[Charlie Goerges]

My favorite (and probably the most famous) anachronistic feature is the fairway bunker on the 10th hole at Augusta National (i.e. it was a green-side bunker for a green which no longer exists and isn't really properly located as a fairway hazard nowadays).
I'm curious about a few things.


What do people think about anachronistic features? (i.e. should they be kept or removed? Do you like them?)
What are some more examples of anachronistic features?
Are there features that seem anachronistic but actually aren't? (Or that have transformed back because of increases in distance etc.)
Do architects ever purposely put in anachronistic-seeming features? (Should they?)

[Tim_Weiman]

My favorite (and probably the most famous) anachronistic feature is the fairway bunker on the 10th hole at Augusta National (i.e. it was a green-side bunker for a green which no longer exists and isn't really properly located as a fairway hazard nowadays).
I'm curious about a few things.


What do people think about anachronistic features? (i.e. should they be kept or removed? Do you like them?)
What are some more examples of anachronistic features?
Are there features that seem anachronistic but actually aren't? (Or that have transformed back because of increases in distance etc.)
Do architects ever purposely put in anachronistic-seeming features? (Should they?)

Charlie,


I understand it really isn’t the purpose of your thread, but do we know that the bunker on Augusta #10 doesn’t come into play for members?


Aside from that, I wouldn’t be opposed to an occasional example of something that doesn’t really impact play but does enhance a hole’s appearance. It just shouldn’t be overdone.

[Charlie Goerges]

I understand it really isn’t the purpose of your thread, but do we know that the bunker on Augusta #10 doesn’t come into play for members?

I guarantee that there are members (and probably even some pros) in there on a regular basis. So it's not really the frequency of use that makes it anachronistic, but rather the purpose, though both can be true at once.


You made me think about whether something can be anachronistic if no real changes have been made. The only thing that comes to mind is the top-shot bunker. Most of these have probably been filled in. But if you think about the Victorian mentality that spawned that type of bunker, it's so out of fashion that even unchanged examples on unchanged holes might still be anachronistic in a sense. By the same token, one could say that aiming bunkers could one day be considered an anachronism as well, but again, only in a sense as a feature outside its proper time.


In most cases, such features must be the result of a redesign.

[Kalen Braley]

Charlie,

Not to be flippant, but it seems in the context of the distance debate, that nearly every course that hasn't been built or updated in the last 10-15 years probably has several Anachronistic bunkers that aren't in play in relation to the pro game.  And I think we're far enough removed from the 80s and 90s to be designated as such... 

P.S.  One feature I would like to see return thou, even thou it may be unpopular, is some form of and limited usage of cops. It seems Tom kinda tried to reintroduce it with the partial stone/brick walls at The Renaissance Club

[Jaeger Kovich]

The lump in the rough next to the punchbowl at chicago golf is one of my favs.

[David Kelly]

Whistling Straits opened for play with dozens, if not hundreds of out of play bunkers. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

Wouldn’t call it a favorite, but #14, Lido, at Sharp Park has a bunker that’s out of play for anyone who doesn’t get themselves into serious trouble somewhere along the way.


I see anachronistic bunkers as serving a few purposes not initially obvious. First for reverse routings, second, as disguised drainage.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I think leaving the bunker on Augusta’s 10th is a reasonable homage to the original design and iconic in shape. From a pure architectural perspective, I think it’s a bad bunker. I suspect it does come into play for higher handicap members. But is penalizing a 15 handicapper by placing a bunker 70 yards short of a long par 4 good architecture? Not to me.

[Ira Fishman]

Almost everything at NB and Kilspindie is anachronistic; therefore, I endorse and embrace the features.


Ira

[Tim_Weiman]

Whistling Straits opened for play with dozens, if not hundreds of out of play bunkers.

But wasn’t it clear that was all about aesthetics?

[Carl Johnson]

Speaking of bunkers.  And purpose.  For example, bunkers may never come into play, realistically, for players at any level, in the sense that they affect strategy, but they may serve other purposes.  Drainage has been suggested.  But what about framing a hole, that is, adding definition to the fairway, or for use as a target.  How about just plain old aesthetics, as just mentioned.

[Tim Martin]

Although there aren’t that many left the top shot bunker seems anachronistic. Big headed drivers and long tees have most people hitting up on the ball regardless of accuracy. That’s not to say that the topped tee shot is completely a thing of the past but not nearly as common as it once was. Finally I occasionally see them reinstalled in a restoration but they are rarely a feature on a new design.

[Tom_Doak]

I understand it really isn’t the purpose of your thread, but do we know that the bunker on Augusta #10 doesn’t come into play for members?

I guarantee that there are members (and probably even some pros) in there on a regular basis. So it's not really the frequency of use that makes it anachronistic, but rather the purpose, though both can be true at once.

You made me think about whether something can be anachronistic if no real changes have been made. The only thing that comes to mind is the top-shot bunker. Most of these have probably been filled in. But if you think about the Victorian mentality that spawned that type of bunker, it's so out of fashion that even unchanged examples on unchanged holes might still be anachronistic in a sense. By the same token, one could say that aiming bunkers could one day be considered an anachronism as well, but again, only in a sense as a feature outside its proper time.

I have hit it in the bunker on the 10th at Augusta [with a topped second shot off a downhill lie], one time in three rounds.  So it certainly can be done.  I also remember Tom Weiskopf telling me he once drove into that bunker when the course was running fast!


But, it's really not there for playing purposes.  It's there because MacKenzie built it, and there has never been any particular reason to take it out.  The club can afford to maintain it as an homage to the original design.


Personally, when I did restorations, I didn't like removing [or moving] any bunker that had survived intact from the original design.  If they had a purpose once, they still do today, for a different class of player who hits the ball 150 or 210 or 230 yards or whatever.  I just don't agree with the idea that bunkers should be placed "for good players" and defining that as certain lengths from the tee.


Wasn't it John Low who said a bunker is fair wherever it is placed?  You can't get more old school than John Low.

[Sean_A]

It's all fair in golf, but that doesn't make it good. However, I agree, don't remove surviving original bunkers on old courses unless there is an infrastructure issue etc

Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

   I think leaving the bunker on Augusta’s 10th is a reasonable homage to the original design and iconic in shape. From a pure architectural perspective, I think it’s a bad bunker. I suspect it does come into play for higher handicap members. But is penalizing a 15 handicapper by placing a bunker 70 yards short of a long par 4 good architecture? Not to me.

Jim,


Really good post with lots to think about.


FYI, a while back I started a thread about “how does a 15 handicap play #15 at Augusta”. The thread produced a diversity of responses. Some people felt it was not a tough hole for the 15 handicap. They argued it was just a simple three shot hole.


My view was it wasn’t so easy for even players better than 15 handicap because of the downhill slope 80-100 yards before the water.


Anyway, since you mentioned it, perhaps it is worth discussing how a 15 handicap would play #10. I can imagine two scenarios. In the first, the player hits his drive 210-220 yards but off line either right or left into trees. In that case, the choice seems pretty simple: the player has to punch out and hopefully with a long enough shot to make reaching the green in three shots realistic.


But what if our 15 handicap player hits a pretty good drive of, say, 230-240 yards but in the fairway with a clear shot? Wouldn’t the iconic bunker pose an interesting challenge? Would such a player be confident he can clear the bunker? Would he not have to seriously consider laying up and, if so, is that not good architecture?


My guess is that it would be fun to watch ten 15 handicap players play the hole.

[Tommy Williamsen]

This certainly is anachronistic, and I love it, but it can only be used sparingly.


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)][/color]

[Niall C]

I just don't agree with the idea that bunkers should be placed "for good players" and defining that as certain lengths from the tee.

Agreed. And conversely, neither do you need half a dozen tees just so the bunker comes into play for everyone. A particular hazard needn't play the same way for every standard of player.


Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

I understand it really isn’t the purpose of your thread, but do we know that the bunker on Augusta #10 doesn’t come into play for members?

I guarantee that there are members (and probably even some pros) in there on a regular basis. So it's not really the frequency of use that makes it anachronistic, but rather the purpose, though both can be true at once.

You made me think about whether something can be anachronistic if no real changes have been made. The only thing that comes to mind is the top-shot bunker. Most of these have probably been filled in. But if you think about the Victorian mentality that spawned that type of bunker, it's so out of fashion that even unchanged examples on unchanged holes might still be anachronistic in a sense. By the same token, one could say that aiming bunkers could one day be considered an anachronism as well, but again, only in a sense as a feature outside its proper time.

I have hit it in the bunker on the 10th at Augusta [with a topped second shot off a downhill lie], one time in three rounds.  So it certainly can be done.  I also remember Tom Weiskopf telling me he once drove into that bunker when the course was running fast!

But, it's really not there for playing purposes.  It's there because MacKenzie built it, and there has never been any particular reason to take it out.  The club can afford to maintain it as an homage to the original design.

Personally, when I did restorations, I didn't like removing [or moving] any bunker that had survived intact from the original design.  If they had a purpose once, they still do today, for a different class of player who hits the ball 150 or 210 or 230 yards or whatever.  I just don't agree with the idea that bunkers should be placed "for good players" and defining that as certain lengths from the tee.

Wasn't it John Low who said a bunker is fair wherever it is placed?  You can't get more old school than John Low.

Low wrote that no bunker was unfair, so long as the golfer could see it.

[Niall C]

Although there aren’t that many left the top shot bunker seems anachronistic. Big headed drivers and long tees have most people hitting up on the ball regardless of accuracy. That’s not to say that the topped tee shot is completely a thing of the past but not nearly as common as it once was. Finally I occasionally see them reinstalled in a restoration but they are rarely a feature on a new design.

What might be a top-shot bunker for one player might be a hell of a carry for another !


Niall

[Niall C]

   I think leaving the bunker on Augusta’s 10th is a reasonable homage to the original design and iconic in shape. From a pure architectural perspective, I think it’s a bad bunker. I suspect it does come into play for higher handicap members. But is penalizing a 15 handicapper by placing a bunker 70 yards short of a long par 4 good architecture? Not to me.

Jim


Why is it bad architecture ? I've never been there but from what I've seen on TV it doesn't present an insurmountable challenge even for mid to high handicappers. From what I can see there is enough scope to avoid it and even if you end up in it, getting out doesn't seem impossible. Challenging yes, but not impossible. But also think of the enjoyment and satisfaction you would rob the mid to high handicapper in managing to successfully negotiate their way round it or successfully play a recovery shot from it.


The other thing I like about it, and this may be just my perception rather than the reality, is the optical illusion it presents for anyone who has the bunker between them and the green. In other words it foreshortens the distance. You might know the yardage but if your eyes are telling you something else then it is having an impact even if you aren't in it or likely to go in it.


Niall

[Niall C]

P.S.  One feature I would like to see return thou, even thou it may be unpopular, is some form of and limited usage of cops. It seems Tom kinda tried to reintroduce it with the partial stone/brick walls at The Renaissance Club

Kalen


Cops were generally artificial features that went straight across the line of play to form cross-hazards. The walls at Renaissance were already there but more than that Tom and his team have used them very creatively without putting them in the direct line of play.


However one old style feature that perhaps has become anachronistic is the use of sleepers in bunkers. They were originally used to prevent sand blow and to secure bunkers faces and stop them crumbling. Do you need them now that we have so many "artificial" ways of doing the same thing ?


Niall

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  One feature I would like to see return thou, even thou it may be unpopular, is some form of and limited usage of cops. It seems Tom kinda tried to reintroduce it with the partial stone/brick walls at The Renaissance Club

Cops were generally artificial features that went straight across the line of play to form cross-hazards. The walls at Renaissance were already there but more than that Tom and his team have used them very creatively without putting them in the direct line of play.

However one old style feature that perhaps has become anachronistic is the use of sleepers in bunkers. They were originally used to prevent sand blow and to secure bunkers faces and stop them crumbling. Do you need them now that we have so many "artificial" ways of doing the same thing ?

The walls at The Renaissance Club were mostly there, and we were required by permit to keep any existing walls intact, although we could have kept them and buried them (!) if they were really in the wrong spot, i.e. right in the drive zone.


However, we did add a couple of small pieces of wall around the clubhouse area [coming up toward the green on hole 5] to make it look like the walls were in reference to the clubhouse site, even though there wasn't a building there originally.


As to sleepers, I would love to use them on a couple of my current projects, but clients seem to object to them on the grounds that they don't want to look like a Pete Dye course!  I believe they are still quite effective in terms stopping bunker erosion . . . if you have better methods please let me know, as I've got several clients who would love to reduce their costs at dealing with sand erosion!

[Adam Lawrence]

Colt hated the use of sleepers. In 'The Book of the Links' from 1912, he wrote:


"Yet how often do we see horrible symmetrical-looking pits, with faces smoothed out to the same angle, and the pleasant surroundings spoilt thereby! And very likely some old railway sleepers are used to prevent the sides of the hazards ever looking natural."

[Niall C]

As to sleepers, I would love to use them on a couple of my current projects, but clients seem to object to them on the grounds that they don't want to look like a Pete Dye course!  I believe they are still quite effective in terms stopping bunker erosion . . . if you have better methods please let me know, as I've got several clients who would love to reduce their costs at dealing with sand erosion!

Tom


I was thinking of the development of ecobunker sod walling. Maybe a bit more expensive that timber sleepers but if someone is employing you they can afford it 


Niall

[Mark Pearce]

Colt hated the use of sleepers. In 'The Book of the Links' from 1912, he wrote:


"Yet how often do we see horrible symmetrical-looking pits, with faces smoothed out to the same angle, and the pleasant surroundings spoilt thereby! And very likely some old railway sleepers are used to prevent the sides of the hazards ever looking natural."

I assume then that those hideous eyebrows at Rye weren't his?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()