Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: John Chilver-Stainer on December 04, 2012, 03:15:58 AM
-
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/johncs/TOC2ndBunkers.jpg)
What is your first reaction and your second thoughts?
-
My first thoughts are of strategy.
My second thoughts are of...what's the opposite of hysteria?
To be honest, I am really glad that they are so bad they won't last more than a year.
-
Seeing as the bunkers at The Old Course have names... from this angle the very first impression that came to mind... The ET Bunkers! The two eyes and the roll separating them for the nose feature. :D
Home... gooooh.
(http://cdn.thegloss.com/files/2012/06/et.jpg)
Second thoughts? Ugh.
-
To be honest, I am really glad that they are so bad they won't last more than a year.
We can only hope.
-
Hole to be renamed "Teabag"
-
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/johncs/TOC2ndBunkers.jpg)
What is your first reaction and your second thoughts?
artist rendering of new bunkers on second hole
::) ::)
-
Look much better than the Low bunkers they replaced, at least so far.....
-
I think it's difficult to say at this stage whether they are good or bad. They look like your ordinary bog-standard pot bunkers to me. What about the contouring? Looks like the ground slopes away from them? Should their area of "gathering influence" be greater?
-
The issue isn't what the bunkers look like. Let's stipulate that they are the most beautiful bunkers ever built.
The issue is their location.
Bob
-
The issue isn't what the bunkers look like. Let's stipulate that they are the most beautiful bunkers ever built.
The issue is their location.
Bob
Excellent point, Bob. Until I go there (maybe tommorrow) I will have only a vague idea of their location and how they tie into the rest of the hole. What is your issue about their location, and upon what points of fact is that issue based?
Rich
-
Hi Rich, if you are going to St Andrews can you swing by Pilmour House and pick up a copy of the Dawson/Hawtree master plan for the changes?
I can arrange to have it scanned if they don't have a soft copy to hand.
-
Rich -
As noted several times previously on several different threads, the spacious, benign entrance to the 2nd green from the right was an important factor in how to play the hole. That is, the best way to play the hole was down the right side of the fw, risking the whins, bunkers and gunk on that side in order to approach the hole from the right side. That description of how best to play the hole goes back as far as Balfour, through Low, through Mack, through Muirhead and finally to Doak more recently.
New bunkers up against the right side of the green eliminate the logic of plaing the hole that way. I haven't seen the revised hole, but my guess is that the smartest way to play it now is down the middle of the fw, into the middle of the green. A less interesting hole. But wait (to paraphrase the old Popeil commercials), there's worse. The 2nd is now something other than the hole that has been written about many times over the past 150 years.
Bob
-
Hi Rich, if you are going to St Andrews can you swing by Pilmour House and pick up a copy of the Dawson/Hawtree master plan for the changes?
I can arrange to have it scanned if they don't have a soft copy to hand.
I can seek, Mark but I cannot guarantee that I shall find.
-
Thanks Rich. If you face any static just mention that I know the author of the authoritative "Experience St Andrews" book.
-
Rich -
As noted several times previously on several different threads, the spacious, benign entrance to the 2nd green from the right was an important factor in how to play the hole. That is, the best way to play the hole was down the right side of the fw, risking the whins, bunkers and gunk on that side in order to approach the hole from the right side. That description of how best to play the hole goes back as far as Balfour, through Low, through Mack, through Muirhead and finally to Doak more recently.
New bunkers up against the right side of the green eliminate the logic of plaing the hole that way. I haven't seen the revised hole, but my guess is that the smartest way to play it now is down the middle of the fw, into the middle of the green. A less interesting hole. But (to paraphrase the old Popeil commercials) there's worse. The 2nd is now something other than the hole that has been written about many times over the past 150 years.
Bob
Thanks Bob
I never got that feeling when playing or walking over the 2nd, and I am not alone. I'd be more amenable to your arguments if you would furnish me (and the rest of us) with some documentary evidence of what Low or MacKenzie or Muirhead or Doak (pre-November 2012) or even Popeil had to say. I have Balfour's book in front of me and all he says (in 1887)....
"At present the tee of this hole is on the right of the Links, while the whins having been driven back, and the low ground to the right near the hole made quite playable, the hole can be played without any bunkers intervening, or any hazards of any kind. Of course if the player goes off the line he has to encounter some hazards. The putting green, as has been said, is now on a flat and not a slope."
...only reinforces my thoughts that the hole is (was?) one of the most uninteresting on the course. Even Morrissett on this site (Courses by Country--2001) does not see fit to mention this hole (or any of the humdrum 2-6 stretch) in his gazetteer....
Rich
-
Thanks Rich. If you face any static just mention that I know the author of the authoritative "Experience St Andrews" book.
Is that a rip-off of my "Experience The Old Course--St. Andrews Links" book? If so I will not sue as the Links Trust still holds at least part of the copyright..... :'(
-
Oh yes, that's the one! I was using shorthand for the book, which can be ordered here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Experience-Old-Course-Andrews-Links/dp/095500411X
-
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/johncs/TOC2ndBunkers.jpg)
Hardly anyone has commented on the 'problem' at St Andrews that the traditional pin placements on TOC are nearly all towards the centre of the double greens. This leads to slow pay with rounds in the Open at "the home of golf" regularly taking 5+ hours. In addition many visitors come away saying it's an easy course because they are not playing to those pins.
Looking at the photo it means that a pin anywhere to the right it still offers professional golfers a huge target to aim their aerial bombs at, with promise of a flat landing area on what is for them not a long hole. Is this change aimed at making the day to day course more interesting?
I think we should be told!
-
Oh yes, that's the one! I was using shorthand for the book, which can be ordered here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Experience-Old-Course-Andrews-Links/dp/095500411X
Mark that’s the first edition, soon to be a collector’s item as it no longer accurately reflects today's experience!
Rhic himself has suggested the photography is so detailed they could reconstruct the real experience from it. ;)
-
Oh yes, that's the one! I was using shorthand for the book, which can be ordered here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Experience-Old-Course-Andrews-Links/dp/095500411X
Mark that’s the first edition, soon to be a collector’s item as it no longer accurately reflects today's experience!
Rhic himself has suggested the photography is so detailed they could reconstruct the real experience from it. ;)
You are right, Tony. Time for a 2nd edition!
-
Rich -
I will get you some quotes. BTW, playing "from the right" is the mantra I've heard from caddies and companions every time I've played the 2nd. They took it to be common knowledge.
Bob
-
With Peter Dawson at the helm you could put out a new edition next year and the next after that.
Is this why you're arguing for change?
Hi Tony, won't the bunkers slow down play when flags are located over there?
-
With Peter Dawson at the helm you could put out a new edition next year and the next after that.
Is this why you're arguing for change?
Hi Tony, won't the bunkers slow down play when flags are located over there?
For daily play probably, for the professionals definitely not.
-
GD: Mr. Dawson, was the decision to improve the Old Course a difficult one for the Committee?
PD: I knew that it might be, so I did not mention it to them, until after Martin had the equipment in place.
:)
-
Can someon please scan Tom Doaks chosen hole from this book.
http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/paul-daleys-favourite-holes-by-design.html
-
John Low 1907 on the 2nd at TOC:
"The seond hole at St Andrews ..... (he's also talking about the 2nd at Hoylake, hence the elipses)... illustrates what I mean. The first shot must be played well to the right ... in order to get in the best postion from which to conduct further operations."
More to come.
Bob
-
John Low 1907 on the 2nd at TOC:
"The seond hole at St Andrews ..... (he's also talking about the 2nd at Hoylake, hence the elipses)... illustrates what I mean. The first shot must be played well to the right ... in order to get in the best postion from which to conduct further operations."
More to come.
Bob
I need more that that, Bob, so keep it coming.
PS--I'm off soon to watch real football (aka "Soccer"), so if I don't respond until tomorrow you'll know that it will have been a good night.....
PPS--had to revise this. Bob. Was that the same 1907 John Low who was responsible for the 1905 crap right side bunkers on #2 that are now being replaced? Just wanted to make sure.....
-
Are there any other bunkers at the old course that are cut into their own little mounds like those on the second seem to be.
Rich,
Could you please take plenty of photos of the second hole bunkers when you head up to have a look. From the fairway, behond the green, etc. It would be most appreciated.
-
I'll wait to assess how I believe they look until they are finished.
From the positioning I don't see how they will effect the pros. They appear to be set further back from the green than I would have thought given the aim of effecting the approach from the pros. There is also slightly more open ground to the left of the bunkers than I expected. Perfectly placed to catch a low running ball to a RHS pin from a club golfer with a 7 iron from the centre and right of the fairway 140 yds out. Not a pro with a 9 iron or wedge unless the wind is up and if the wind is up I don't think anyone believes the course would need more defences.
Less danger from a bad kick off the ridges to the left than I had envisaged
It will be interesting to get Rich's thoughts and any photos when he returns from his excursion. Particularly interested in how they tie in to the ground around them and better definition of their placement. Also with how far they are from the green they seem to be sitting out there in the middle of nowhere, from this photo an odd look and I can't think of any similar feature on the course. Bunkers 30 - 50 yards short of 9 the closest. Big difference to 10yds as these appear.
-
Rich -
As Blaise Pascal almost said, "I should have written a shorter post, but I didn't have the time."
Re: How to play the 2nd at TOC.
The full Low quote is as follows:
"At SA ... it is most important that the first shot be played in absolutely the right direction in order to "open up the hole" as the saying goes. The seond hole at St Andrews ..... (he's also talking about the 2nd at Hoylake, hence the elipses)... illustrates what I mean. The first shot must be played well to the right ... in order to get in the best postion from which to conduct further operations. The playing of the hole thus becomes not a series of isolated shots with no bearing the one on the others, but each stroke has to be played in relation to the following one, and the hole mastered by a preconceived plan of action." (BTW, one of the earliest statements of a key principle of strategic gca.)
I'll quibble with you about Balfour. His 1887 account is of the state of TOC circa 1850. The course was very different in 1850, but I think it clear that even then the smart play was to stay right. From that side the hole was "quite playable". He also notes that if you take another line, the player "has to encounter some hazards".
I recalled reading a "how to play" account in Mack's SofSA, but didn't find it there. MacK discusses the 4th. I'll try to find where I saw it. Help from the treehouse is appreciated.
Desmond Muirhead's and Tip Anderson's account in their book on TOC:
"T. If you are a good enough player, you should never go left on [the 2nd], especially not in tournaments. If you are on the right hand side, you have a much better shot in; you can really see where you are going…
D. …the more daring you are and the more you go to the right, the more you are rewarded with an easier second shot. …avoid the whins, and then you are penalized with an increasingly difficult second. That's the classic ratio of risk to reward – another of the founding principles of golf course architecture.
What's the point of all the green on the right? …the flat area looks larger then it actually is, as this part of the green merges with the flatness of the third tee. The second green really has its own Valley of Sin, like the depression in front of the 18th.
(As a parenthetical note for history buffs, this green looks bigger in Alister MacKenzie's plan of 1924 because the tees are included in his map of the green.)"
Doak's account of how to play the 2nd is a paean to (what was once) one of his favorite holes:
". . . For me there is one hole – often overlooked – that could serve as a model for golf course designers looking to counter the adverse of equipment technology: TOC's par 4 2nd hole. . .
Like many other outward holes at St. Andrews, the strategy of the second hole is profoundly simple: the more the hole is cut on the left side (or middle) of the double green, the more the tee shot needs to be played to the fairway's right hand side, close to the fw bunkers and gorse along the boundary of the New Course. Every foot you play closer to the right yields a slightly better approach angle. If you don't drive the ball quite where you intended, it may be wise to adopt new tactics completely and play a defensive second shot – even if from a good lie in the fw.
. . . For players whose talent or imagination limit them to hitting high approaches, their cause may be bolstered by playing to the right from the tee; even so the approach must still be directed safely to the right side of the green to avoid the possibility of a bad bounce.
To be sure, the 2nd hole is not marked by the sort of terrific hazard – Strath, Hell, the PN or the Road. . . it is a hole brought to life by simple things, namely, the firmness of the ground and the rippling undulations of TOC. In short, the 2nd is the quintessential links hole and the perfect antithesis to the more Americanized pitch over the Swilcan Burn at the opening hole."
You really need to read Doak's piece in full. Golf writing at its best.
There are any number of similar accounts of the way the hole was played (quotes provided on request), including pieces by Louis Stanley (a golf jounalist from the 1920's and later), and Keith Mackie. The best of these is by Sandy Lyle in his book "How to Play the Scottish Championship Courses." Well done and a good book. Dawson should have talked with Sandy. But then it sounds like Dawson didn't talk to many people pre-construction.
You'll need to trust me on this, but I found no accounts that varied much from the above. Which shouldn't be very surprising since the best way to play the hole was common wisdom - at least until last week. The interest set up by the contrast between a difficult approach over humps and bunkers from the left and the bail-out to the right is now lost.
Bob
-
get 'em while they're hot boys...soon to be a collector's item...
http://www.davidscaletti.com.au/node/1392
-
Can someon please scan Tom Doaks chosen hole from this book.
http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/paul-daleys-favourite-holes-by-design.html
Not a scan but the best I can do..........
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/DSCF1019doak.jpg)
-
Neil, I look forward to meeting you and thanking you in person on the 27th.
"The quintessential links golf hole..." now improved! Thank you Mr Dawson.
-
As far as I can see, neither David Scaletti's fine photograph nor Tom Doak's fine prose touch upon the far right hand side of the 2nd green where the new bunkers have been laid. The ridges which are (rightly) highlighted by both gentlemen are in front of and on the left center of the green.
-
If the pin is center or left of center, would it still be a smart play for shorter hitters to roll the ball onto the right section, then putt from there, rather than approach over the ridges?
In other words, has a safe, conservative approach been discouraged by the addition of the two new bunkers?
-
In other words, has a safe, conservative approach been discouraged by the addition of the two new bunkers?
Of course it has, Bill. I am at a loss to understand why Rich will not acknowledge this.
By the way,
Here is a great depiction of the green, as it was, from Rich's book and feature interview on this site. It is hard to surmise from this that the bunkers will not affect the play of the hole to the shown pin position.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/OC14.JPG)
-
?
-
Rich has said that it is a great hole when the pin is middle, boring when the pin is right. Presumably, the people who came up with the idea of adding bunkers on the right agree. So now we have two different pin positions with distinct challenges. But it would seem to me what has been lost is the safe approach to the flat right part of the green, which I imagine to be a good strategy, especially for shorter hitters, even when the pin is center or left.
Like Tom Doak said, it does not take an expert to make a hole harder. All it takes is a committee with the power.
-
Bill my take on Rich's views are that this hole is uninteresting, see below. How many holes generate 2 pages of debate on here?
...only reinforces my thoughts that the hole is (was?) one of the most uninteresting on the course. Even Morrissett on this site (Courses by Country--2001) does not see fit to mention this hole (or any of the humdrum 2-6 stretch) in his gazetteer....
Rich
If the best line in is from the right and you add front bunkers on that side on a hole that demands a bump and run, you are materially altering the way the hole has alwasy been played.
-
Thanks, Bob for your elucidations.
Your concluding and central point that all acounts talk about the "strategic" play of driving to the right to give the best shot at the pin is correct, but what you fail to mention is that all of these accounts assume the "Sunday" pin position to the left and near the front of the green (as depicted in this thread both by Scaletti's photograph and the CGI from my book). None of the accounts talks about the alternative player strategy if the pin happens to be on the far right of the green, and for a very good reason--there is no "there" there (i.e. no strategicaly interesting pin position), to paraphrase Gertrude Stein. At least until now.... As far as I can imagine (and that's all most of us are doing so far, as we haven't seen the new bunkers in perspective to the green and possible pin positions) the new bunkers will have absolutely no impact on how a player tries to play the hole when the Sunday pin position is in play. They are too far from the line to that hole (particularly if one is planning a bump and run using the humps and hollows on the left-hand side). What they will do is possibly catch a very poorly executed (semi-shank) mid-iron from the average player, even if he or she is consciously trying to play "safe" to the flat right hand side of the green. The only good view we have (on this thread) of what the right of that green used to lok like is the CGI from my book, and that image is not what any player will see, as it is created from a view 15-30 feet in the air, hovering over the 3rd championship tee, deep in the rough and over 300 yards from the 2nd championship tee. It significantly exaggerates the importance of the two new bunkers, which will not be near the line of play for any shot from the right hand side of the fairway (or light rough), EXCEPT if the pin is on the right hand side of the green. That is the whole point of the new bunkers--to create a new and intersting pin position on the right, NOT to make the Sunday pin position more difficult, even for the average player. IMHO. When I finally go up to St. Andrews and see for myself I'll find out if I am right or wrong.
A few other comments. I think you have mis-read balfour as it seems crystal clear that he is talking about the course c. 1887 when his reminiscences were published, and not about 1850, before the course was widened by 40%. He introduces the part I have cited above with the words:
"Let us now consdier the changes that have taken place on each of the holes individually...."
I'm also at a loss to understand Tip Anderson's comment, as I have a copy of MacKenzie's map in front of me and the tees for the third hole are definitely NOT "...included in his (Mackenzie's) map of the green."
Tony and (Bill B)
I used the words "least interesting" only in a relative sense. As Bill says, I think it is a great hole when the pin is in the Sunday position (which mortals like us rarely see), but a medicore one when it is anywhere else (at least pre-right hand side bunkers!).
Cheers
Rich
-
Despite being against these changes on 2 (out of principle and regardless of outcome of work), I was waiting for Rich to pounce with this point. For I believe he is correct. All strategy relates to pin positions left or centre of the green, not on the right.
-
Your concluding and central point that all accounts talk about the "strategic" play of driving to the right to give the best shot at the pin is correct,
Rich,
I am not looking to point out some contradiction with this question but just after a bit of insight based on your experience. In the extract of your book above, it seems to say that a play up the left can be a strategic option as well. Is this the case, are there advantages to driving both left and right on this hole (assuming 'sunday' pin.
-
What Rihc fails to mention is what if the hole is front right? Now there will be no best angle of approach - all angles will stink. I suspect this spot will be used in The Open. I don't see any reason why the hole would be back right ever for The Open. Indeed, its not an interesting spot for anybody!
I thought front right was a very interesting location for the likes of me before the new bunkers. Consequently, I don't see these bunkers as improvements, but they certainly make it tougher on the pros. I can see where some would call that an improvement. To be honest, I think it would have been easier to just not use the right side for The Open rather than alter the bunkering for the sake of one day's play in The Open.
Bill
As for the easy approach right when flag is centre/left - that is a very difficult 2 putt. I would rather take my chances through the humps short of the green.
Ciao
-
David
Self-contradiction is certainly part of my repertiore. To be honest, I've only played TOC once since writing the book, and that was with a very good friend with whom camaraderie was far more important than critical analyses of each hole. I have walked the course since then several times, on Open practice days and holiday Sundays, but again my interests were more personal than architectural. I do remember, however my research prior to writing the book and it included not only playing the course but also walking it several times and watching players of all abilities play all the holes. One of those walks was a long one during the Dunhill tourney, a pro-Am that includes top Euro pros and amateurs of all shape and form (including on that dayTom Doak, whom I stalked for a few holes around the turn...). I made relatively copious notes in this research and eventually came to the conclusions which are in the book for each hole. Re-reading what I said about the 2nd, and rethinking it now, my opinion was (and remains until I am proved wrong) that for the Sunday pin position (i.e. front of the green and behind the humps and hollows), the best line is left in that from the right you are playing diagonally across the humps and hollows which makes the bump and run more difficult. I do think that few pros would challenge that pin position, mostly erring on the long side rather than the right side, but I really will have to take a hard look at the hole again in light of these discussions and will get back to this thread once I have done so.
Cheers
rich
-
To be honest, I think it would have been easier to just not use the right side for The Open rather than alter the bunkering for the sake of one day's play in The Open.
This I agree with
-
I have taken the liberty to try and place the new bunkers onto Rich's illustration.
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/oc2b.jpg)
I have to agree with Sean, that in their new location they only serve to protect a front right pin, as they won't come into play for a rear right pin during the Open.
If anything they play right into the aerial route so often utilised by the Pro's today - completely nullifying the ground game as I doubt many a ball can be worked to the right off the undulations front and centre?
Indeed I doubt that many a Pro will even go near them as the safe play from either right or left on the fairway would be to over hit the approach and accept a longer putt (the green is predominantly flat) or try and spin back to the front right pin - it's not even as if a ball could be sucked into the bunkers from on the green given the pronounced grading onto the green from them.
It will be interesting to see just how much use they get at the next Open - I for one don't think a great deal.
Neil.
-
The 2nd is as good an example as any illustrating the damage Peter Dawson is doing to TOC's
1) essential architectural character;
2) tournament history.
1)
One of the essential architectural characteristics of TOC is its lack of definition. One result of this lack of definition is the availability to golfers of many permutations of play, with golfers able to select permutations according to the day and to their games. These permutations include routes from tee to hole, yes, but also ball flights. We can think of these permutations as "freedom of play."
This is why it is said one needs to play TOC many times to figure out the best way to play it. Adding to further interest, the "best way" will differ not only from golfer to golfer, but from day to day, as weather conditions and tee and hole locations change.
By installing bunkers close to the green, Dawson is not only changing the weightings of individual permutations of play, such that a defined line of play that he chooses to favor is given more weight (significantly so), he is eliminating permutations of play previously available to golfers so that he may define specific permutations he wishes to impose on floggers.
The changes Dawson is making to the 2nd are an example of how his current and plans changes to TOC represent a systemic effort to destroy one of TOC's essential architectural characteristics: lack of definition.
2)
The lower section of 2nd green has rarely (if ever) been used for Opens, at least in the post-WWII era. Outside of tournaments it was used primarily as a winter green with some everyday play. When Dawson complains this section plays too easy for championships, self-servingly he fails to note this section always has played too easy for championships. By moving the bunkers closer to the green, not to mention by changing the contours right of the green, Dawson is creating a new way to set up the green for championships.
Personally, in general I don't mind Dawson deciding to set up the course in new ways for the Open, that he is departing from the tournament's history. I don't mind, in general, that he would make changes to the architecture, for example adding a tee or deepening a bunker, for that purpose.
I do mind his making architectural changes that attack the essential nature of the course and that he would justify the changes by misleading us into believing a version of tournament history that is untrue.
The R&A governs on the basis of its moral authority. It ill-serves the R&A for its leader to sow the seeds of mistrust among its constituency.
-
I probably missed it amongst all of the comments on the changes to this hole but those original bunkers were unusually placed. I am not advocating these changes but can someone tell me their purpose?
Brian,
I have often wondered the same - although I can imagine that if the fairway were much wider that they would protect the hole from those wanting to lay up to the right to pitch up the green to a left hand pin position.
It would seem that narrowing the fairway has rendered them as to appear- I hate to say - 'obsolete'?
Neil.
-
Neil, Brian,
If they were part of the 1920's changes I suspect it was primarily to replicate whims (gorse) that had been there or more likely for these to define the Old Course from the New and protect players on the first hole on the New by discouraging golfers from erring right on the 2nd. There are f few more back in the landing zone on the right, again I suspect to keep tee shots away from the Himalayas and the New.
A lot of supposition but that's my best guess
-
Here is my guesses for the bunkers in questions.
1. They are the perfect place to challenge the lay-up/recovery.
2. A few protect the 3rd tee.
Ciao