiful moulded bunkers; Portrush has some in a similar style.

In general, I'd love to see a return to a more open look for the heath courses.  Just because of the expansiveness which has a unique feel.

I posted this photo before, but I just think it's a fantastic photo.  It's Colt's 5th at Sunningdale New.  That hole is more enclosed now, but the next hole the 6th (there's a photo in the Confidential Guide) still has the wind-swept, open look.



As for the bunker at the 8th at St George's Hill.  I think it survived relatively untouched until the last few years.  So I don't think it was unmaintanable.

I believe Colt built St Georges Hill (1913) just before he travelled to Pine Valley.