[Patrick_Mucci]

Does anybody remember the television camera that was inserted into the sod faced wall of this bunker during the 2000 Open ?

I believe the views of Duval were quite clear as was the depth of the bunker using him as the measuring stick.

[ForkaB]

Mr. (Professor?) Moriarty

Your description of the RHB c. Nakajima is brilliant.  That is what a links bunker should be and how it should act on the golf ball and on the balls of the golfer.  As for the techno-conical (comical?) version whose "evolution" culminated in the v.2000 monstrosity--not.  Kudos to the LMC for understanding this.  I do assume that they have more historical photographs and film clips and personal experiences than we are able to asemble here on this little corner of the web, as well as not just a little bit of expertise in these matters, but I may be mistaken.

[RJ_Daley]

This darn thread is getting pretty long, and therefore I may have missed it, but I'm still asking:

Who did TLM engage to undertake the redesign architecturally, and which company to do the construction?

As I said above, there must be 1000s of photographs held in the hands of the citizens there from as far back as there was photography, and not the traditional ones that are used in all the golf and design commentary books.  Those townspeople know what they have and have had.   Forkyby suggest there are people involved with "not just a little bit of expertise in these matters".  So fess up!  Who are these experts?

I'm begining to smell something fishy here.  Was the archie consultant either some darling of the greater body of our GCA posters?  Or, was there no real consultation, and simply directives from LMT to the grounds keeping staff to undertake the work?  God forbid, was it a committee or study project of the "GC Design School" of St. Andrews we have been hearing about?  Academia and PC notions again run amok?  :-/   What?

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley,

My guess is, if they do bunker work every two years, they feel comfortable that they can do it themselves, without much assistance from the outside world.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I feel relatively comfortable that their grounds crew can do restoration of crumbled edges and rerevetted faces, sand replacement and so forth as well.  They have a tradition of doing so for a very long time.  That is not the point.  Here we are talking about redesign.  Am I out of line to ask, who, what, when, where, why?  Or is that only Dan Kelly's job?

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDALEY,

No, probing questions to ascertain the facts are always valid,
despite TEPaul's distain for them.  

My curiosity centers around the existance of a possible relationship between those who advocated changes and those who designed or supervised the changes.

That would be an interesting development.

[RJ_Daley]

That would indeed be an interesting relationship if such exists, most definitely. :-/

[Mike_Cirba]

This is almost humorous.  I haven't heard such rationalizaions since the OJ Simpson trial!!  

First, although the Links Trust has made no claims that this is any type of "restoration", some on here claimed that because they used a picture from the 60s as the model for the redesign work, that it must have been work of historic import and value.  

Of course, that conveniently neglects the historical evidence, and pictures of the bunker from as far back as the turn of last century (as evidenced in "The Scrapbook of Old Tom Morris") as well as the clear shape, placement, severity, and details of the bunker from the 20s that Craig Disher kindly placed on this site.

Bottom Line - The bunker in question is over 150 years old, and has been described in writing and shown in pictures as a deep pot cutting into the very vitals of the green.  Placing it four feet away and making it more shallow is not "historical restoration" in any way, shape, or form.

Next we hear from Rich that the 1/3rd of the bunker from around 1970 shown in the World Atlas of Golf, seemingly showing a shallower pot with a layer of fringe between the bunker and the green very closely resembles a doctored photo that "TF" humorously put on here with various modernistic capes and bays.  When questioned on his assertion, Rich states instead that the picture from the 60s that was used as a model for the work contained capes and bays.  Ok, not having seen the pic I'll accept his word, but wouldn't that bunker be out of character with virtually every other bunker on TOC?  Wouldn't it clearly be modified significantly from its historic origins based on pictures that preceeded it by 60, 40 years??!  Wouldn't the fact that the bunker had capes and bays as Rich asserts prove that it had been uncharacteristically redesigned sometime during what we refer to as the "dark ages" of architecture?

Bottom Line - According to published reports, quoting a Captain of the R&A, NOBODY in town, including the old timers, recall the bunker looking anything remotely like the present redesign work.  Stretching the facts to fit a convenient, pro-redesign argument is about all we have left here, it seems.  If the redesigned bunker looked like something in it's storied history, surely SOMEONE in the town would have remembered?  

Now, we've gone full circle in terms of rationalizations.  Because the historic evidence and public outcry clearly doesn't support the apologist position, we hear that the redesign work "is clearly how a links bunker is supposed to function".  HUH?  

People have putted into that bunker, chipped into it, approached into it, and it's played with uncommon ferocity and prominence in recent Opens.  How much more could it have possibly functioned "as a links bunker"?  

No, instead what is being offered up is the classic argument for redesign instead of restoration or preservation.  This ploy attempts to gain support by taking a commonly accepted if empty assertion, and justify any work being done as conforming with that goal.  Yes...we're really just trying to make it function like a traditional links bunker...sure...that's it.

Bottom Line - The ONLY rationale offered by the Links Trust for the work is to avoid future episodes of professional golfers looking "foolish".  Even the very people responsible for the work have not offered the type of far-fetched rationalizations that some people here have provided in their defense.  

The fact that after review by the R&A, the work is now considered "unfinished" and "in progress" is reason for some degree of optimism that the clearly uncharacteristic work that was done by the Links Trust is neither a restoration, historically accurate, or consistent with how the "Road Hole bunker" should play and will hopefully be corrected.

[TEPaul]

This is all starting to sound to me like a tempest in a pot. Nobody really seems to have much idea as to what's going on with the bunker or even what all the various changes in it have been over the decades. The bunker seemed to be highly "revetted" the last time I saw it in an Open (2000) and revetted bunkers probably are completely rebuilt every ten years or so.

This time Pat Mucci is right--why don't we just wait to see what the facts are with that bunker first? If they screwed it up somehow and the hue and cry is sufficient, which it surely will be, then they will probably just rebuild it just the way it was before all this flap started.

[ForkaB]

Mr. Cirba

You are in error when you state that the RHB has been "(placed) four feet away."  That was disinformation from the heat of the moment when the story first broke, and has been convincingly refuted.  It is in the same place it always has been.

The lip is now shallower, about 6 inches, apparently.  That makes it quite a bit higher than it was in the 60's and 70's, and possibly other times in its history.  We have little access to photographic information on this web site, and I, for one, do not wish to draw firm and fast conclusions from this very limited evidence.  I'm willing to "suck it and see" as they say here in Fife (please do not ask me what that means, literally.  Figuratively it just means, "wait and see.").

As for "capes and bays" I only said:

"....there do, in fact, seem to be some "capes and bays" at that time (the 60's?) and the bunker did in fact look at least a little bit like the "TF" one..."

Please note the words "seem to be some" and "at least a little bit like".  I know and knew that the "TF" picture was a spoof, but was just commenting, based on my limited knowledge and limited imagination, that the spoof was not 100% ridiculous.

I personally think that the RHB v.2000 had become a cariacture of itself and needs to be brought back to its roots, which is what I think they are doing.  Reasonable people (such as yourself) may disagree.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

You are probably correct and I hope you're right that this is likely much ado about nothing.  The fact that the original worldwide reports seemed pretty precise, authoritive, and "final" had a lot to do with my reaction, I must admit.  The rationale given in those reports...to avoid making professionals look "foolish", seemed consistent with the type of work that was done, as well.

I do believe the work that was described differs quite a bit from the maintenance routine of rebuilding revetted bunkers every couple of years, or so.  This sounded more like an intentional redesign from quoted accounts.

Which gets to why I was so strident and possibly overreactive in my earlier arguments here.  I believe that there are any number of historic courses that should be "preserved" as best as possible because of their value to the game.  TOC certainly would head this list, in my opinion.

Yes, someone could come in and make an argument that the modern professional game is passing the old lady by, and that it needs to be changed accordingly.  There are some "weak" holes around the turn, and each would probably play tougher with a pond dug in front of each green, or some other new created defense, and possibly someone might suggest that new pot bunkers be dug in the 300-400 yard range from the tee on each hole.  

Yes, each of these changes would likely make the Old Course tougher and more demanding on the modern game.  The addition of new tees on many holes hasn't really slowed down the scoring onslaught and I'm just concerned that our most historic course is going to fall prey to revisionist thinking.

When claims are made that the course played backwards until recently, that bunkers there have historically had modern capes and bays, that the Road Hole bunker historically played much easier, etc., what we are really doing is opening the door to any "reasonable" interpretation which can be used to justify actual design changes to the course.

What I keep coming back to is the REASON for doing the work, and I think it's pervasive and potentially harmful.  The whole thinking goes to medal round scoring, particularly for professionals, and reminds me of the USGA dictate that rough should provide a "half shot" penalty.  Why are we trying to regulate and stratify scoring?  What's wrong with a hazard that might be a "no shot" penalty for some who pull off a daring, risky recovery and a "three shot" penalty for some who do not??

In any case, I've said all I can on the issue and hope you are correct as to the positive outcome.  

Rich/ForkaB;

Me, "reasonable"?  

Seriously, I think we represent two ends of the philosophical spectrum, "historic preservation" versus "ongoing modifications", or at least I think that's what I understand you to believe.

For instance, what would your reaction be if design changes to holes at TOC, such as new bunkering, or the addition of water hazards, or the growing of deep rough be?  Would you be philosophically opposed to any of these changes on the face of them, or would you simply withhold judgement until you saw if they made a better, more challenging golf hole in your opinion?  

Surely holes like 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15 can be vastly "improved" for the modern game...don't you think??  Isn't such "progress" inevitable?  

Would you argue that we should just get on with it, then?



  

[ForkaB]

Mr. Cirba

I don't think it we have some sort of Manichean dichotomy between "historic preservation" and "ongoing modifications."  My view of the RHB (enlightened significantly by this thread) is that it is a question of ebb and flow.  As is GCA.  Some like it high and some like it low.  The RHB has been both over its history, and it has in fact already been significantly "modified," in particular to the form and construction techniques of v.2000 which you seem to prefer.  Which "history" and which RHB do "we" wish to "preserve" and why?

You could, of course, "improve" TOC dramatically, if you wished, although not necessarily on the holes you mention.  I'd start with 18, as I have exposited before.  But why?  And why tilt at windmills?  Even if it were a good idea, it will never happen, or will it..........?

[tam]

Just to keep you all informed 1. Ground works have started again at Road Hole Bunker.  2.The greenkeepers have removed the newly constructed bunker face and also the vast majority of the new sod surrounding the bunker.   Can I also say how impressed I was with the reaction ,comments ,views and ideas about the RHB , it is good to know that most posts understood not only what the Old Course represents to St Andrews but to the game of Golf .  yours aye oldtommorris2002@btinternet.com            

[Mike_Cirba]

Tam;

Thanks for the update and it certainly sounds encouraging.

Makes one wonder why they would have completely "sodded" a "work in progress".    Of course, some people believe in the Easter Bunny, as well.  

Please keep us updated as the "work in progress" progresses.

[Dan Kelly]

Early in this thread (the latter parts of which I haven't read; my apologies), someone asked to see a picture of Doug Sanders in the Road Hole bunker during the 4th round of the 1970 British Open.

Just today, I ran across my tape of the R&A film of that Open. Based entirely on my one round at the Old Course (in 1998), my viewings of the two most recent Opens at St. Andrews, and this old 1970 tape, I'd say:

The Road Hole bunker of recent years has been considerably deeper and steeper-walled than was the bunker from which Sanders hit that wonderful explosion in 1970.

The 1970 bunker looked somewhat more spacious, as well.

In his commentary (for the film; I don't know what he said, live), Henry Longhurst envisioned the possibility that Sanders would fly his shot over the green, onto the road, and that he might end up with 8; he did NOT mention the possibility that Sanders, who wasn't too far from the front wall of the bunker, would not get the ball out of the bunker.

In that sense, I think the hazard changed dramatically between Sanders and Duval -- and not for the better, if my guess is right:

Sanders could screw up the shot two ways: by thinning it into the wall, or by flying it too far out. In recent years, it seems, it required so steep a trajectory to get out (produced with a club with so much loft) that only the leave-it-in-the-bunker mishap was possible -- i.e., if you hit the shot with a steep enough trajectory to get out, you would never hit it far enough to fly the green and end up on the road, against the wall.

I don't have the know-how or the technology to capture the video image and post it here. If someone else could do so: I'd be happy to lend you the tape.

[Mike_Cirba]

test

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()