Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on October 13, 2013, 08:44:30 PM
-
the bunker be moved, or should the bunker be left intact with a new, similar bunker introduced in the DZ to replicate the intent of the original bunker ?
-
Do topped shots go further now? ;) ;D
-
8) Pat,
Define "most play". Is it >50% or what percentile and I assume from member tees or where?
-
Case by case basis... no way for a blanket/formulaic approach, much like course design on a raw piece of land.
-
8) Pat,
Define "most play". Is it >50% or what percentile and I assume from member tees or where?
Steve,
Like "obscenity" I think you know it when you see it. A bunker, originally intended to perform a function, that has been rendered obsolete, by the modern golfer.
In theory, the member tees and the championship tees were intended to bring a common DZ into play for those with a disparity in ability.
I was thinking of the 16th hole at GCGC where there's a series of three bunkers that form a visual barrier from the tee.
In earlier times, they were highly functional. Today, they're vestigial features, save for appearance, for most.
So, do you move them, or leave them and replicate them in the current DZ ?
-
Case by case basis... no way for a blanket/formulaic approach, much like course design on a raw piece of land.
Greg,
Out of play is out of play, no matter which course you're on.
Vestigial features are a universal
-
please define DZ
and what is a "similar bunker", LOL
just joking
seems like the tee would be the place to start, LOL
-
8) Ok Pat, while I've never seen the 16th at GCGC I can make analogy when I play forward tees with Ms Sheila and I see such bunkers as mere aiming points to bypass the course's defenses.. once one knows they're no longer relevant I'd say delete and re-establish, however, I'd be concerned with what group they may still be relevant to, so perhaps better to add additional fairway bunker(s) if maintenance costs can be accommodated.
That's why i was interested in whether the subject feature was 51% or perhaps 80% irrelevant.. the latter perhaps justifying full replacement. though from experience at the 5th on our old Oaks Course, fairway bunkers were in fact moved out further for the big hitters and in doing so made the hole easier for lesser hitters.. can't win for losing on this one...
will be a 50 : 50 split probably on opinion
-
On a course exposed to a lot of wind, fairway bunkers do not become irrelevant.
I agree with Greg. It is difficult to generalize. If a bunker no longer serves its original function, it may still provide an interesting function - visually, for different levels of player or otherwise. Whether another bunker is needed depends on what else is there. Relative importance of upkeep costs is an important factor. The likelihood that tees will be lengthened is another factor.
-
One of my clubs back at home (Effingham) had an investigation into how much use some of the bunkers got. They were able to tell because the rakes the green staff used were different from the ones left in the bunkers. There were a couple that were found to get very little use and because they cost money to keep up, they filled them in. I was never particularly happy with the concept, because just because a bunker gets little to no use doesn't mean it doesn't fill a purpose. A bunker on the corner of a dogleg that gets little use because it pushes everyone to the far side of the hole, from whence perhaps the approach is much harder, is still serving a useful purpose that could be lost by filling it in.
That said if it genuinely isn't serving a purpose, then yes it probably should be moved or filled in. Bunkers cost money to maintain and if they serve no useful purpose, then why waste it?
-
please define DZ
and what is a "similar bunker", LOL
just joking
seems like the tee would be the place to start, LOL
William,
I should have included the situation where there was no room to bring the tee back due to the land locked nature of the course
-
Steve,
Take a look at the 16th on Google Earth
-
Pat, a few of the dz bunkers at cricket that have become obsolete have been pushed further out with the resto to challenge today's players.
Mark
-
the bunker be moved, or should the bunker be left intact with a new, similar bunker introduced in the DZ to replicate the intent of the original bunker ?
Yee olde approach - remove the sand and leave just a grass hollow. If over time, say a year, the grass hollow fills up with divots you'll know it probably should have been left as a sand bunker. If there are hardly any divots in the grass hollow look further up the fairway to see where most of the divots are and install a new bunker in that spot.
All the best.
-
Fill it in
Otherwise, whay would fuel the next restoration? ;) ;) ;D ::) ::)
-
Steve,
Take a look at the 16th on Google Earth
Do I have this right? Seem to remember your interest in the pond hazard left of green on an old thread..
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/cbbc2e14-be2a-445d-9846-63bfab24ee1f_zps998324b6.jpg) (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/TXSeve/media/cbbc2e14-be2a-445d-9846-63bfab24ee1f_zps998324b6.jpg.html)
100 - 190 to clear that last fairway trap (of three on the left).. are these your concern? GE shows a slight downhill topography, so do they really catch the eye?
Seems like ladies would still see them as a challenge...but not men who can hit 220 yes ? Want to add another couple on the edge or infiltrating into the fairway
-
If irrelevant bunkers were removed, I think Pete Dye would lose half the bunkers on half his courses. So, assuming that PD knows more about how bunkers "work" than I do, and not hearing anything about Pete going back and filling in a quarter of all his bunkers, I have to say "leave them alone".
Peter
-
Steve,
Take a look at the 16th on Google Earth
Do I have this right? Seem to remember your interest in the pond hazard left of green on an old thread..
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/cbbc2e14-be2a-445d-9846-63bfab24ee1f_zps998324b6.jpg) (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/TXSeve/media/cbbc2e14-be2a-445d-9846-63bfab24ee1f_zps998324b6.jpg.html)
100 - 190 to clear that last fairway trap (of three on the left).. are these your concern? GE shows a slight downhill topography, so do they really catch the eye?
Seems like ladies would still see them as a challenge...but not men who can hit 220 yes ? Want to add another couple on the edge or infiltrating into the fairway
Steve, since there are no women at GC men's club the issue is moot as to what they see as a challenge. I should add that I did hit a tee shot on 4 in Susan Lucci's backyard one time while playing here. Would not have minded seeing her!
-
Steve,
Take a look at the 16th on Google Earth
Do I have this right? Seem to remember your interest in the pond hazard left of green on an old thread..
YES
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/cbbc2e14-be2a-445d-9846-63bfab24ee1f_zps998324b6.jpg) (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/TXSeve/media/cbbc2e14-be2a-445d-9846-63bfab24ee1f_zps998324b6.jpg.html)
100 - 190 to clear that last fairway trap (of three on the left).. are these your concern?
YES
100 & 190 carries from where ?
GE shows a slight downhill topography, so do they really catch the eye?
YES
Seems like ladies would still see them as a challenge...but not men who can hit 220 yes ?
I can assure you that they present NO challenge to lady golfers.
I'm not sure on your yardage calculations.
From the back tee, the hole is only 405 yards and it's measured as a dogleg
Want to add another couple on the edge or infiltrating into the fairway
It's the set of three bunkers at the begining of the fairway, on the left of the photo, not the three flanking the left fairway.
I'd like to see today's bunkers mirror their original intent
-
jeffwarne:
You wrote: "Do topped shots go further now?" In deference to Dan Kelly I omit the emoticons.
That being said, do you think it's civil or polite to call attention to Jason's shots in this manner? But now that you have I feel free to inquire, aren't all of Jason shots topped? i
-
Patrick,
You asked about the distances. See below. The carry from today's back tee is around 190. What was the carry in the era that you feel exhibited the "original intent"?
What was the "original intent" of the bunkers.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thholelength.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thcarrydistance.jpg~original)
-
I am generally not in favour of leaving so called obsolete bunkers and adding more relevant bunkers. If the bunker scheme no longer works its time to review its effectiveness. But the question we must always ask is work for who? Deciding on bunker placement is far easier once we accept that bunkers were never meant to be anything close to 100% in play for 100% of players.
Ciao
-
Nice story about James Braid and Mullingar GC in Ireland as quoted from the MGC website/history -
"The story of how James Braid designed this marvelous course has gone down in Irish folklore. Brought over from Scotland by the old Dublin boat train from Glasgow, he arrived at Mullingar with the early morning dew, and after a little "liquid refreshment" to enliven his flagging energy, simply asked for "a hatchet and three dozen wooden tees". Then, before the astonished eyes of the founder members, he simply chopped and hacked his way into the middle of the then formidable gorse. With his trademark walrus moustache flapping in the wind, in four hours flat he had "pegged off" the now famous eighteen holes and greens, using the little wooden golf tees as markers. He then simply pointed to where the clubhouse should be built, handed the members his bill, and stepped back into his motorcar for the return journey to Dublin.
This story by itself would be incredible enough, given the totally incredible amounts of money and man-hours that are now spent on course design, but it doesn't end here. As the course was nearing completion, someone suddenly realized that no provision had been made for any sand traps. An urgent telegram was sent to the unflappable Braid, asking him to return forthwith and "finish" his design. By return, a telegram winged its way to the members. "Play your new course for a month, and where you see the most divot marks, that's where you put your bunkers!" As far as is known, that is exactly what was done, and a more sinister and wickedly placed set of sand traps you would be hard pushed to find anywhere!"
All the best
-
The top shot trench bunker on the first at the Scared Nine seems relevant for this discussion.
The bunker sits no more than 30 yards away from the tee, and i struggle to see how this bunker was ever well placed. The average player when the course was designed (i imagine), will have been able to carry this with no trouble. I therefore assume that the bunker is designed with the very worst players in mind.
I guess what i'm trying to say is... i don't understand the design philosophy of punishing golfers who's 'game' is already punishing enough.
-
Pat,
I think history will show that removal or relocation is preferred, except at courses of real historical merit. There is some good and bad.
Sure, maintenance costs can always use a pruning somewhere to keep them in line. Unused bunkers are certainly a big candidate. Also, would someone please explain to me why we have top shot bunkers anyway? Since Mac and ANGC, I think it has been proven that the topped tee shot prevents itself from reaching the green on the next shot, so why add another stroke to the golfers misery in most cases? Remember Mac's admonishing that the average guy shouldn't be piling up a big score.
On the other side, many bunkers are integral to the artistic composition. And in the case above of the 16th, 190 is probably a pretty stout, but accomplishable, carry for their membership, even if the top 1% are more concerned about the bunkers further down the fairway. I think of top shot bunkers at more like 120 yards.
So, as a good general rule of thumb, yes. As a blanket statement for ALL courses, no.
-
Concerning top shot bunkers, sometimes they don't make sense only because of a plethora of tees. When there are five locations based on length, teeing areas can have a huge range. A bunker may be 150 yards down the fairway one tee but only 50 for another. So the issue isn't often about bunkers, its about tees. How does an archie create an interesting bunker scheme which works well for such a spread of tees? I don't think its easy and essentially compromises have to be made. Of course, if I had it my way no such spread of tees would ever exist - its a huge scam.
Ciao
-
Got an off line email from our old buddy Tom Paul, which got me to thinking in my response to him.
Actually, we had both figured someone on golf club atlas had made up the "top shot bunker." However, he recalled seeing it in a Wayne Stiles report and also saw it in some Ross writings.
I recall the early days (I was 12…) of my interest in golf course architecture, when my Dad had gotten me several articles and I vividly recall one espousing the theory that a topped shot should never be allowed to run on greens, thus frontal bunkers left and right. I suspect that the same theory may have held true for tee shots, especially back in the days when getting a driver airborne was a lot tougher than it is today.
That said, I do know Mac (ANGC) and Tilly (the great tour) changed their mind about such things in the great depression.
It does raise the great question about original intent vs. changed paradigms, especially when those changed paradigms come about through harsh reality of depression era cost. Even forgetting that, why build a top shot bunker on a 1928 course when by 1931 the gca had probably changed his thinking to a more “final” design philosophy?
I think a lot of architecture buffs have trouble thinking in the fourth dimension of time, since all the “olden days” get compressed to a mental time frame of being the same day.
Which goes back to my thinking that other than in preserving some great old course with historical value, do we design for today's game? In my mind, you almost have to, even if removing some great looking old features sure can be tough some times. I doubt most members (or public course owners) get all that teary eyed about a bunker 100 yards off the tee, if it slows down play, frustrates customers and cost a few thousand a year on top of it. Not sure its entirely right, but saying that's the way it probably is. However, not everywhere, and long live the differences of opinion!
It does remind me of a two hole addition (make up for loss of other holes) that I did years ago. Owner sees a fairway bunker on the right side of the first hole and criticizes it for being too much in play. I figured he would like the next hole with its fw bunker left, but he criticized that one, too, as "it would never come into play on the hook side...."
It seems like they get removed for extremes of too much and too little play. So, I always wonder, what is the "proper amount of play" a bunker should get?
-
I'm aware of the historical architectural use of top-shot bunkers, but I wonder if they were all always sand bunkers?
I'm thinking here of the recent thread about the old bridlepath at North Berwick that has became a sand bunker. There's also that cage-like cover over the pedestrian walkway to the beach on the 1st (& 18th) hole Portsalon. Things, like hazards, sometimes evolve in surprising ways.
Generally speaking, if a sand bunker is no longer in play I'd be minded to remove the sand and leave the remaining hollow as a grass-bunker.
All the best
-
Thomas, that is certainly a nice compromise. I recall seeing some old bunkers at Toledo CC in Ohio (Willie Park, Jr., dating to 1897 or so, at least the first nine) They couldn't be 100 yards off the tee. Still in place as grass bunkers.
Saves money, leaves option open to recreate is someone really wants to.
Actually, saw loads of those when I was living in Chicago, and they are very common.
-
Jeff,
I think an error being made is the thought that the last bunker is a 190 carry for everyone.
It seems to ignore that a preponderance of golfers play from the forward, not the back tees.
I think you raise a relevant point in terms of preserving features at an historical course.
I think this somewhat complicates the decision to either relocate or retain the existing and create additional new bunkers.
-
Patrick,
You asked about the distances. See below.
The carry from today's back tee is around 190.
And the carry from the front tee ?
What was the carry in the era that you feel exhibited the "original intent"?
The intent of the 190 yard carry was that it shouldn't be accomplished by hitting a "five" (5) iron off the tee, rather, by using a driver
Surely, even you understand that ;D.
What was the "original intent" of the bunkers.
Only a "flaming" moron wouldn't know the answer to that question.
Actually, only a "colossal" moron would ask that question.
To present the desired visual and to punish errant drives.
How could you not know that ?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thholelength.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thcarrydistance.jpg~original)
-
Where's the huge disconnect between softening a green to accommodate faster greens speeds and modifying a bunker scheme to accommodate today's driving distances?
Leave the bunkers as they were laid out in all cases.
-
Patrick,
You asked about the distances. See below.
The carry from today's back tee is around 190.
And the carry from the front tee ?
This is your home course, isn't it? Are you saying you can't pace off the distance from the back tee to the front tee and subtract it from 190 yards? ??? Hint, the tee is about 35 yards long, so the carry from the front tee might be somewhere around 170 yards.
What was the carry in the era that you feel exhibited the "original intent"?
The intent of the 190 yard carry was that it shouldn't be accomplished by hitting a "five" (5) iron off the tee, rather, by using a driver
Surely, even you understand that ;D.
What percentage of your members can carry a 5 iron 190 yards? What percentage carry the driver just a bit more than that distance?
What was the "original intent" of the bunkers.
Only a "flaming" moron wouldn't know the answer to that question.
Actually, only a "colossal" moron would ask that question.
To present the desired visual and to punish errant drives.
The moron-in-chief, that's you, stated in an earlier post:
I was thinking of the 16th hole at GCGC where there's a series of three bunkers that form a visual barrier from the tee.
In earlier times, they were highly functional.
Reading that literally, it says that the bunkers were a visual barrier and that they were highly effective in that role. Now you've added that they were also intended to punish an errant ( I presume you mean too short a) drive. Also, you seem to have added limiting the club selection (not a 5 iron) off the tee as part of the intent.
Given all that, in past eras, what percentage of tee shots were likely "punished" by the bunkers? Was it it a whole lot different than now for the range of players that are members at GCGC. Does the membership support the idea of moving, removing, or grassing over the bunkers.
As I recall, doing the removing and moving bunkers at the second at TOC caused a firestorm of complaint. Is GCGC not also a classic course worth preserving?
[/size][/color]
How could you not know that ? [/size][/color][/color]
You told us that we can't comment if we haven't played the course. As the expert on playing that course it seemed prudent to ask you. ;)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thholelength.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thcarrydistance.jpg~original)
-
Bryan,you can't possibly expect him to walk the entire railroad line between Atlantic City and PVGC and then go walk off yardages from different tee markers at his home course,can you?
-
Where's the huge disconnect between softening a green to accommodate faster greens speeds and modifying a bunker scheme to accommodate today's driving distances?
Leave the bunkers as they were laid out in all cases.
I'd tend to agree and would lean toward introducing their mirror image in the same relative position in the current DZ
The question is, how does that affect the golfers playing from the other tees.
Years ago, when fewer tees were in use, I think the issue was easier to resolve
-
Patrick, I couldn't tell from the photo if there was one big tee, or if those two bright green spots ahead were also tees. Presumably, the average GCGC member hits it 225 or so (if in line with the national average) and I generally use 2/3 of that for carry distance, maybe up to 80% tops, or 170-180. Works fine and maybe even questionable for many from the back of the tee. Also, wind is a factor, too.
Obviously easier for longer hitters who play there. Might work the same for shorter hitters on the forward tees.
Anyway, if its GCGC, I say leave them. How many rake tracks do you see in a typical day?
-
Mr Fazio doesnt think so ;D
-
Take it out, unless it's at The Old Course.
-
The hole in qusetion though.
Those bunkers play with your head, even though you know they are not in play, they are so cool when looking down the fairway, certianly no reason at all to mve them.
Heck dont move anything at GCGC
-
Patrick,
You asked about the distances. See below.
The carry from today's back tee is around 190.
And the carry from the front tee ?
This is your home course, isn't it?
NO, but, I play there when I can
Are you saying you can't pace off the distance from the back tee to the front tee and subtract it from 190 yards? ???
No, but seeing as how I'm in another state and didn't want to be accused by being off by a yard, I thought it prudent to ask you for your linear measurement. Silly me
Hint, the tee is about 35 yards long, so the carry from the front tee might be somewhere around 170 yards.
I get 155 yards.
How did you subtract 35 from 190 and get 170 ?
Maybe that's the new math in Canada
What was the carry in the era that you feel exhibited the "original intent"?
The intent of the 190 yard carry was that it shouldn't be accomplished by hitting a "five" (5) iron off the tee, rather, by using a driver
Surely, even you understand that ;D.
What percentage of your members can carry a 5 iron 190 yards?
Of the guys who play from the back tees, I'd say it's significant.
What percentage carry the driver just a bit more than that distance?
I'll take a poll when I next visit
What was the "original intent" of the bunkers.
Only a "flaming" moron wouldn't know the answer to that question.
Actually, only a "colossal" moron would ask that question.
To present the desired visual and to punish errant drives.
The moron-in-chief, that's you, stated in an earlier post:
I was thinking of the 16th hole at GCGC where there's a series of three bunkers that form a visual barrier from the tee.
In earlier times, they were highly functional.
That's correct, and that statement is in perfect harmony with my statements on this thread
Reading that literally, it says that the bunkers were a visual barrier and that they were highly effective in that role. [/color]
Nice try, but, that's NOT how my statement is read, literally.
That's your misguided intrepretation.
Now you've added that they were also intended to punish an errant ( I presume you mean too short a) drive.
Their inherent function was always to punish an errant drive and, your presumption is incorrect.
Also, you seem to have added limiting the club selection (not a 5 iron) off the tee as part of the intent.
Not at all.
I merely selected a five (5) iron to demonstrate the distance the young golfers are hitting the ball in conjunction with the location of the bunkers
Given all that, in past eras, what percentage of tee shots were likely "punished" by the bunkers?
Significant
Was it it a whole lot different than now for the range of players that are members at GCGC.
Yes
Does the membership support the idea of moving, removing, or grassing over the bunkers.
Why would you introduce the "membership" to this thread.
This is a theoretical exercise in GCA having to do with bunkers that become obsolete in their function.
Here, let me remind you, this is the title and topic of the thread.
If a fairway bunker is no longer relevant for most play, should
the bunker be moved, or should the bunker be left intact with a new, similar bunker introduced in the DZ to replicate the intent of the original bunker ?
I merely cited a hole at a course I'm familiar with as a general example.
[/color][/size]
[/size][/color]
How could you not know that ? [/size][/color][/color]
You told us that we can't comment if we haven't played the course.
As the expert on playing that course it seemed prudent to ask you. ;)
That's NOT what I said, I stated that you can't comment on the play of a course if you haven't played it.
Certainly, providing accurate linear measurements and/or common sense when it comes to the function of a bunker shouldn't be beyond your capabilities, but, then again, maybe I overestimated you ;D
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thholelength.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thcarrydistance.jpg~original)
-
Patrick, I couldn't tell from the photo if there was one big tee, or if those two bright green spots ahead were also tees.
Jeff,
Just one tee, the bright green spots are just green grass that probably gets hit with the irrigation heads for the tee
Presumably, the average GCGC member hits it 225 or so (if in line with the national average) and I generally use 2/3 of that for carry distance, maybe up to 80% tops, or 170-180. Works fine and maybe even questionable for many from the back of the tee. Also, wind is a factor, too.
Yes, I forgot about the wind, which is usually from the South - Southwest.
But, from the front tee, the carry is a little over 155 yards.
Obviously easier for longer hitters who play there. Might work the same for shorter hitters on the forward tees.
Anyway, if its GCGC, I say leave them.
I tend to agree, but, what about restoring the challenge that those bunkers were intended for.
How many rake tracks do you see in a typical day?
Not many, if any.
-
Pat,
I'd say it's case by case...and in this case, based on all of the evidence you've presented (and others) the best solution would seem to be to shrink the tee back from the front so the carry distance is no less than 180.
-
Jim, Jeff, et. Al.,
The cross bunker on # 3,at NGLA would seem to be another example of a vestigial bunker.
When I first played there, carrying the high right side of that bunker was a considerable challenge.
Today, that challenge no longer exists, and in order to return the relevancy of that bunker and other features on the hole, the tee was moved back, temporarily, to a spot short right of the 2nd green, probably about 40-50 yards behind the regular tee, for the Walker Cup.
But, they had the luxury of available space to be able to do that.
-
8) Pat,
Some interesting discussion on your topic, ...
i though there were some teeing spots up from the obvious one at left of picture posted.... where i first measured the 190 yards...
If one wanted to catch the golfer's eye further down fairway, in similar landing zone, wouldn't you have to move the starting fairway's "wide rounded" shape down the fairway also?
I never knew GCGC was a mens only club.. do they take any flack for it from progressive women's groups ?
whether its kids, women, young or old men playing a course.. isn't the visual experience worth maintaining for all?
-
Pat, Are you going to want blowup pics out of the old NGLA pic from 1938 vs recent?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/NGLA1938Aerial-1.jpg) (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/TXSeve/media/NGLA1938Aerial-1.jpg.html)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/longislandtoday.jpg) (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/TXSeve/media/longislandtoday.jpg.html)
-
Where's the huge disconnect between softening a green to accommodate faster greens speeds and modifying a bunker scheme to accommodate today's driving distances?
Leave the bunkers as they were laid out in all cases.
I'd tend to agree and would lean toward introducing their mirror image in the same relative position in the current DZ
The question is, how does that affect the golfers playing from the other tees.
Years ago, when fewer tees were in use, I think the issue was easier to resolve
Pat,
Why would you present a mirror image of a bunker, rather than a replica if the only intent is to relocate it?
I have seen very poorly relocated bunkers on a Major tournament venue where they disregarded the landscape to make the bunkers work numerically. Wrong solution to the wrong problem, in that case.
Joe
-
Where's the huge disconnect between softening a green to accommodate faster greens speeds and modifying a bunker scheme to accommodate today's driving distances?
Leave the bunkers as they were laid out in all cases.
I'd tend to agree and would lean toward introducing their mirror image in the same relative position in the current DZ
The question is, how does that affect the golfers playing from the other tees.
Years ago, when fewer tees were in use, I think the issue was easier to resolve
Pat,
Why would you present a mirror image of a bunker, rather than a replica if the only intent is to relocate it?
Joe,
Isn't a mirror image and a replica the same thing ?
I have seen very poorly relocated bunkers on a Major tournament venue where they disregarded the landscape to make the bunkers work numerically.
Why would you assume that the bunker/s would be poorly located ?
Wrong solution to the wrong problem, in that case.
Could it be that you're thinking of the reverse image ?
-
Pat, Are you going to want blowup pics out of the old NGLA pic from 1938 vs recent?
Steve, that July 1938 aerial of NGLA, SHGC and SGC is one of the most interesting golf aerials I've ever seen.
I was discussing it last week when I visited NGLA and SHGC.
I'm one of those who would like to see the bunkered areas restored at GCGC, NGLA and SHGC
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/NGLA1938Aerial-1.jpg) (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/TXSeve/media/NGLA1938Aerial-1.jpg.html)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/longislandtoday.jpg) (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/TXSeve/media/longislandtoday.jpg.html)
-
Pat,
I'll just skip past the mirror image discussion. It's so elementary even a moron would know there's a difference between a mirror image and a replica. ;D
I didn't assume anything. My comments were limited to the example I cited, and I never mentioned your example/ situation as presented. I do feel that, in many cases, moving a bunker to a new spot involves more than just getting the distance right. Unless the landscape is void of elevation change, then there are things to consider in fitting the new bunker into the existing landscape in a way that isn't contradictory to the rest of the golf course bunker settings.
Joe
-
8) Pat,
Some interesting discussion on your topic, ...
i though there were some teeing spots up from the obvious one at left of picture posted.... where i first measured the 190 yards...
No, there's only one tee and it's land locked. You might be able to pick up 5 yards at best.
If one wanted to catch the golfer's eye further down fairway, in similar landing zone, wouldn't you have to move the starting fairway's "wide rounded" shape down the fairway also?
I don't think so.
The visual from the tee presents all of the bunkers in play off the tee as well as the DZ.
If anything, the fronting berms on the three forward bunkers might have to be lowered if you were to introduce their duplicates further down range.
I never knew GCGC was a mens only club.. do they take any flack for it from progressive women's groups ?
Do those progressive women's groups permit male membership ?
whether its kids, women, young or old men playing a course.. isn't the visual experience worth maintaining for all?
Why do you assume that the "visual experience" would be lost ?
-
Patrick,
You asked about the distances. See below.
The carry from today's back tee is around 190.
And the carry from the front tee ?
......................................
Are you saying you can't pace off the distance from the back tee to the front tee and subtract it from 190 yards? ???
No, but seeing as how I'm in another state and didn't want to be accused by being off by a yard, I thought it prudent to ask you for your linear measurement. Silly me
Who knew you were so sensitive about being off by a yard! Have you thought about checking the scorecard for the difference between the back and forward tees.
Hint, the tee is about 35 yards long, so the carry from the front tee might be somewhere around 170 yards.
I get 155 yards.
How did you subtract 35 from 190 and get 170 ?
Maybe that's the new math in Canada
I'm sure you'd never understand our metric math. But, in the interest of your ongoing education, let's see if you can follow this. The back tee location (as defined by the scorecard stated yardage for the hole) is not at the back edge of the tee box. It is where I showed it on the aerial below. The forward tee (as defined by the scorecard yardage) is not at the very front of the tee box. Therefore the difference between the two tees can't be as much as the total length of the tee. It must be less. I guesstimated 20 yards. Upon further checking the scorecard lists the back tees at 405 yards and the forward tees at 388 yards - a difference of 17 yards. My guesstimate wasn't bad. So, the correct answer is 173 yards, and certainly not 155 yards.
................................................
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thholelength.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thcarrydistance.jpg~original)
Fifty years ago I could carry a 3 iron 195 yards and a 5 iron 175 yards, so I could have played your example hole with an iron off the tee from either the back or forward tees. And, I wasn't a long hitter, even in my youth. Now it would probably take me a 3 wood or hybrid in either case. My conclusion would be that the bunkers are not all that functionally different than they were in the past. Long hitters in the past or now would simply blow it over the bunkers. They still seem to provide some visual stimulation at the very least. All said and done, it'd be my opinion that the bunkers in question at GCGC should be left alone.
For other courses and other bunkers that are no longer in play, it should be a case by case decision based on factors that others have brought up above.
-
From the March 1909 American Golfer, here are some comments (possibly written by Travis) on the bunkers at GCGC. It sounds like the ones in question in this thread were probably flattish with coarse sand and not so punitive. But, more to follow, when time permits.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/AmericanGolferMar1909GCGCcopy.jpg~original)
-
The second part of the GCGC bunker story. Maybe they were punitive.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/AmericanGolferMar1909GCGCpart2.jpg~original)
-
Who knew you were so sensitive about being off by a yard!
Have you thought about checking the scorecard for the difference between the back and forward tees.
Score cards and yardage plates are not always indicative of the size of the tee nor the yardages from the front and back of the tee, or where the actual tee markers that dictate daily play are placed.
That happens to be the case at GCGC's 16th where the scorecard only indicates a difference of 17 yards on a tee that's 35 yards front to back.
Once again, your limited knowledge prohibits you from understanding the issues.
I'm sure you'd never understand our metric math. But, in the interest of your ongoing education, let's see if you can follow this. The back tee location (as defined by the scorecard stated yardage for the hole) is not at the back edge of the tee box. [/size]
Ahhh, just one of your many mistakes.
The back tee is in fact close to the back of the of the physical tee
You're confusing a plate marker with the location of the tee markers.
But, what do I know, I only played there yesterday.
Let me help you.
From two clublengths from the back of the tee, the top of the bunker in the fairway, the bunker you have to carry, is 173 yards.
From the forward tee, about 25 to 30 yards closer, it's a 143 to 148 yard carry.
It is where I showed it on the aerial below. The forward tee (as defined by the scorecard yardage) is not at the very front of the tee box. Therefore the difference between the two tees can't be as much as the total length of the tee. It must be less. I guesstimated 20 yards. Upon further checking the scorecard lists the back tees at 405 yards and the forward tees at 388 yards - a difference of 17 yards. My guesstimate wasn't bad. So, the correct answer is 173 yards, and certainly not 155 yards.
Another of your many mistakes is that you've measured a distance to a bunker off the line of play, unless of course you think golfers aim toward out of bounds or into heavy rough.
It's the bunker IN the fairway that constitutes the primary challenge for golfers not aiming out of bounds or aiming into heavy rough.
I can see how your lack of familiarity and reliance on aerial photos could lead you to flawed conclusions.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thholelength.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thcarrydistance.jpg~original)
Fifty years ago I could carry a 3 iron 195 yards and a 5 iron 175 yards, so I could have played your example hole with an iron off the tee from either the back or forward tees. And, I wasn't a long hitter, even in my youth. Now it would probably take me a 3 wood or hybrid in either case. My conclusion would be that the bunkers are not all that functionally different than they were in the past. [/size]
I guess that's why I had a 9-iron into that green yesterday.
Is that the approach club that they hit in the past ?
Long hitters in the past or now would simply blow it over the bunkers.[/size]
So it's your position that Emmett and Travis introduced gratuitous bunkers that didn't come into play, contemporaneously ?
Hard to believe that they'd make that kind of mistake, especially when they had the opportunity to modify the location of those bunkers on numerous occassions.
And, especially when you examine them in context of the placement of other bunkers on the golf course, contemporaneously.
They still seem to provide some visual stimulation at the very least. [/size]
More so the center, or the first bunker encountered
All said and done, it'd be my opinion that the bunkers in question at GCGC should be left alone.[/size]
Some feel the same way, but, that doesn't answer the entire question.
Should additional bunkers be introduced to return the original strategy off the tee....... today ?
For other courses and other bunkers that are no longer in play, it should be a case by case decision based on factors that others have brought up above.[/size]
Don't disagree, but, in this case, do you leave them as vestigial features or introduce similar bunkers into the DZ ?
-
Who knew you were so sensitive about being off by a yard!
Have you thought about checking the scorecard for the difference between the back and forward tees.
Score cards and yardage plates are not always indicative of the size of the tee nor the yardages from the front and back of the tee, or where the actual tee markers that dictate daily play are placed.
That happens to be the case at GCGC's 16th where the scorecard only indicates a difference of 17 yards on a tee that's 35 yards front to back.
Once again, your limited knowledge prohibits you from understanding the issues.
Wow, now there's a revelation! ;D
But, it seemed reasonable to me to give you carry distances from the tee location that gives you a 405 yard hole. Perhaps if you framed your thoughts and questions properly, the rest of us might (maybe) understand them. If you wanted to talk about the very back of the existing tee (which gives a hole of more than 405 yards) you could have said so. By the way, has the tee always extended that far back?
I'm sure you'd never understand our metric math. But, in the interest of your ongoing education, let's see if you can follow this. The back tee location (as defined by the scorecard stated yardage for the hole) is not at the back edge of the tee box. [/size]
Ahhh, just one of your many mistakes.
The back tee is in fact close to the back of the of the physical tee
You're confusing a plate marker with the location of the tee markers.
Another astonishing revelation! The tee blocks of the day aren't always where the "plate marker" is. Who would have thunk it. ;)
But, what do I know, I only played there yesterday.
Let me help you.
From two clublengths from the back of the tee, the top of the bunker in the fairway, the bunker you have to carry, is 173 yards.
From the forward tee, about 25 to 30 yards closer, it's a 143 to 148 yard carry.
Gee, you didn't pace off the difference between the back and forward tees when you were there yesterday!? I guess the foward blocks weren't at the forward plate marker either. Astonishing!
I didn't have to be there yesterday to figure that out. Too bad it only took three pages of posts for you to point out that you were thinking of a different bunker than I measured.
It is where I showed it on the aerial below. The forward tee (as defined by the scorecard yardage) is not at the very front of the tee box. Therefore the difference between the two tees can't be as much as the total length of the tee. It must be less. I guesstimated 20 yards. Upon further checking the scorecard lists the back tees at 405 yards and the forward tees at 388 yards - a difference of 17 yards. My guesstimate wasn't bad. So, the correct answer is 173 yards, and certainly not 155 yards.
Another of your many mistakes is that you've measured a distance to a bunker off the line of play, unless of course you think golfers aim toward out of bounds or into heavy rough.
The line I measured, if extended leads to the right side of the fairway, not the heavy rough or OOB. According to our fearless leader, in his review of GCGC, " In reality, the better angle of approach is from the right hand side of the fairway, away from the general direction of the green." But what does he know. ;)
It's the bunker IN the fairway that constitutes the primary challenge for golfers not aiming out of bounds or aiming into heavy rough.
Silly me, I thought the play must be over the furthest bunker to the preferred angle on the right side of the fairway. The OOB must be at least 30 yards right of there.
I can see how your lack of familiarity and reliance on aerial photos could lead you to flawed conclusions.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thholelength.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thcarrydistance.jpg~original)
Fifty years ago I could carry a 3 iron 195 yards and a 5 iron 175 yards, so I could have played your example hole with an iron off the tee from either the back or forward tees. And, I wasn't a long hitter, even in my youth. Now it would probably take me a 3 wood or hybrid in either case. My conclusion would be that the bunkers are not all that functionally different than they were in the past. [/size]
I guess that's why I had a 9-iron into that green yesterday.
Is that the approach club that they hit in the past ?
Nice 260-270 yard drive. I have no idea what club "they" might have hit on that approach, but then neither do you. What year(s) of the "past" did you have in mind, by the way.
Long hitters in the past or now would simply blow it over the bunkers.[/size]
So it's your position that Emmett and Travis introduced gratuitous bunkers that didn't come into play, contemporaneously ?
Hard to believe that they'd make that kind of mistake, especially when they had the opportunity to modify the location of those bunkers on numerous occassions.
And, especially when you examine them in context of the placement of other bunkers on the golf course, contemporaneously.
One of your less endearing traits is to put words in other peoples mouths.
If I understand your point, it is that the bunkers provided a significant penal challenge at the time they were built and subsequently for some time. The carry distance, is now 173 and 145 from the back and front tees respectively. Assuming the carry distances were the same in whatever era of the past you are referring to, are you saying that a carry of 173 yards was a significant penal challenge for the best players from the back tees in those past times?
A little research suggest the Haskell ball could be driven 225 to 250 yards. By the 1980's carry distances of the best players were up to 270 yards and in the 2000's the distances are up to 290 yards. So, apparently carrying the bunkers is less meaningful today than when they were built. Arguably they weren't that difficult to carry when built. Would you like to move the bunker 40 yards down the fairway to reflect the increase in driving distances? It still wouldn't be much of a challenge for a man of your talent, and advanced age, to carry. The second shots on the hole, of course would be substantially different. Moving the bunker has no impact on that shot.
They still seem to provide some visual stimulation at the very least. [/size]
More so the center, or the first bunker encountered
All said and done, it'd be my opinion that the bunkers in question at GCGC should be left alone.[/size]
Some feel the same way, but, that doesn't answer the entire question.
Should additional bunkers be introduced to return the original strategy off the tee....... today ?
What was the "original strategy" off the tee? Go left of the bunker and not so far as to hit the left side bunkers? Carry it over the bunker at some risk? Or, were both viable strategies?
You could add bunkers, but as per the above, it looks to me like it was a reasonable carry in the past and would be a reasonably easy carry today even if you moved the bunkers 40 yards further out. The second shot is going to be significantly different even if you could replicate the driving challenge and strategy(ies) as long as its a 405 yard hole.
For other courses and other bunkers that are no longer in play, it should be a case by case decision based on factors that others have brought up above.[/size]
Don't disagree, but, in this case, do you leave them as vestigial features or introduce similar bunkers into the DZ ?
See above. If you want to replicate the challenge and experience of the original intent of the hole you'd need to either roll back the ball and equipment or expand everything on the hole by something approximating the distance increases of the ball and equipment over the last century. And, that means not only lengthening the drive but also lengthening the second shot. I'd go with leaving well enough alone. I assume the course still provides a fun challenge to its members, and that the Tour isn't going to stop there any time soon.
-
This is an interesting post as I posed the same question while on a tour of Battle Creek's 5th hole last summer with our architect...
Battle Creek's 5th hole is a 410 yard dogleg right par 4 with a giant bunker about 30 yards from the green on the right side of the fairway. I argued the same point that Pat made--what is this thing doing here? The way it was explained to me was that in that era, on that hole, a lot of good players would actually want to hit a low running shot into the green and that was the ideal way to play the hole. Granted it's more of an air game now, and I've never even thought about hitting that shot on that hole, but I have seen quite a few blocked shots when playing into the wind make it into that bunker, and it's obviously not a fun shot.
Even still, despite its relative lack of relevance, I think it adds an element of character to the hole and the course in general by maintaining the structure of the original as long as it's not wholly irrelevant
-
Wow, now there's a revelation! ;D
But, it seemed reasonable to me to give you carry distances from the tee location that gives you a 405 yard hole. Perhaps if you framed your thoughts and questions properly, the rest of us might (maybe) understand them. If you wanted to talk about the very back of the existing tee (which gives a hole of more than 405 yards) you could have said so. By the way, has the tee always extended that far back?
The problem is that your carry distance is to a bunker that's off the intended line of play.
But, don't fret, the same condition appears on the 10th hole, which needs to have the tee shifted toward the 9th green and the trees along the left fairway flank pruned/removed.
I measured the carry distance from the back of the tee in order to remove any variable.
The tee is about 35 yards in length and only one yardage plate is located on the tee, so the tee markers are in front and behind that plate.
Today, the tee is limited in terms of property line, but, the original hole yardage is listed as 446, leading me to believe that the property behind the current 16th tee might have been used. At 446, those bunkers would be highly functional in terms of both flighted and grounded drives.
Another astonishing revelation! The tee blocks of the day aren't always where the "plate marker" is. Who would have thunk it. ;)
Gee, you didn't pace off the difference between the back and forward tees when you were there yesterday!?
I guess the foward blocks weren't at the forward plate marker either. Astonishing!
That's because there is no "forward" plate marker.
And that's where your ignorance does you in. ;D
I didn't have to be there yesterday to figure that out.
Too bad it only took three pages of posts for you to point out that you were thinking of a different bunker than I measured.
I thought it best to let you continue to list measurements to features essentially out of the line of play.
I guess that's one of the advantages to actually setting foot on and playing a golf course.
In fact, I believe Tom Doak's description of the hole, advises that the best line of play is "straight toward the green", and "for those with length to spare, well out to the right"
The line I measured, if extended leads to the right side of the fairway, not the heavy rough or OOB. According to our fearless leader, in his review of GCGC, " In reality, the better angle of approach is from the right hand side of the fairway, away from the general direction of the green." But what does he know. ;)
The line you chose, to carry the far bunker, would put a drive with a cut/fade/slice into heavy rough, in the woods or OB
Silly me, I thought the play must be over the furthest bunker to the preferred angle on the right side of the fairway. The OOB must be at least 30 yards right of there.
Look again.
And remember, just a few days ago I hit a 9-iron into that green, so how close would I come to the heavy rough/woods/OB if I had cut/faded or sliced my drive ?
I'm constantly amazed at your ability to instruct me as to how the hole plays, when you've never set foot on the tee and are unfamiliar with the nature and slope of the land or the prevailing wind directions. You're better than Kreskin. ;D
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thholelength.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/GCGC16thcarrydistance.jpg~original)
Nice 260-270 yard drive. I have no idea what club "they" might have hit on that approach, but then neither do you.
What year(s) of the "past" did you have in mind, by the way.
I can guarantee you that it wasn't a 9-iron.
Take your pick, 50, 75 or 100
One of your less endearing traits is to put words in other peoples mouths. [/size]
I merely rephrased what you implied.
I can't help it if you now see the absurdity in your original statement.
If I understand your point, it is that the bunkers provided a significant penal challenge at the time they were built and subsequently for some time. The carry distance, is now 173 and 145 from the back and front tees respectively. Assuming the carry distances were the same in whatever era of the past you are referring to, are you saying that a carry of 173 yards was a significant penal challenge for the best players from the back tees in those past times? [/size]
Absolutely.
What your lack of familiarity also deprives you of is the direction and velocity of the prevailing wind, which does not aid the golfer.
In addition, it appears that the original hole was longer and that those bunkers were far more functional.
A little research suggest the Haskell ball could be driven 225 to 250 yards.
That's disingenuous, perhaps you should have done more research.
The Haskell ball wasn't carrying 225 to 250 and this is an issue all about "carry"
By the 1980's carry distances of the best players were up to 270 yards and in the 2000's the distances are up to 290 yards. So, apparently carrying the bunkers is less meaningful today than when they were built.
So now you're introducing the PGA Tour Pros as the standard for establishing bunker locations.
That's beyond disingenuous.
And, not to get ahead of you, but, look at your last paragraph where you clearly state that "members of the tour aren't going to be stopping by any time soon".
So, let's dismiss your desperate attempt at reframing the issue and stick to the bunker locations in the context of members/guests, not PGA Tour Pros
Arguably they weren't that difficult to carry when built. [/size]
That's absolutely not true.
How can you make that claim ?
Especially since you've never seen the bunkers, let alone played over or around them
Would you like to move the bunker 40 yards down the fairway to reflect the increase in driving distances? It still wouldn't be much of a challenge for a man of your talent, and advanced age, to carry.[/size]
I think you could make a legitimate case for that, on this hole and many others in the world of golf.
What functional purpose, other than visuals, does a vestigial feature serve ?
Why allow the original function of the fairway bunker/s, any fairway bunker/s, to become obsolete ?
The second shots on the hole, of course would be substantially different. Moving the bunker has no impact on that shot.
Then why would you state that "The second shots on the hole, of course would be substantially different."
The second shots, other than those that find the reintroduced bunker/s, would remain static.
What was the "original strategy" off the tee? Go left of the bunker and not so far as to hit the left side bunkers? Carry it over the bunker at some risk? Or, were both viable strategies?
Both
You could add bunkers, but as per the above, it looks to me like it was a reasonable carry in the past and would be a reasonably easy carry today even if you moved the bunkers 40 yards further out. The second shot is going to be significantly different even if you could replicate the driving challenge and strategy(ies) as long as its a 405 yard hole.[/size]
Replicating the bunker complex another 40 yards out would recreate the challenge originally intended off the tee.
Is not a half a loaf better than none ?
And, I don't know why you continue to claim that the second shot would be different.
Other than balls that would find the newly introduced bunker/s, the second shot would remain the same.
See above. If you want to replicate the challenge and experience of the original intent of the hole you'd need to either roll back the ball and equipment or expand everything on the hole by something approximating the distance increases of the ball and equipment over the last century. And, that means not only lengthening the drive but also lengthening the second shot. I'd go with leaving well enough alone. I assume the course still provides a fun challenge to its members, and that the Tour isn't going to stop there any time soon.
Expanding everything on the hole is impropable to impossible, but you can recreate the intent in the DZ, and that's what this thread is all about.
[/quote]
[/quote]
-
Patrick,
Enough of the nonsense. You can make up whatever interpretations of what I say to generate more arguing points if you want.
Just two points.
The second shot would be different because it would have been 180 yards (for some average golfer) a century ago and it would be 150 yards (for some average golfer) today. Or use whatever numbers you want. It would have been a longer second shot back then than it is now. And, players today hit irons further today than they did back then. So, it's a different shot, even if you could somehow create a similar challenge off the tee. If you want that half a loaf go for it. Don't bother dissecting this to find something to argue about.
I don't know what your source and date is for the original yardage being 446 yards. American Golfer in June 1912 lists the hole as 402 yards for the annual spring tournament of the Garden City Golf Club on May 9th-11th.
-
Patrick,
Enough of the nonsense. You can make up whatever interpretations of what I say to generate more arguing points if you want.
You call it nonsense, I call it accurate paraphrasing
Just two points.
The second shot would be different because it would have been 180 yards (for some average golfer) a century ago and it would be 150 yards (for some average golfer) today. Or use whatever numbers you want. It would have been a longer second shot back then than it is now. And, players today hit irons further today than they did back then. So, it's a different shot, even if you could somehow create a similar challenge off the tee. If you want that half a loaf go for it. Don't bother dissecting this to find something to argue about.
Bryan, you obviously missed the part about not being able to reconfigure the green end of the hole.
It ain't gonna happen. The green won't be moved.
Hence the second shot today, would remain the same with the introduction of a similar bunker complex further from the tee.
Ergo, you could replicate the original intent on the drive, which equates to the half loaf being better than none at all.
I don't know what your source and date is for the original yardage being 446 yards.
The official history of Garden City published for the Centennial Celebration
American Golfer in June 1912 lists the hole as 402 yards for the annual spring tournament of the Garden City Golf Club on May 9th-11th.
That's 13 years after the course was open.
And, If you had that information at your disposal why did you inquire about the early length of the hole as compared to the 405 listed today ? ? ?
-
You obviously missed my point.
Those official histories are never wrong, so 446 it was when it opened.
Because I didn't know what length you were using as your basis of comparison and I didn't want to pollute your mind with facts (because we know the magazines often got it wrong). If you were thinking of it as a 446 yard hole with the longer carry why bother debating the carries I previously described?
You really should try to get better at stating your premises in your opening posts. But, then that would take away all the fun you seem to get out of twisting and turning to create arguing points wouldn't it.
-
You obviously missed my point.
That's usually inherent in your posts.
Those official histories are never wrong, so 446 it was when it opened.
I'm not so sure I'd say that they're never wrong, as Merion seemed to dispel that notion.
Because I didn't know what length you were using as your basis of comparison and I didn't want to pollute your mind with facts (because we know the magazines often got it wrong).
I don't think it matters if the hole was 446 or 405 or 420, a carry of 173 from the back of the current tee presents no substantive obstacle to those who play from the back tees at GCGC. Even it the length of the hole has remained static, the advent of hi-tech has made the bunker a vestigial feature, which was never the original architect's intent. A carry of 173 in 1899, 1929 or 1949 was still substantial, especially considering the prevailing wind.
If you were thinking of it as a 446 yard hole with the longer carry why bother debating the carries I previously described?
See my comment above
You really should try to get better at stating your premises in your opening posts.
Everybody else seemed to understand the premise, except for you.
Quite simply, at a carry of 173 or more yards, the bunker no longer serves its intended purpose,, ergo the question.
Move the bunker to a location where it would serve it's intended purpose, or, leave the existing bunker and introduce new bunkers in the DZ that would serve the original intended purpose. You're the only one who didn't understand the premise.
Actually, I know you understood the premise, and that you just wanted to argue and refute it in an attempt to counter my query and underlying premise. Your feigned confusion fools no one, but, you get an "A" for effort.
But, then that would take away all the fun you seem to get out of twisting and turning to create arguing points wouldn't it.
Not at all, it was you who chose to try to throw a monkey wrench into a simple question.
It was you who maintained that the bunkers were misplaced by the original architect/s.
It was you who dismissed their function.
The fun for me is proving that your lack of familiarity with a course, be it Pine Valley, Yale or GCGC, prevents you from drawing intelligent conclusions.
Ignorance may be bliss, but, not when it comes to discussing golf course architecture.
-
A carry of 173 in 1899, 1929 or 1949 was still substantial, especially considering the prevailing wind.
I agree to disagree on this point.
As to the rest, your paranoia is getting the better of you again.
You have an amazing ability to know what "everybody" else thinks and understands.
-
A carry of 173 in 1899, 1929 or 1949 was still substantial, especially considering the prevailing wind.
I agree to disagree on this point.
How can you disagree, you've never seen the hole, let alone played it.
You don't know how high the back berm on that bunker is, which makes the carry longer.
So, it's your contention that a carry of 173 wasn't a challenge in 1899 ?
1929 ?
1949 ?
Into prevailing winds off the Atlantic Ocean ?
As to the rest, your paranoia is getting the better of you again.
Every time you lose a debate, you resort to desperate tactics, but, I understand you need to save face.
You have an amazing ability to know what "everybody" else thinks and understands.
That's called "reading comprehension".
Perhaps you should be more careful with regard to what you type.
No need to contemplate what you think when you reduce your thoughts to written words.
-
How many times did YOU play GCGC in 1899, or 1929, or 1949? How substantial a challenge was a carry of 173 yards for YOU in those years? Find some contemporaneous report about players' capabilities to carry that kind of distance in any of those years and I'll be persuaded.
What's the elevation change from tee to bunker? How high in the back berm? What percentage of time does the hole play into the prevailing wind? What's the average velocity of the prevailing wind?
Might there be some conditions under which a 173 yard carry might have bee a challenge a century or a half century ago? Sure. Happy now? ;D
-
Saw this on the Southern Hills review and thought it was valid for this thread
Ninth hole, 375/360 yards; Knowing when to move a bunker built by a master architect from the Golden Age requires finesse. Few restorers are more artful than Foster. On this hole Maxwell’s lone fairway bunker had been rendered meaningless by advancements in technology. Since it wasn’t cut into a landform, Foster was free to push it back. He also edged it more into the fairway. Without doubt, Maxwell would have done the same if he was alive today. Thus, job well done by Foster.
Pretty high praise for the concept of taking a now obsolete bunker and restoring the original shot value created by the architect.
Mike
-
How many times did YOU play GCGC in 1899, or 1929, or 1949? How substantial a challenge was a carry of 173 yards for YOU in those years? Find some contemporaneous report about players' capabilities to carry that kind of distance in any of those years and I'll be persuaded.
I'm not concerned nor interested in persuading you, since you aren't open to being persuaded because your intent is that of a contrarian irrespective of the evidence presented (charcoal layer for one)
As to contemporaneous reports, I have an enormous advantage over you.
I was fortunate to have a father who was a highly skilled golfer, who played in numerous U.S. Amateurs, U.S. Opens and many other international, national, regional, state and local tournaments. And, he took me with him when he played in those events, events such as the 1949 U.S. Open, the 1952 British Amateur, the 1952 French Amateur, the Canadian and many U.S. Amateurs.
In addition, discussions at the dinner table often involved golf and everything about golf, including distance, ball flight, equipment, courses and players. I was also taken to clubs/course/events and introduced to Sam Snead, Tommy Armour, Tonney Penna, Vic Ghezzi, Frank Stranahan, Gary Player and others when they played with my dad, so I was able to observe and have some interaction with players of note.
Hence, I believe that my opinions are based on an abundance of information and first and second hand experience.
What's the elevation change from tee to bunker? How high in the back berm? What percentage of time does the hole play into the prevailing wind? What's the average velocity of the prevailing wind?
How can you pretend to speak on the 16th hole at GCGC if you don't know the answer to those questions ?
How can you make definitive statements regarding the 16th hole when you know so little about it and all of the factors that influence play of it ? ?
Might there be some conditions under which a 173 yard carry might have bee a challenge a century or a half century ago? Sure. Happy now? ;D
Get a cool damp breeze in your face and it'll be a challenge for you today, especially when there's a dire consequence associated with failure.
-
Michael,
Thanks, that's the crux of this thread.
Perhaps Southern Hills ignored Bryan Izatt's advice and counsel and decided that restoring the original intent of the bunker was more important. ;D
-
Saw this on the Southern Hills review and thought it was valid for this thread
Ninth hole, 375/360 yards; Knowing when to move a bunker built by a master architect from the Golden Age requires finesse. Few restorers are more artful than Foster. On this hole Maxwell’s lone fairway bunker had been rendered meaningless by advancements in technology. Since it wasn’t cut into a landform, Foster was free to push it back. He also edged it more into the fairway. Without doubt, Maxwell would have done the same if he was alive today. Thus, job well done by Foster.
Pretty high praise for the concept of taking a now obsolete bunker and restoring the original shot value created by the architect.
Mike
Good note Mike! I made a similar comment back on page 1 regarding Philadelphia Cricket and Foster moving the bunkers to restore shot values. It didnt drum up any meaningful conversation though. :-\
-
Patrick,
Was your dad challenged by the 173 yard carry at GCGC,or anywhere else, in 1949. I assume he was too young to have been playing in 1929 or certainly in 1899.
Sure, in cold heavy air and into a 30 mph wind, a 173 yard carry would be a challenge for me. If that's your parameters for 1899, 1929 or 1949, then sure it would be a challenge.
I can be convinced, when there is convincing proof. ;)
-
It seems to me an attempt to recreate the intent of the DZ (however that is being defined) would not be limited to simply moving the complex of bunkers in the middle and right side of the fairway. Doing that actually would create another problem. Moving them closer to the green would create a disconnect with the historical spatial relationship that complex has with the bunkers on the left side, the ones further down the fairway. In other words, doing nothing else besides moving the bunkers on the right further down the fairway would narrow the DZ considerably, creating a situation that is completely unharmonious with the original intent. An alternative, of course, would be to also move the three bunkers on the left further down the fairway, but then you have increased both the scope and cost of the work, and (as Brian Izatt has mentioned) have still left yourself in a situation whereby even though you have potentially regained the shot value(s) of the drive, there is nothing you can do to regain the original shot value(s) of the second shot. Pat has reinforced the fact that there is no more land available, and the green cannot be moved. That said, I am just not convinced that metaphor of a "half loaf" of bread that Pat has used is enough to justify any work, especially when Pat admits (in Reply 65) that even today, with the right weather conditions and the right pressure situation, these bunkers actually can challenge modern players.
Yet another alternative solution to this "so-called" problem would simply be to stop using modern equipment when you play courses with otherwise antiquated features such as being discussed. I suspect that if any of us picked up a set of hickory-shafted clubs and a haskell ball (or even a ball that predates these) and played GCGC we would have all the challenge we would need. And, moreover, this alternative eliminates any need to undertake unnecessary, and potentially disfiguring, alterations to what is effectively a living museum of golf course architectural history.
-
Patrick,
Was your dad challenged by the 173 yard carry at GCGC,or anywhere else, in 1949.
Yes.
You seem oblivious to how golf was played in earlier times, such as 1949 or 1929.
You seem to be equating how the game is played today with how it was played in 1949 and 1929.
Drives were not hit with howitzer like trajectories, especially on firm fairways, like they are today.
Often the trajectory of a drive was a low flighted draw/hook that would run forever.
And with a low flighted drive, carry distances were much shorter.
In addition, vertical hazards, like raised berms on the back of bunkers, created a greater hazard to those low flighted drives, versus today's howitzer like drives.
Wind also had a more pronounced effect on balls, including drives.
Ball flight off a driver would also be a low line drive trajectory that would rise sharply and then fall to the ground.
Few, if any had any inkling of "launch angles".
So the features you ridicule, even at a distance of 173 yards, posed a meaningful threat to the golfer on the tee.
I assume he was too young to have been playing in 1929 or certainly in 1899.
That's part of the problem you have, you make assumptions not grounded in facts.
In 1929 my father was an accomplished golfer
Sure, in cold heavy air and into a 30 mph wind, a 173 yard carry would be a challenge for me.
In a cold, heavy air wind of 30 mph, 140 yards would be a challenging carry for you.
And, I didn't say cold, I said cool, and I wasn't referencing 30 mph winds.
The typical winds that sweep GCGC are sufficient enough to add to the difficulty of the 173 yard carry
If that's your parameters for 1899, 1929 or 1949, then sure it would be a challenge.
You know that those are YOUR parameters, not mine
I can be convinced, when there is convincing proof. ;)
A man convinced against his will, is unconvinced still ;D
-
It seems to me an attempt to recreate the intent of the DZ (however that is being defined) would not be limited to simply moving the complex of bunkers in the middle and right side of the fairway. Doing that actually would create another problem. Moving them closer to the green would create a disconnect with the historical spatial relationship that complex has with the bunkers on the left side, the ones further down the fairway. In other words, doing nothing else besides moving the bunkers on the right further down the fairway would narrow the DZ considerably, creating a situation that is completely unharmonious with the original intent.
Steve, I'm not so sure of that in that the DZ is pretty generous.
In addition, the ball goes much straighter today.
The bunkers are also "offset", and that "offset" could be achieved further down the fairway.
I don't know that anyone is claiming that the identical function/configuration would be returned.
In geometric terms, I think you can achieve a similar, but not a congruent configuration
An alternative, of course, would be to also move the three bunkers on the left further down the fairway, but then you have increased both the scope and cost of the work,
I don't think that would be a major impediment.
Alternatively, you could just add bunkers on the left, while keeping the current bunkers
and (as Brian Izatt has mentioned) have still left yourself in a situation whereby even though you have potentially regained the shot value(s) of the drive, there is nothing you can do to regain the original shot value(s) of the second shot.
I stated that, early on.
I also reiterated that point when I stated that a half a loaf is better than none.
Pat has reinforced the fact that there is no more land available, and the green cannot be moved. That said, I am just not convinced that metaphor of a "half loaf" of bread that Pat has used is enough to justify any work, especially when Pat admits (in Reply 65) that even today, with the right weather conditions and the right pressure situation, these bunkers actually can challenge modern players.
There are two issues.
The concept or architectural/playability issue
Cost justification.
It's been my limited experience that if the concept is accepted, the money will be raised.
One only has to look at # 12 for proof.
Yet another alternative solution to this "so-called" problem would simply be to stop using modern equipment when you play courses with otherwise antiquated features such as being discussed.
That's not a practical or even a remote possibility at the local level.
Only a USGA sanctioned rollback would accomplish what you suggest.
I think the problem you and others may be having is that you're ignoring the concept and confining your thoughts to a hole I merely offered as an example
I suspect that if any of us picked up a set of hickory-shafted clubs and a haskell ball (or even a ball that predates these) and played GCGC we would have all the challenge we would need.
I think you're correct and will have Mike Policano and other hickory players play the course in the Spring.
I think that will be a neat experiment, not just on# 16, but other holes as well, even from the "member" tees.
And, moreover, this alternative eliminates any need to undertake unnecessary, and potentially disfiguring, alterations to what is effectively a living museum of golf course architectural history.
While I generally agree, it's not going to happen.
You won't convert/transition play from modern equipment to hickories.
But your point brings a viable alternative into play, an alternative that isn't greeted with open arms by many.
Lengthening at the tee end where possible.
On # 16, you're land locked, but that's not a universal, although many of the holes with carry bunkers have limited length available.
#'s 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17 have very limited room to extend the carries.
But again, the concept and discussion shouldn't be confined to a few holes at GCGC
-
Patrick,
I think of Garden City and Myopia Hunt as two really great early US championship courses. Which Architect was more forward thinking Travis or Leeds?
Travis- lots of fairway bunkers creating shot values.
Leeds- few fairway bunkers but punishing fescue borders.
Myopia Hunt Club is barely changed from it's inception, yet in Massachusetts Amateur Championships it plays very tough still today. Tougher then the Country Club by a couple of strokes. Yet, it has few fairway bunkers. It turns out that the high fescue rough bordering all the holes punish mishits whether they go 190 yards or 350 yards.
I'm not advocating any changes to Garden City. In fact If I were a member I would oppose major revisions to the historic course. I am suggesting that fairway bunkers might be overrated as providing good shot values over a long period of time. Myopia is a joy to play today without a all the white faces attempting to dictate corridors.
Just some food for thought.
Malcolm
-
Malcolm,
GCGC also has punishing fescue borders, but, the fairways are very generous.
There have been some changes to GCGC over the last 63 years, like the 5th and 14th holes and some added tee length, but, it essentially remains as it's been from its early years.
Emmett/Travis incorporated barriers to length, such as the cross bunkers found on a number of holes.
Some of those cross bunkers, such as on # 17 have lost some of their influence.
Others, like # 10 and # 15 have retained their influence.
Scores posted in an annual tournament which attracts superior amateur players, have been coming down over the years as I&B have improved.
Other than the convex bunkers ( a rare feature) there are no white faces as most bunkers are well below grade, with many, if not most, requiring ladders to access.
I think too many are caught up with the pedigree.
If the 16th hole being discussed was on Northampton CC, a ten year old course, I think the impetus to either relocate the bunker/s or introduce addtional bunkers, would be overwhelming.
-
the bunker be moved, or should the bunker be left intact with a new, similar bunker introduced in the DZ to replicate the intent of the original bunker ?
Does this thread apply to the Mac bunker at 10 ANGC?
-
the bunker be moved, or should the bunker be left intact with a new, similar bunker introduced in the DZ to replicate the intent of the original bunker ?
Does this thread apply to the Mac bunker at 10 ANGC?
Carl,
The "Mac bunker on 10 at ANGC" at one time serviced the 10th green, which was moved back considerably.
In addition, the hole, originally 430 from the Masters' tees is today about 500.
Relocating the green back to the mini-plateau made replicating that bunker near impossible as the natural terrain was more than sufficient as a defensive feature.
I don't think the bunker at # 10 served the same purpose, off the tee, that the bunker/s on # 16 serve/d
-
On the 17th hole at GCGC, the carry from the tee to clear the diagonal fairway bunker is 188 yards.
That bunker has an elevated berm.
That bunker is elevated above the tee, as is the entire fairway.
Into the prevailing wind, when it's slightly cool and moisture laden, that carry if 188 yards is not to be taken for granted.
On many occassions, while hitting a solid, albeit low drive, my ball has found that bunker, as have the balls of many other good golfers I've been playing with.
In 1899, 1929, 1949 that bunker had to have been an extremely challenging carry, forcing most golfers to aim to the narrow neck right of the bunker, which is the same dilema on # 16, except they aimed left of the bunker.
I think many overestimate their carry distances, especially when they hit low trajectory drives.
-
It seems to me an attempt to recreate the intent of the DZ (however that is being defined) would not be limited to simply moving the complex of bunkers in the middle and right side of the fairway. Doing that actually would create another problem. Moving them closer to the green would create a disconnect with the historical spatial relationship that complex has with the bunkers on the left side, the ones further down the fairway. In other words, doing nothing else besides moving the bunkers on the right further down the fairway would narrow the DZ considerably, creating a situation that is completely unharmonious with the original intent.
Steve, I'm not so sure of that in that the DZ is pretty generous.
In addition, the ball goes much straighter today.
The bunkers are also "offset", and that "offset" could be achieved further down the fairway.
I don't know that anyone is claiming that the identical function/configuration would be returned.
In geometric terms, I think you can achieve a similar, but not a congruent configuration
An alternative, of course, would be to also move the three bunkers on the left further down the fairway, but then you have increased both the scope and cost of the work,
I don't think that would be a major impediment.
Alternatively, you could just add bunkers on the left, while keeping the current bunkers
and (as Brian Izatt has mentioned) have still left yourself in a situation whereby even though you have potentially regained the shot value(s) of the drive, there is nothing you can do to regain the original shot value(s) of the second shot.
I stated that, early on.
I also reiterated that point when I stated that a half a loaf is better than none.
Pat has reinforced the fact that there is no more land available, and the green cannot be moved. That said, I am just not convinced that metaphor of a "half loaf" of bread that Pat has used is enough to justify any work, especially when Pat admits (in Reply 65) that even today, with the right weather conditions and the right pressure situation, these bunkers actually can challenge modern players.
There are two issues.
The concept or architectural/playability issue
Cost justification.
It's been my limited experience that if the concept is accepted, the money will be raised.
One only has to look at # 12 for proof.
Yet another alternative solution to this "so-called" problem would simply be to stop using modern equipment when you play courses with otherwise antiquated features such as being discussed.
That's not a practical or even a remote possibility at the local level. Quite the contrary. It is at the local level that this discussion is the most practical. It is no different that playing golf one day with an old-fashioned bullseye putter in your bag and playing with Scotty Cameron on the next day.
Only a USGA sanctioned rollback would accomplish what you suggest.Again, this is simply not the case. I was never suggesting large scale changes by the USGA; obviously they would never make such a decision. Rather, I was saying that this is a personal decision. I was saying that if YOU (or anyone else) felt that certain features of a given golf course were no longer relevant given the advancements in balls and clubs, then YOU could make the decision to play hickory clubs at that course. One does not need permission from the USGA to play hickories. And surely making the switch would allow a modern player to better experience the "original intent" of the driving zone (at this course other otherwise) without any alterations to the golf course itself.
I think the problem you and others may be having is that you're ignoring the concept and confining your thoughts to a hole I merely offered as an example
I suspect that if any of us picked up a set of hickory-shafted clubs and a haskell ball (or even a ball that predates these) and played GCGC we would have all the challenge we would need.
I think you're correct and will have Mike Policano and other hickory players play the course in the Spring.
I think that will be a neat experiment, not just on# 16, but other holes as well, even from the "member" tees.Then extending the "experiment" to everyday play, for those who chose to do so, would be very easy. Again, no action is necessary from the USGA, only the personal decision to play hickories.
And, moreover, this alternative eliminates any need to undertake unnecessary, and potentially disfiguring, alterations to what is effectively a living museum of golf course architectural history.
While I generally agree, it's not going to happen.
You won't convert/transition play from modern equipment to hickories.
But your point brings a viable alternative into play, an alternative that isn't greeted with open arms by many.
Lengthening at the tee end where possible.
On # 16, you're land locked, but that's not a universal, although many of the holes with carry bunkers have limited length available.
#'s 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17 have very limited room to extend the carries.
But again, the concept and discussion shouldn't be confined to a few holes at GCGC
-
On the 17th hole at GCGC, the carry from the tee to clear the diagonal fairway bunker is 188 yards.
That bunker has an elevated berm.
That bunker is elevated above the tee, as is the entire fairway.
Into the prevailing wind, when it's slightly cool and moisture laden, that carry if 188 yards is not to be taken for granted.
On many occassions, while hitting a solid, albeit low drive, my ball has found that bunker, as have the balls of many other good golfers I've been playing with.
In 1899, 1929, 1949 that bunker had to have been an extremely challenging carry, forcing most golfers to aim to the narrow neck right of the bunker, which is the same dilema on # 16, except they aimed left of the bunker.
I think many overestimate their carry distances, especially when they hit low trajectory drives.
Then what is the point of this thread? If you admit that these bunkers (on both 16 and 17 at GCGC, and surely many others at older golf courses) are not to be taken for granted, even today, then why would anyone entertain suggestions to move them? They are indeed relevant to the modern game. Yes?
-
Then what is the point of this thread?
If you admit that these bunkers (on both 16 and 17 at GCGC, and surely many others at older golf courses) are not to be taken for granted, even today, then why would anyone entertain suggestions to move them?
I didn't equate the bunker on # 17 with the bunker on # 16.
The bunker on # 17 is uphill, requires a longer carry and is directly into the prevailing wind.
My citing of the bunker on # 17 was to demonstrate to Bryan Izatt that carry distances in 1899, 1929 and 1949 brought those bunkers into play.
They are indeed relevant to the modern game. Yes?
Not on # 16.
And not to golfers whose ability dictates that they play from the back tees.
-
I think many overestimate their carry distances, especially when they hit low trajectory drives.
Pat-I think that is true for sure and many people are shocked when they see the data read outs on a launch monitor.
-
Patrick,
For your consideration:
From Golf Illustrated in 1929, a description of holes at Winged Foot for the US Open and the clubs players were expected to hit. I draw your attention to the par 3's that are all at or beyond your GCGC 173 yard carry.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1929WingedFootLayout.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1929WingedFootholedescriptionspart1.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1929WingedFootholedescriptionspart2.jpg~original)
______________________________________
Also from the same edition, a separate article about "Our New Golf Ball". It uses drives of 240 to 250 yards as a reference point in pointing out how much distance will be lost with the new larger ball to be introduced in 1931. Seems like there were concerns about carry distances and hazards, even in 1929. The USGA discussion took place at Pine Valley, so here also is a picture of PV included with the article.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1929GIsarticleongolfballpart1.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1929GIsarticleongolfballpart2.jpg~original)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1929GIsarticleongolfballPineValleypicture.jpg~original)
_________________________________________
I was curious if you thought that carry distances were relatively similar in 1899, 1929 and 1949?
__________________________________________
Lastly, vis-a-vis the prevailing wind at GCGC, here are multiyear wind roses for LaGuardia, JFK and Farmingdale/Republic that more or less surround GCGC and are each about 10 miles away. These ones are from July. The other summer months are similar. If you want the wind at your back on that hole you should try April or October. The hole plays ESE. As you can see the wind doesn't come directly from that direction very often in the summer months. Most often, maybe 50% of the time, it will be across from right to left and either a bit into or a bit behind on that tee. It seems to be helping blow the ball back in bounds and away from the rough.
(http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/onsite/windrose/climate/monthly/07/JFK_jul.png)
(http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/onsite/windrose/climate/monthly/07/FRG_jul.png)
(http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/onsite/windrose/climate/monthly/07/LGA_jul.png)
-
Patrick,
For your consideration:
From Golf Illustrated in 1929, a description of holes at Winged Foot for the US Open and the clubs players were expected to hit. I draw your attention to the par 3's that are all at or beyond your GCGC 173 yard carry.
Bryan,
Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough.
Did you notice the words "U.S.Open"
There's no U.S. Open at GCGC
We're talking about amateurs, members and guests.
Thus your reference to WF is totally irrelevant.
If you were familiar with WFW, which you're not, you would know that Billy Casper, in winning the Open in 1959, played short of # 3 in every round. In addition both # 3, # 7 and # 13 have openings allowing for run in shots and that # 10 tee is elevated well above the green thus making it play far shorter. Once again your ignorance leads you to draw flawed conclusions.
As to the second article, you disingenuously equate overall distance with carry distance.
And that's not the first time you've tried that tactic.
As to the wind charts they confirm what I said.
A cross wind in your face takes distance off the ball.
As to pushing your ball away from out of bounds, wouldn't that mean that the wind would push your ball into the deep bunkers and tall rough left, causing you to aim further right, over the bunker requiring the longer carry.
Of course you wouldn't know any of this because you've never seen the hole, let alone played it.
Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't provide you with insight regarding the play of a hole, especially # 16.
I'd suggest that you stick to holes that you've actually played when offering advice regarding how they play
P.S. I've only been playing WFW for about 60 years.
-
Glad you enjoyed the articles and found them informative. ;D
I must say that when I read the "new ball" article an image came to mind of Mr Patrick Mucci Sr leading the charge to move bunkers closer to the tee to deal with the lost yardage associated with the larger, lighter ball.
I was curious if you thought that carry distances were relatively similar in 1899, 1929 and 1949?
I did notice that you didn't answer this question. I did a little more research (I know you don't like to do that) and it turns out that at amateur tournaments/outings in 1899 it was common to have driving competitions. For the men, a sampling of winning distances were 185, 142, 104, 172, and 207 yards. For women, the distances were 100, 144, 90, 124, 142, and 145 yards. Of course these were probably before dimpled Haskell balls. Seems way shorter than 1929. If the hole at GCGC was built at 405 yards (or 466 yards as you previously reported) before 1899 then it must have been an impossible par 4 to reach.
-
quote author=Bryan Izatt link=topic=57012.msg1330909#msg1330909 date=1383109058]
Glad you enjoyed the articles and found them informative. ;D
I must say that when I read the "new ball" article an image came to mind of Mr Patrick Mucci Sr leading the charge to move bunkers closer to the tee to deal with the lost yardage associated with the larger, lighter ball.
Patrick Mucci Sr played in U.S. Opens and U.S. Amateurs, so there's no need for you to worry your little head about his ability to play golf.
He was very accomplished.
I was curious if you thought that carry distances were relatively similar in 1899, 1929 and 1949?
No, I don't think they were.
I did notice that you didn't answer this question.
Which question ?
I did a little more research (I know you don't like to do that) and it turns out that at amateur tournaments/outings in 1899 it was common to have driving competitions.
For the men, a sampling of winning distances were 185, 142, 104, 172, and 207 yards.
So, should we judge the play of holes, today, based upon the distances that the ReMax long drive contestants hit the ball.
You continue to introduce inance, irrelevant and moronic issues, having no bearing on the topic at hand.
By the way, who played in these amateur tournaments ? The best amateurs in the area ???
Again, are you suggesting that we judge how a hole plays based upon the drives of the best players, in a driving contest, completely ignoring the members who play the hole/course every day.
Remind me again, how many times have you played # 16 ?
For women, the distances were 100, 144, 90, 124, 142, and 145 yards.
Of course these were probably before dimpled Haskell balls. Seems way shorter than 1929.
If the hole at GCGC was built at 405 yards (or 466 yards as you previously reported) before 1899 then it must have been an impossible par 4 to reach.
Before 1899 there was no 18 hole golf course
I don't know why you don't know that the last 80 yards or so are downhill
Another point of note.
Driving contests are irrelevant, since there's no consequence for failure.
No need for precision and the contestants usually had several opportunities to hit a drive.
You're probably not aware of this, but, when playing golf, you don't get to hit 5 drives per hole and pick your best one.
You can research that too
-
Patrrick,
Some time ago you made the statement,
A carry of 173 in 1899, 1929 or 1949 was still substantial, especially considering the prevailing wind.
Now you say,
Before 1899 there was no 18 hole golf course
Was there an 18 hole course in 1899?
Did the 16th hole exist at 405 yards in 1899?
Why did you raise 1899 in the first place?
I have provided some information about driving distances in 1929 and 1899. I thought they were interesting. Why are you getting so exercised about this?
I am now of the opinion that a carry of 173 yards would have been very difficult in 1899, but not so difficult in 1929 and not difficult at all in 1949. You raised those years in relation to a carry of 173 yards. You apparently think differently. So be it.
By the way, the Haskell ball article I posted laments that "an amateur" made a 340 yard hole in one on TOC in 1920. I know it's only one instance, but it demonstrates that some people on some occasions could drive the early Haskell ball quite far.
All of this has nothing to do with the 16th at GCGC and whether I've played it or not.
-
Patrrick,
Some time ago you made the statement,
Quote
A carry of 173 in 1899, 1929 or 1949 was still substantial, especially considering the prevailing wind.
Now you say,
Quote
Before 1899 there was no 18 hole golf course
Was there an 18 hole course in 1899?
Yes, but there was no 18 hole golf course before 1899.
In your post above, you stated that the hole was built before 1899 and I was just correcting you.
Did the 16th hole exist at 405 yards in 1899?
There's some conflict regarding the length of the hole in 1899, so, I can't say, definitively
Why did you raise 1899 in the first place?
Because that's the year the 18 hole course opened, so it seemed like a good starting point.
I have provided some information about driving distances in 1929 and 1899. I thought they were interesting.
Why are you getting so exercised about this?
I'm not getting exercised in the least, except that your citing of those driving distances is disingenuous in the context of the play of the 16th hole by members/guests. You cite the driving distances of the best players in the country and then present that as if that's typical of those playing the hole. In addition, you presented total driving distances as if they were carry distances, and that too is disingenuous.
I am now of the opinion that a carry of 173 yards would have been very difficult in 1899, but not so difficult in 1929 and not difficult at all in 1949. You raised those years in relation to a carry of 173 yards. You apparently think differently. So be it.
I do feel differently.
And, I offered how a carry of 188 yards, just 15 yards further, isn't always easy to make, today.
By the way, the Haskell ball article I posted laments that "an amateur" made a 340 yard hole in one on TOC in 1920. I know it's only one instance, but it demonstrates that some people on some occasions could drive the early Haskell ball quite far.
How many times must I repeat, the issue isn't total distance, but carry distance.
Watch "Tin Cup" and you'll see a guy drive the ball 800 yards
All of this has nothing to do with the 16th at GCGC and whether I've played it or not.
Of course it does.
You rendered an opinion regarding the carry on the 16th, yet, you've never set foot on the property.
You've never seen the visual that the multiple features send to the golfer's eye.
You've never felt the breeze in your face.
You never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory, so how credible can your opinion be absent any first hand experience on playing the hole ?
I did like the wind info at JFK, LaGuardia and Republic, although, JFK is on the south shore, LaGuardia on the North shore and Republic a little further east.
-
I rendered an opinion on a carry of 173 yards in 1899, 1929, and 1949 - years of your suggestion.
I provided information that the winds in the summer at GCGC are often, but not the majority time, crossing or slightly into you on that hole.
I provided information from 1899 and 1929 about driving distances. Have you provided any information or facts? Here's one more piece of information about carry distance in 1920 from American Golfer.
"Modern women players of the
front rank have devoted a great deal
of their attention to the art of long
driving. They have been granted
plenty of facilities for playing on
men‘s courses and so they have had
to strive for length.
"They have been remarkably suc-
cessful in securing) it. I would esti-
rnate " says the Daily Mail corre-
spondent, "that, on an average, Miss
Leitch drove at least 210 yards at
Mid-Surrey, and the distance was
nearly all carry. There were definite
proofs of the length of her shots at
several holes. At the sixteenth, of
220 yards, for instance, she drove on
to the green and obtained a 3. And
she is by no means the only long
driver—or even the longest—among
women players.
How exactly would feeling the breeze in my face (which wouldn't be all that often directly in my face) affect how far a ball would carry in 1899, 1929 or 1949?
How exactly would personally seeing "the visual that the multiple features send to the golfer's eye" affect how far a ball would carry in 1899, 1929 or 1949?
How do you know that I "never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory"?
How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1899 using the balls and equipment of that era?
How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1929 using the balls and equipment of that era?
How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1849 using the balls and equipment of that era? How old were you in 1949?
How exactly would playing the hole today inform me about how the hole played in 1899, 1929, or 1949 with the balls, equipment and techniques of the day?
-
" I think many overestimate their carry distances, especially when they hit low trajectory drives. "
Pat, no joke. Having the aerial photos and accurate as built maps of courses I designed, I then watch where balls land, and I would guess that players overestimate how far they hit it throughout all play levels.
At the top, I once stacked my team for a charity event with players from my son's college golf team. One said he hit it 345. However, he was short of the shortest par 4, and on a 420 hole (just two examples) by more than 120 yards. Even with the small dogleg, his tee shot measured out to 290. I can only guess that, like all of us, he remembers his one 345 tee shot.....
Just recently, I am building a 327 yard "driveable" par 4 from the back tees. The pro shop guys all said they drive 320, but came up well short of the green, even with the hole playing downhill nearly 100 feet, which should shorten it by 30 yards effectively.
The overestimation of the 225 hitters is - wait for it......legendary.
-
I rendered an opinion on a carry of 173 yards in 1899, 1929, and 1949 - years of your suggestion.
Your opinion is not quite worthless, whereas the years are a reasonable collection.
I provided information that the winds in the summer at GCGC are often, but not the majority time, crossing or slightly into you on that hole.
You cited the winds for two weeks in July on one site and 4 weeks of July on the other two sites.
Hardly the extent of the golfing season at GCGC.
The question would be, did you limit your citation to those times most favorable to your argument ?
I would tend to think so.
I provided information from 1899 and 1929 about driving distances.
No you didn't.
You only cited extremely limited information regarding two events, where the competitors were the best golfers in the country or at the event.
Have you provided any information or facts?
Yes.
I've played the hole HUNDREDS of times, at all times of year and under all conditions.
And, I've provided facts based upon those plays
Remind us again, how many times have you played the hole.
Here's one more piece of information about carry distance in 1920 from American Golfer.
"Modern women players of the
front rank have devoted a great deal
of their attention to the art of long
driving. They have been granted
plenty of facilities for playing on
men‘s courses and so they have had
to strive for length.
"They have been remarkably suc-
cessful in securing) it. I would esti-
rnate " says the Daily Mail corre-
spondent, "that, on an average, Miss
Leitch drove at least 210 yards at
Mid-Surrey, and the distance was
nearly all carry. There were definite
proofs of the length of her shots at
several holes. At the sixteenth, of
220 yards, for instance, she drove on
to the green and obtained a 3. And
she is by no means the only long
driver—or even the longest—among
women players.
Once again, you deliberately confuse overall distance with carry distance.
And, you completely ignore the fact that automated irrigation systems hadn't even been thought of.
Driving, even in the 50's and 60's was often akin to hitting it down a runway on an airport.
How exactly would feeling the breeze in my face (which wouldn't be all that often directly in my face) affect how far a ball would carry in 1899, 1929 or 1949?
SIGNIFICANTLY
How exactly would personally seeing "the visual that the multiple features send to the golfer's eye" affect how far a ball would carry in 1899, 1929 or 1949?
You can't be that obtuse, can you ?
How do you know that I "never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory"?
I know that you haven't done it at GCGC.
And, I'm willing to wager that you don't have the talent to do so on command, when faced with obstacles that call for carry or roll.
How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1899 using the balls and equipment of that era?
The same as you
How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1929 using the balls and equipment of that era?
I didn't, but, my dad was a very good player in 1929 and based on conversations with him, I think I have a much better understanding of golf, and the play of the game, in that era and every era since then.
What's your experience ?
How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1849 using the balls and equipment of that era?
Unfortunately NOBODY played the hole and attempted to carry it in 1849 as that was 50 years BEFORE it was built
How old were you in 1949?
7
How old were you ?
How exactly would playing the hole today inform me about how the hole played in 1899, 1929, or 1949 with the balls, equipment and techniques of the day?
I guess you are that obtuse.
Have you ever heard of the term, "interpolation" ?
-
...............................
I provided information from 1899 and 1929 about driving distances.
No you didn't.
You only cited extremely limited information regarding two events, where the competitors were the best golfers in the country or at the event.
Wrong again. There were multiple events in 1899, all small club level amateur events with small local fields and winning scores in the mid 80's.
................................
Here's one more piece of information about carry distance in 1920 from American Golfer.
"Modern women players of the
front rank have devoted a great deal
of their attention to the art of long
driving. They have been granted
plenty of facilities for playing on
men‘s courses and so they have had
to strive for length.
"They have been remarkably suc-
cessful in securing) it. I would esti-
rnate " says the Daily Mail corre-
spondent, "that, on an average, Miss
Leitch drove at least 210 yards at
Mid-Surrey, and the distance was
nearly all carry. There were definite
proofs of the length of her shots at
several holes. At the sixteenth, of
220 yards, for instance, she drove on
to the green and obtained a 3. And
she is by no means the only long
driver—or even the longest—among
women players.
Once again, you deliberately confuse overall distance with carry distance.
Really? I have highlighted the part about carry distance in the quote above. I know your eyes are bad, but I hope you can see it now.
And, you completely ignore the fact that automated irrigation systems hadn't even been thought of.
Driving, even in the 50's and 60's was often akin to hitting it down a runway on an airport.
Who knew that it rarely rained on Long Island in the 50's and 60's?! I suppose you can interpolate that "fact" to 1899, 1929 and 1949.
.....................................................
How do you know that I "never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory"?
I know that you haven't done it at GCGC.
And, I'm willing to wager that you don't have the talent to do so on command, when faced with obstacles that call for carry or roll.
Well, you'd lose.
How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1899 using the balls and equipment of that era?
The same as you
That is - never.
.........................................................
How old were you in 1949?
7
How old were you ?
Just fact checking to be sure you really hadn't been playing the course in 1899, 1929 or 1949. Slightly younger than you. So ,we can agree that neither of us played the course in the years you quoted and so can't comment on how it played in those years. We can both have opinions on carry distances in those years.
How exactly would playing the hole today inform me about how the hole played in 1899, 1929, or 1949 with the balls, equipment and techniques of the day?
I guess you are that obtuse.
Have you ever heard of the term, "interpolation" ?
Why, yes I have. But, clearly you don't know what it means. Perhaps you meant extrapolation, but then I doubt you did either in the mathematical sense. Here for your edification is a brief definition of both.
"Extrapolation is an estimation of a value based on extending a known sequence of values or facts beyond the area that is certainly known.
Interpolation is an estimation of a value within two known values in a sequence of values."
Happy interpolation. ;D
-
Ooops, I forgot to add, yes the wind charts were from July. May through September were very similar. April and October and the winter have helping winds. Go check it out, it's not hard to find. But then you wouldn't want to confuse yourself with facts.
-
Ooops, I forgot to add, yes the wind charts were from July. May through September were very similar. April and October and the winter have helping winds. Go check it out, it's not hard to find.
But then you wouldn't want to confuse yourself with facts.
The "facts" are how the wind blows on the 16th hole at GCGC, not on the South shore at JFK or on the North shore at LGA,
Have you ever played the 16th ?
Have you ever stood on the 16th tee and noticed how the wind will affect your drive ?
You did say that you were interested in the facts, didn't you ?
Now, I've only played the 16th hole a few hundred times in all kinds of conditions,
what "facts" do you have to support your position on the play of the 16th hole ?
-
You seem to have missed the point yet again. I'm dealing with the difficulty of a 173 yard carry in general for your selection of years. For that you have no facts and I provided some anecdotal contemporaneous information. And, I was dealing with your claims about the wind at GCGC. For that I provided you with the facts on wind directions for Farmingdale/Republic as well as JFK and La Guardia, all within 10 miles of GCGC and Farmingdale is even inland like GCGC.
Time to move on. Thanks for the incentive to do a little research on driving distances back in the day before either of us were born. ;D
-
...............................
I provided information from 1899 and 1929 about driving distances.
No you didn't.
You only cited extremely limited information regarding two events, where the competitors were the best golfers in the country or at the event.
Wrong again. There were multiple events in 1899, all small club level amateur events with small local fields and winning scores in the mid 80's.
They were long driving events where the contestants were amongst the best players of the day, and not reprsentative of the membership.
You citation is disingenuous, in form and substance.
................................
Here's one more piece of information about carry distance in 1920 from American Golfer.
"Modern women players of the
front rank have devoted a great deal
of their attention to the art of long
driving. They have been granted
plenty of facilities for playing on
men‘s courses and so they have had
to strive for length.
"They have been remarkably suc-
cessful in securing) it. I would esti-
rnate " says the Daily Mail corre-
spondent, "that, on an average, Miss
Leitch drove at least 210 yards at
Mid-Surrey, and the distance was
nearly all carry.
So here we're supposed to believe that there was little if any roll to
the drive of 210.
Like most articles, one has to doubt the veracity/accuracy.
Probably a 40 mph wind at her back as well.
A 210 carry in 1920 by a women is preposterous, but makes for good press
And you consider this reliable information ?
There were definite
proofs of the length of her shots at
several holes. At the sixteenth, of
220 yards, for instance, she drove on
to the green and obtained a 3. And
she is by no means the only long
driver—or even the longest—among
women players.
Once again, you deliberately confuse overall distance with carry distance.
Really? I have highlighted the part about carry distance in the quote above. I know your eyes are bad, but I hope you can see it now.
It's sheer fantasy, but, I can see why you'd post it.
And, you completely ignore the fact that automated irrigation systems hadn't even been thought of.
Driving, even in the 50's and 60's was often akin to hitting it down a runway on an airport.
Who knew that it rarely rained on Long Island in the 50's and 60's?! I suppose you can interpolate that "fact" to 1899, 1929 and 1949.
Since you cited the winds in July on sections of Long Island you shouldn't have any problem ascertaining what the typical rainfall in July is.
Not much is it
.....................................................
How do you know that I "never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory"?
I know that you haven't done it at GCGC.
And, I'm willing to wager that you don't have the talent to do so on command, when faced with obstacles that call for carry or roll.
Well, you'd lose.
What would you like to wager ?
How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1899 using the balls and equipment of that era?
The same as you
That is - never.
.........................................................
How old were you in 1949?
7
How old were you ?
Just fact checking to be sure you really hadn't been playing the course in 1899, 1929 or 1949. Slightly younger than you. So ,we can agree that neither of us played the course in the years you quoted and so can't comment on how it played in those years. We can both have opinions on carry distances in those years.
Except that I have the experience of accompanying my dad when he played in major tournaments and I have the benefit of listening to the many conversations, in and out of household that took place, and I can assure you that my understanding of how golf was played in 1949 far exceeds yours.
How old were you in 1949 ? I see that you avoided answering that question when previously asked.
How exactly would playing the hole today inform me about how the hole played in 1899, 1929, or 1949 with the balls, equipment and techniques of the day?
I guess you are that obtuse.
Have you ever heard of the term, "interpolation" ?
Why, yes I have. But, clearly you don't know what it means. Perhaps you meant extrapolation, but then I doubt you did either in the mathematical sense. Here for your edification is a brief definition of both.
"Extrapolation is an estimation of a value based on extending a known sequence of values or facts beyond the area that is certainly known.
Interpolation is an estimation of a value within two known values in a sequence of values."
Happy interpolation. ;D
Once again you conveniently omit the other definitions.
Why doesn't that surprise me ?
-
You seem to have missed the point yet again. I'm dealing with the difficulty of a 173 yard carry in general for your selection of years. For that you have no facts and I provided some anecdotal contemporaneous information.
And, I was dealing with your claims about the wind at GCGC. For that I provided you with the facts on wind directions for Farmingdale/Republic as well as JFK and La Guardia, all within 10 miles of GCGC and Farmingdale is even inland like GCGC.
Your wind charts are accurate in terms of the wind direction for two to four weeks in July at JFK, LGA and FRG, but, not at GCGC.
I've played the 16th at GCGC over 100 times and have a good sense of how the wind affects my drives on the hole.
How many times have you played the hole ?
What's the basis for your opinion on how the drive is impacted by wind, humidity, temperature, etc., etc.. ?
The Travis is held in May.
I've played in the Travis when it was 38 and raining.
Do you think your 1920 "women" could clear that 173 yard bunker under those conditions.
Sunny and warm conditions ?
Time to move on. Thanks for the incentive to do a little research on driving distances back in the day before either of us were born. ;D
So you were born after 1949.
That would help to explain your lack of familiarity with how golf was played in the 40's and 50's. ;D
-
Having trouble moving on are you? Keep on disbelieving. ;D
The wind roses are inaccurate and not relevant 10 miles away. Uh-huh.
The carry distance wasn't as the magazine stated. Uh-huh.
The 1899 driving competitions were amongst the best players of the day playing in local club competitions. Uh huh.
There's another definition of interpolation that's relevant Uh-huh.
I was born after 1949. Uh-huh.
__________________________
Will I be as surly a curmudgeon as you when I pass 70? No wait, you were a surly curmudgeon when you were my age. I should be safe. ;D :o
To quote that famous GCA Shakespearean Expert: "Brutus doth protest too much." Who knew you were talking about yourself. ;D
-
The wind roses are inaccurate and not relevant 10 miles away. Uh-huh.
No, not really, especially when you consider that two sites are directly on the water.
My experience on # 16 is based upon well over 100 plays of the hole, what's yours ?
The prevailing wind/s at GCGC have the 1st and 3rd hole playing downwind and the 2nd hole playing into the wind.
That means that the 16th hole often plays into about the same wind as # 2.
That means that the carry is into the wind.
The carry distance wasn't as the magazine stated. Uh-huh.
The magazine NEVER stated that.
You need to read more carefully.
What the magazine stated was that the correspondent "ESTIMATED" the driving distance he observed, never having actually measured it.
And, the notion that there was no roll on the ball just adds more doubt as to the accuracy of the "correspondent's estimate.
Consistent 200+ yard carries by a woman in 1920 is beyond believable.
Tell us, in 1920 and 1929, before the advent of "Iron Byron" how did they measure drives with any degree of consistency ?
The 1899 driving competitions were amongst the best players of the day playing in local club competitions. Uh huh.
Is it now your contention that the driving contests were held between the worst players ?
There's another definition of interpolation that's relevant Uh-huh.
Since you're such a great researcher that should be an easy one for you to look up.
I was born after 1949. Uh-huh.
__________________________
Will I be as surly a curmudgeon as you when I pass 70? No wait, you were a surly curmudgeon when you were my age. I should be safe. ;D :o
First, you should hope that you make it past 70.
Secondly, curmudgeonliness keeps the blood flowing, it's envigorating and should be encouraged as you age.
To quote that famous GCA Shakespearean Expert: "Brutus doth protest too much." Who knew you were talking about yourself. ;D
Well, when someone asks me, "who are you going to believe, your own eyes or what I tell you happened ?"
I'm sure you know the answer where I'm concerned. ;D
Kinda like the view of Pine Valley from the railroad tracks. ;D