Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Charlie Goerges on April 25, 2023, 01:19:22 PM
-
My favorite (and probably the most famous) anachronistic feature is the fairway bunker on the 10th hole at Augusta National (i.e. it was a green-side bunker for a green which no longer exists and isn't really properly located as a fairway hazard nowadays).
I'm curious about a few things.
What do people think about anachronistic features? (i.e. should they be kept or removed? Do you like them?)
What are some more examples of anachronistic features?
Are there features that seem anachronistic but actually aren't? (Or that have transformed back because of increases in distance etc.)
Do architects ever purposely put in anachronistic-seeming features? (Should they?)
-
My favorite (and probably the most famous) anachronistic feature is the fairway bunker on the 10th hole at Augusta National (i.e. it was a green-side bunker for a green which no longer exists and isn't really properly located as a fairway hazard nowadays).
I'm curious about a few things.
What do people think about anachronistic features? (i.e. should they be kept or removed? Do you like them?)
What are some more examples of anachronistic features?
Are there features that seem anachronistic but actually aren't? (Or that have transformed back because of increases in distance etc.)
Do architects ever purposely put in anachronistic-seeming features? (Should they?)
Charlie,
I understand it really isn’t the purpose of your thread, but do we know that the bunker on Augusta #10 doesn’t come into play for members?
Aside from that, I wouldn’t be opposed to an occasional example of something that doesn’t really impact play but does enhance a hole’s appearance. It just shouldn’t be overdone.
-
I understand it really isn’t the purpose of your thread, but do we know that the bunker on Augusta #10 doesn’t come into play for members?
I guarantee that there are members (and probably even some pros) in there on a regular basis. So it's not really the frequency of use that makes it anachronistic, but rather the purpose, though both can be true at once.
You made me think about whether something can be anachronistic if no real changes have been made. The only thing that comes to mind is the top-shot bunker. Most of these have probably been filled in. But if you think about the Victorian mentality that spawned that type of bunker, it's so out of fashion that even unchanged examples on unchanged holes might still be anachronistic in a sense. By the same token, one could say that aiming bunkers could one day be considered an anachronism as well, but again, only in a sense as a feature outside its proper time.
In most cases, such features must be the result of a redesign.
-
Charlie,
Not to be flippant, but it seems in the context of the distance debate, that nearly every course that hasn't been built or updated in the last 10-15 years probably has several Anachronistic bunkers that aren't in play in relation to the pro game. And I think we're far enough removed from the 80s and 90s to be designated as such... ;)
P.S. One feature I would like to see return thou, even thou it may be unpopular, is some form of and limited usage of cops. It seems Tom kinda tried to reintroduce it with the partial stone/brick walls at The Renaissance Club
-
The lump in the rough next to the punchbowl at chicago golf is one of my favs.
-
Whistling Straits opened for play with dozens, if not hundreds of out of play bunkers.
-
Wouldn’t call it a favorite, but #14, Lido, at Sharp Park (https://golfcourse.wiki/course/sharp_park_golf_course-pacifica/holes/14) has a bunker that’s out of play for anyone who doesn’t get themselves into serious trouble somewhere along the way.
I see anachronistic bunkers as serving a few purposes not initially obvious. First for reverse routings, second, as disguised drainage.
-
I think leaving the bunker on Augusta’s 10th is a reasonable homage to the original design and iconic in shape. From a pure architectural perspective, I think it’s a bad bunker. I suspect it does come into play for higher handicap members. But is penalizing a 15 handicapper by placing a bunker 70 yards short of a long par 4 good architecture? Not to me.
-
Almost everything at NB and Kilspindie is anachronistic; therefore, I endorse and embrace the features.
Ira
-
Whistling Straits opened for play with dozens, if not hundreds of out of play bunkers.
But wasn’t it clear that was all about aesthetics?
-
Speaking of bunkers. And purpose. For example, bunkers may never come into play, realistically, for players at any level, in the sense that they affect strategy, but they may serve other purposes. Drainage has been suggested. But what about framing a hole, that is, adding definition to the fairway, or for use as a target. How about just plain old aesthetics, as just mentioned.
-
Although there aren’t that many left the top shot bunker seems anachronistic. Big headed drivers and long tees have most people hitting up on the ball regardless of accuracy. That’s not to say that the topped tee shot is completely a thing of the past but not nearly as common as it once was. Finally I occasionally see them reinstalled in a restoration but they are rarely a feature on a new design.
-
I understand it really isn’t the purpose of your thread, but do we know that the bunker on Augusta #10 doesn’t come into play for members?
I guarantee that there are members (and probably even some pros) in there on a regular basis. So it's not really the frequency of use that makes it anachronistic, but rather the purpose, though both can be true at once.
You made me think about whether something can be anachronistic if no real changes have been made. The only thing that comes to mind is the top-shot bunker. Most of these have probably been filled in. But if you think about the Victorian mentality that spawned that type of bunker, it's so out of fashion that even unchanged examples on unchanged holes might still be anachronistic in a sense. By the same token, one could say that aiming bunkers could one day be considered an anachronism as well, but again, only in a sense as a feature outside its proper time.
I have hit it in the bunker on the 10th at Augusta [with a topped second shot off a downhill lie], one time in three rounds. So it certainly can be done. I also remember Tom Weiskopf telling me he once drove into that bunker when the course was running fast!
But, it's really not there for playing purposes. It's there because MacKenzie built it, and there has never been any particular reason to take it out. The club can afford to maintain it as an homage to the original design.
Personally, when I did restorations, I didn't like removing [or moving] any bunker that had survived intact from the original design. If they had a purpose once, they still do today, for a different class of player who hits the ball 150 or 210 or 230 yards or whatever. I just don't agree with the idea that bunkers should be placed "for good players" and defining that as certain lengths from the tee.
Wasn't it John Low who said a bunker is fair wherever it is placed? You can't get more old school than John Low.
-
It's all fair in golf, but that doesn't make it good. However, I agree, don't remove surviving original bunkers on old courses unless there is an infrastructure issue etc
Ciao
-
I think leaving the bunker on Augusta’s 10th is a reasonable homage to the original design and iconic in shape. From a pure architectural perspective, I think it’s a bad bunker. I suspect it does come into play for higher handicap members. But is penalizing a 15 handicapper by placing a bunker 70 yards short of a long par 4 good architecture? Not to me.
Jim,
Really good post with lots to think about.
FYI, a while back I started a thread about “how does a 15 handicap play #15 at Augusta”. The thread produced a diversity of responses. Some people felt it was not a tough hole for the 15 handicap. They argued it was just a simple three shot hole.
My view was it wasn’t so easy for even players better than 15 handicap because of the downhill slope 80-100 yards before the water.
Anyway, since you mentioned it, perhaps it is worth discussing how a 15 handicap would play #10. I can imagine two scenarios. In the first, the player hits his drive 210-220 yards but off line either right or left into trees. In that case, the choice seems pretty simple: the player has to punch out and hopefully with a long enough shot to make reaching the green in three shots realistic.
But what if our 15 handicap player hits a pretty good drive of, say, 230-240 yards but in the fairway with a clear shot? Wouldn’t the iconic bunker pose an interesting challenge? Would such a player be confident he can clear the bunker? Would he not have to seriously consider laying up and, if so, is that not good architecture?
My guess is that it would be fun to watch ten 15 handicap players play the hole.
-
This certainly is anachronistic, and I love it, but it can only be used sparingly.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q186/tomwilliamsen/pic2.jpeg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q186/tomwilliamsen/pic2.jpeg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)[/color]
-
I just don't agree with the idea that bunkers should be placed "for good players" and defining that as certain lengths from the tee.
Agreed. And conversely, neither do you need half a dozen tees just so the bunker comes into play for everyone. A particular hazard needn't play the same way for every standard of player.
Niall
-
I understand it really isn’t the purpose of your thread, but do we know that the bunker on Augusta #10 doesn’t come into play for members?
I guarantee that there are members (and probably even some pros) in there on a regular basis. So it's not really the frequency of use that makes it anachronistic, but rather the purpose, though both can be true at once.
You made me think about whether something can be anachronistic if no real changes have been made. The only thing that comes to mind is the top-shot bunker. Most of these have probably been filled in. But if you think about the Victorian mentality that spawned that type of bunker, it's so out of fashion that even unchanged examples on unchanged holes might still be anachronistic in a sense. By the same token, one could say that aiming bunkers could one day be considered an anachronism as well, but again, only in a sense as a feature outside its proper time.
I have hit it in the bunker on the 10th at Augusta [with a topped second shot off a downhill lie], one time in three rounds. So it certainly can be done. I also remember Tom Weiskopf telling me he once drove into that bunker when the course was running fast!
But, it's really not there for playing purposes. It's there because MacKenzie built it, and there has never been any particular reason to take it out. The club can afford to maintain it as an homage to the original design.
Personally, when I did restorations, I didn't like removing [or moving] any bunker that had survived intact from the original design. If they had a purpose once, they still do today, for a different class of player who hits the ball 150 or 210 or 230 yards or whatever. I just don't agree with the idea that bunkers should be placed "for good players" and defining that as certain lengths from the tee.
Wasn't it John Low who said a bunker is fair wherever it is placed? You can't get more old school than John Low.
Low wrote that no bunker was unfair, so long as the golfer could see it.
-
Although there aren’t that many left the top shot bunker seems anachronistic. Big headed drivers and long tees have most people hitting up on the ball regardless of accuracy. That’s not to say that the topped tee shot is completely a thing of the past but not nearly as common as it once was. Finally I occasionally see them reinstalled in a restoration but they are rarely a feature on a new design.
What might be a top-shot bunker for one player might be a hell of a carry for another !
Niall
-
I think leaving the bunker on Augusta’s 10th is a reasonable homage to the original design and iconic in shape. From a pure architectural perspective, I think it’s a bad bunker. I suspect it does come into play for higher handicap members. But is penalizing a 15 handicapper by placing a bunker 70 yards short of a long par 4 good architecture? Not to me.
Jim
Why is it bad architecture ? I've never been there but from what I've seen on TV it doesn't present an insurmountable challenge even for mid to high handicappers. From what I can see there is enough scope to avoid it and even if you end up in it, getting out doesn't seem impossible. Challenging yes, but not impossible. But also think of the enjoyment and satisfaction you would rob the mid to high handicapper in managing to successfully negotiate their way round it or successfully play a recovery shot from it.
The other thing I like about it, and this may be just my perception rather than the reality, is the optical illusion it presents for anyone who has the bunker between them and the green. In other words it foreshortens the distance. You might know the yardage but if your eyes are telling you something else then it is having an impact even if you aren't in it or likely to go in it.
Niall
-
P.S. One feature I would like to see return thou, even thou it may be unpopular, is some form of and limited usage of cops. It seems Tom kinda tried to reintroduce it with the partial stone/brick walls at The Renaissance Club
Kalen
Cops were generally artificial features that went straight across the line of play to form cross-hazards. The walls at Renaissance were already there but more than that Tom and his team have used them very creatively without putting them in the direct line of play.
However one old style feature that perhaps has become anachronistic is the use of sleepers in bunkers. They were originally used to prevent sand blow and to secure bunkers faces and stop them crumbling. Do you need them now that we have so many "artificial" ways of doing the same thing ?
Niall
-
P.S. One feature I would like to see return thou, even thou it may be unpopular, is some form of and limited usage of cops. It seems Tom kinda tried to reintroduce it with the partial stone/brick walls at The Renaissance Club
Cops were generally artificial features that went straight across the line of play to form cross-hazards. The walls at Renaissance were already there but more than that Tom and his team have used them very creatively without putting them in the direct line of play.
However one old style feature that perhaps has become anachronistic is the use of sleepers in bunkers. They were originally used to prevent sand blow and to secure bunkers faces and stop them crumbling. Do you need them now that we have so many "artificial" ways of doing the same thing ?
The walls at The Renaissance Club were mostly there, and we were required by permit to keep any existing walls intact, although we could have kept them and buried them (!) if they were really in the wrong spot, i.e. right in the drive zone.
However, we did add a couple of small pieces of wall around the clubhouse area [coming up toward the green on hole 5] to make it look like the walls were in reference to the clubhouse site, even though there wasn't a building there originally.
As to sleepers, I would love to use them on a couple of my current projects, but clients seem to object to them on the grounds that they don't want to look like a Pete Dye course! I believe they are still quite effective in terms stopping bunker erosion . . . if you have better methods please let me know, as I've got several clients who would love to reduce their costs at dealing with sand erosion!
-
Colt hated the use of sleepers. In 'The Book of the Links' from 1912, he wrote:
"Yet how often do we see horrible symmetrical-looking pits, with faces smoothed out to the same angle, and the pleasant surroundings spoilt thereby! And very likely some old railway sleepers are used to prevent the sides of the hazards ever looking natural."
-
As to sleepers, I would love to use them on a couple of my current projects, but clients seem to object to them on the grounds that they don't want to look like a Pete Dye course! I believe they are still quite effective in terms stopping bunker erosion . . . if you have better methods please let me know, as I've got several clients who would love to reduce their costs at dealing with sand erosion!
Tom
I was thinking of the development of ecobunker sod walling. Maybe a bit more expensive that timber sleepers but if someone is employing you they can afford it ;)
Niall
-
Colt hated the use of sleepers. In 'The Book of the Links' from 1912, he wrote:
"Yet how often do we see horrible symmetrical-looking pits, with faces smoothed out to the same angle, and the pleasant surroundings spoilt thereby! And very likely some old railway sleepers are used to prevent the sides of the hazards ever looking natural."
I assume then that those hideous eyebrows at Rye weren't his?
-
Colt hated the use of sleepers. In 'The Book of the Links' from 1912, he wrote:
"Yet how often do we see horrible symmetrical-looking pits, with faces smoothed out to the same angle, and the pleasant surroundings spoilt thereby! And very likely some old railway sleepers are used to prevent the sides of the hazards ever looking natural."
I assume then that those hideous eyebrows at Rye weren't his?
I don't know the answer to that, but it brings up an interesting thing that I've noticed in the literature of golf course architects. They'll say one thing in writing, and then do the opposite at some point. I don't know if that's the case here, but it makes me wonder. I'll say, that it's better for us that the early guys wrote what they did, even if they didn't always follow it, because it gave/gives us a foundation of literature to build on.
-
.
-
This certainly is anachronistic, and I love it, but it can only be used sparingly.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q186/tomwilliamsen/pic2.jpeg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q186/tomwilliamsen/pic2.jpeg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)[/color]
I'm not up on my history of Sleepy Hollow, but I'm assuming this is anachronistic because it is restored to a different era than the rest of the course? (or something to that effect) Definitely a beautiful spot.
-
The lump in the rough next to the punchbowl at chicago golf is one of my favs.
Can you tell us more about it?
-
Colt hated the use of sleepers. In 'The Book of the Links' from 1912, he wrote:
"Yet how often do we see horrible symmetrical-looking pits, with faces smoothed out to the same angle, and the pleasant surroundings spoilt thereby! And very likely some old railway sleepers are used to prevent the sides of the hazards ever looking natural."
I assume then that those hideous eyebrows at Rye weren't his?
I don't think so. Rye has been altered a lot since Colt worked on it in the 1890s.
-
However, we did add a couple of small pieces of wall around the clubhouse area [coming up toward the green on hole 5] to make it look like the walls were in reference to the clubhouse site, even though there wasn't a building there originally.
This was one of the things that I was curious about. I wonder how often you do this sort of thing? I realize it kind of needs to be kept to a minimum or it loses its effectiveness.
-
This certainly is anachronistic, and I love it, but it can only be used sparingly.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q186/tomwilliamsen/pic2.jpeg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q186/tomwilliamsen/pic2.jpeg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)[/color]
I'm not up on my history of Sleepy Hollow, but I'm assuming this is anachronistic because it is restored to a different era than the rest of the course? (or something to that effect) Definitely a beautiful spot.
Charlie-I believe Gil Hanse’s task was to replicate this hole(16) as close to Macdonald’s original as possible including the wraparound bunker and green that included the “thumbprint”. There was a version sans the thumbprint and a series of individual oval bunkers before Hanse got involved. What I just described could have been two versions ago.
-
P.S. One feature I would like to see return thou, even thou it may be unpopular, is some form of and limited usage of cops. It seems Tom kinda tried to reintroduce it with the partial stone/brick walls at The Renaissance Club
Kalen
Cops were generally artificial features that went straight across the line of play to form cross-hazards. The walls at Renaissance were already there but more than that Tom and his team have used them very creatively without putting them in the direct line of play.
Niall
The artificial component doesn't bother me much, given that almost everything is 'artificial' on a course, even if some man-made features stick out more than others. From a functional perspective I think they do well in forcing a decision, without going to all the hassle of putting in yet another cliche-ish pond.
Riviera effectively uses the drainage ditches as cops and I don't think they detract in the slightest. But certainly it would need to be like any other feature to use in moderation.
-
Tom
I was thinking of the development of ecobunker sod walling. Maybe a bit more expensive that timber sleepers but if someone is employing you they can afford it ;)
Actually, I have two projects in the USA where we are discussing using EcoBunker at scale. And yes, both clients can surely afford it. It's a bit of a stretch in these two locations, but both courses are trying to replicate links conditions. Also I've become tired of watching guys dump sand back into the blowout bunkers we have built elsewhere, even if everyone loves the look of them.
Funnily enough, we are also building a course in Scotland now, and I don't know if we are going to do any revetted bunkers there or not. We have discussed trying to make it look older than that!
-
it brings up an interesting thing that I've noticed in the literature of golf course architects. They'll say one thing in writing, and then do the opposite at some point. I don't know if that's the case here, but it makes me wonder. I'll say, that it's better for us that the early guys wrote what they did, even if they didn't always follow it, because it gave/gives us a foundation of literature to build on.
Hey, we are allowed to change our minds along the way, aren't we? Dr. MacKenzie in particular wrote late in his career that there were a couple of his 14 points on golf architecture that he wished he'd never said - particularly about trying to arrange the routing in two loops of nine holes.
For the most part, there isn't anything in The Anatomy of a Golf Course [written 32 years ago] that I want to go back and excise. But I do realize that not every client has the same goals, and I am open to trying new things on occasion. Life would be boring otherwise.
-
it brings up an interesting thing that I've noticed in the literature of golf course architects. They'll say one thing in writing, and then do the opposite at some point. I don't know if that's the case here, but it makes me wonder. I'll say, that it's better for us that the early guys wrote what they did, even if they didn't always follow it, because it gave/gives us a foundation of literature to build on.
Hey, we are allowed to change our minds along the way, aren't we? Dr. MacKenzie in particular wrote late in his career that there were a couple of his 14 points on golf architecture that he wished he'd never said - particularly about trying to arrange the routing in two loops of nine holes.
For the most part, there isn't anything in The Anatomy of a Golf Course [written 32 years ago] that I want to go back and excise. But I do realize that not every client has the same goals, and I am open to trying new things on occasion. Life would be boring otherwise.
Absolutely you can change your mind. I will say that Mackenzie is who I was thinking of when I wrote the comment. I probably didn't get the point across well enough, but I think it is/was more important for him or any of you architects to get your ideas out there in a timely fashion than it was to produce some sacrosanct and perfect piece of writing.
Speaking of Anatomy, was there a line in it where you said something to the effect that it was impractical to have 18 downhill tee shots (or holes maybe)? It would have been in response to something Jack Nicklaus would have written/said I believe. I'm trying to remember where I read that.
-
Do architects ever purposely put in anachronistic-seeming features? (Should they?)
In the interaction design world we have a name for this, skeuomorph (skeuos=container, morphe=form). The current example is the charging tools for an electric car that look like a gas hose and nozzle, and go into the normal place on one's vehicle. My understanding is that the skeuomorph lends comfort and familiarity and can be a highly desirable design trait.
-
Do architects ever purposely put in anachronistic-seeming features? (Should they?)
In the interaction design world we have a name for this, skeuomorph (skeuos=container, morphe=form). The current example is the charging tools for an electric car that look like a gas hose and nozzle, and go into the normal place on one's vehicle. My understanding is that the skeuomorph lends comfort and familiarity and can be a highly desirable design trait.
Michael,
Many thanks for that. I just spent a very entertaining hour down the rabbithole of skeuomorphism. Utterly fascinating. Brain trying to develop ideas of how it fits with landscape design.
Cheers,
F.
-
I guess a clear and correct example of a golf course skeuomorph would be sleepers on a bunker on a modern course. I don’t find this to be comforting and familiar, I find it to be jarring and unattractive.
-
I guess a clear and correct example of a golf course skeuomorph would be sleepers on a bunker on a modern course. I don’t find this to be comforting and familiar, I find it to be jarring and unattractive.
That's weird, cos that's EXACTLY the example that first came to my mind too!
-
Yes, thanks to Michael for putting a name on it for us, much appreciated