This day in Dig it or Dig it Up History - Alister MacK.

[SPDB]

Unfortunately the decision on this one has already been made. However suspend your disbelief and imagine that the hole is unchanged:

Dig it or Dig it Up? Nice on the eyes, but torture on the Super.

[James Edwards]

So it has been changed then? (Excuse my lack of knowledge on this one - at the moment anyway).

Dig It. Although there are most probably some standing water related problems in those bunkers? possibly?

Depending on the length of the carry, those bunkers are most probably not in play? especially on the front half.

considering the hillside, I enjoy the style and the character of the hole considering it is has to accommodate a large hill to it's side.

James

[THuckaby2]

SPDB:

Lake Merced, right?
Oh man is this dug up.. what's there now has as much in common with this as I do with Vijay Singh.

I dig it as it was, though - what's not to dig?

TH

[SPDB]

The problem i have with it is that the aesthetic value of the bunkers (which I concede are pretty marvelous) are far outweighed by the maintenance demands posed by such  bunkers, most of which are extraneous. Its not a problem limited by any means to Lake Merced. One only needs to turn on the TV in April to see another at Augusta. The yawning bunker on #10 (also altered) has little value in terms of playability.

[THuckaby2]

Jeez, shivas is right - this is another hole on which I am screwed.  So heck yeah, give me a chance to bounce it in.

Of course that all depends on the length of the golf hole, also.. if this is a shortish hole, I need to quit my whining and hit the correct shot.  But for a long shot in, well... give me a chance, Doc!

And maintenance demands?  Pshaw.  That's why those guys make the big bucks.  

[T_MacWood]

Sean
How do you know so much about maintenance?

[Dan Kelly]

How can one possibly comment intelligently without knowing more about this hole than what one can surmise from the picture?

[SPDB]

Tom -
I'm merely speculating.

Dan,
See above. Plus, ignoring the restraint you suggest has fueled the growth of this site. I've just capitulated.

[T_MacWood]

It is (was) a par-3....if I remember correctly at about 180 yards. The photographer is on top of a hill and the tee was directly below the photographer....this view gives a good view of the angle of attack.

Sean
Why would these bunkers be anymore difficult to maintain than similar bunkers at SFGC or Oakland Hills or Friars Head?

[Mike Hendren]

As a push-fader, I am immediately drawn to the upper right of the photo.  What's there?

Once again, The Good Doctor goes overboard with eye-candy  Dig it up.

Mike

[George Pazin]

Apparently I'm the only one on board who mishits shots regularly - those bunkers wouldn't be eye candy to me. Maybe Al was trying to spread the love around.

Dig it.

P.S. Can't imagine the pristine lines of most modern bunkers are that much easier to maintain. And #10 ANGC certainly wasn't superfluous eye candy early on.

[THuckaby2]

I'm with you, George.  Assuming Tom M is right and this is a 180 par 3, I'm looking at those bunkers with far more terror than joy.  

[Dan Kelly]

An exercise:

Take your cursor.

Run it down the line of the people behind the green.

Continue on around the front of the green to finish an ellipse around the green.

Now, tell me: What is the merit (other than the "eye candy" merit) of the "greenside" bunkers that are not within the ellipse so formed?

Did any good player ever hit it into those portions of the bunker outside the ellipse?

Seems to me those bunkers are way bigger than they ought to be, strategically speaking. Hasn't the bad player already been punished enough, by his bad shot, without leaving him needing to hit a long bunker shot?

[T_MacWood]

Mike H and Dan K
What is the definition of eye candy?

[Dan Kelly]

Mike H and Dan K
What is the definition of eye candy?

For me: Eye candy is anything that makes for prettier pictures (in the mind and on film), but not for better golf.

[Mike Hendren]

Are you guys kidding  Any chump that can't carry it 130 to clear the right-hand bunker has all the challenge he needs and should be on the range anyway.  Similarly, why not eliminate the first 2/3 of the left-hand bunkering, both hillside and hilltop?  A pitch from the replacement rough over the remaining bunker would be just as challenging.  

Further evidence that not all of the Good Doctor's original work must be restored.  Would the replacement of all those hillside bunkers at Pasa's 3# accomplish anything other than to catch the eye and punish the hack?

Can one of you CAD guru's change the shaping of the bunkering.  What's left might look more like Black Diamond Ranch than [fill in your favorite MacKenzie course].  

Please indulge me a rare cranky day.  The kids are out for snow and I'm stuck here bein a grown-up and bread-winner
Anyway, I never said I didn't LIKE eye-candy.
Mike

[T_MacWood]

DanK and MikeH
Would the 10th a ANGC be a better golf hole without the sprawling bunker at the bottom of the hill? Would you advocate its removal?

[Mike Hendren]

Tom,

The 10th at ANGC would not be a better golf hole without the fairway bunker.  It would just be the same golf hole.  I would not remove it.  It might be eye candy for the better player, but I suspect from the member tees it is possible to drive the ball to the point that it serves as a distance fooler on the second shot by visually appearing to front the green.  Lineage and beauty are perfectly good reasons to retain it as well.

I think MacKenzie is one of the top five architects of all time and would not argue with anyone placing him at the top of the list.  I just have this totally uneducated theory that he liked to paint a portrait if given a hillside landscape.  Examples are the subject photo, the 3rd at Pasatiampo and the back of the 13th green at Cypress Point Club.  

Regards,

Mike

[George Pazin]

So you guys want to make golf unbelievably boring for the lesser player, the hack.

Screw you - I'm a hack & I want to hit an occasional long bunker shot. I have also see quite good players that I've had the pleasure of playing with occasionally completely mishit a shot. Furthermore, even a mid handicapper will frequently mishit an iron by that much in some wind.

You are prescribing formulaic golf - no bunkers out of play for the good golfer, why bother with hazards on the right, everyone knows good golfers miss left, blah blah blah. Not to mention the pleasure of overcoming such a hazard for the lesser golfer. That's why the Good Doctor knew more about building a great golf course than you!

[Mike Hendren]

George,

As a parent, why beat up a child that is alreading beating himself up for a misdeed.  

Similarly, don't punish me for being a hack.  Being a hack is punishment enough.  I know that first-hand.  I shave one in the mirror each morning

Regards,

Mike

[T_MacWood]

Regarding ANGC-10….Would the approach shot be as exhilarating without the bunker, as with the bunker? I imagine seeing your golf ball fly over that impressive bunker would be quite exhilarating…which I believe is one of the principals MacKenzie wrote about, especially when talking about giving the average guy thrills….after all the average guy would be the only one who would have the rare occasion of actually finding these hazards.

 These are not examples of eye-candy IMO because they improve the play/interest of the holes. If you have to play over it its not eye-candy.

[Dan Kelly]

So you guys want to make golf unbelievably boring for the lesser player, the hack.

Screw you - I'm a hack & I want to hit an occasional long bunker shot. I have also see quite good players that I've had the pleasure of playing with occasionally completely mishit a shot. Furthermore, even a mid handicapper will frequently mishit an iron by that much in some wind.

You are prescribing formulaic golf - no bunkers out of play for the good golfer, why bother with hazards on the right, everyone knows good golfers miss left, blah blah blah. Not to mention the pleasure of overcoming such a hazard for the lesser golfer. That's why the Good Doctor knew more about building a great golf course than you!

Touche!

Of course, I never said anything about hazards on the right, blah blah blah. Nor would I. But I still say that (from the looks of things; I have no experience of the hole) these bunkers, like so many bunkers on so many courses, old and new, are bigger than they need to be to serve their strategic purposes.

And you don't need to fret, George. If you're the hack you're claiming to be, and if there are ANY long bunker shots anywhere on the golf course, you'll get a chance to hit them!

[RJ_Daley]

Well it has been about 5 years or so since I played this hole with Huck and Mike G.  As I remember it, the pic is posted in the clubhouse, and the new hole is up on the top of hill where the top row of people are standing.  The bottom is now all turfed over along with the eyecandy bunkers.  I can see why they redid the hole.  If I remember right, the soil is actually clayey there and as mentioned above, they must have had a tough time keeping it from being chocolate pudding in heavy rains, along with soil washing down into all the sand.  Not dug it up... grassed it over and moved it up...

[SPDB]

Tom:

How do you know so much about Friar's Head?

[Brian_Gracely]

Regarding ANGC-10….Would the approach shot be as exhilarating without the bunker, as with the bunker? I imagine seeing your golf ball fly over that impressive bunker would be quite exhilarating…which I believe is one of the principals MacKenzie wrote about, especially when talking about giving the average guy thrills….after all the average guy would be the only one who would have the rare occasion of actually finding these hazards.

TomM,

If you played it today you'd fly it over that bunker.  But originally, back when it was #1, that bunker was greenside.  I don't doubt that the downhill approach with the greenside bunker was equally as glorious and appealing to the eye, albeit probably more dangerous.