[Mike_Cirba]

There is a pretty good picture of the Road Hole bunker in the book, "The Scrapbook of Old Tom Morris" on page 166, lower left.

It looks to be from the late 1800's, early 1900's.

The location...looks to be exactly where we all know it to be today...or, should I say up until a couple of days ago.  It's cut right into the very bowels of the leftside of the green, and up to the edge of the putting surface.

While not quite as cylindrical and formalized as the bunker we knew, it looks to be deep, almost vertically faced (with high grass as opposed to revetting on the greenside wall), and fairway length grass runs into it from all other sides.

Judging by the height of the man standing on the green, the bunker looks to be about 6-7 feet deep, but one also needs to remember that this was "pre-sand-wedge" days and there is no way that any rakes were in use at the time.  In fact, a few pages later on page 175, there are some superb pics of Hell bunker as well as bunkers on the "High" hole that show their amazingly rugged conditioning at that time.  One of the pics is dated 1856!

The idea that we should pick some modern year (post 19-whenever) to "restore" The Old Course to is not very logical or historically accurate when one views these pics and sees somebody's grandfather's great-grandfather wearing what look to be military uniforms and formal topcoats while playing in these same hazards.  

[mike_beene]

R.C. Stanfield,are you in St Andrews currently?Seems like someone in St Andrews would have a picture of the surgery itself.It's not exactly a hidden location.If this was done under a cloak of darkness ......

[Slag_Bandoon]

What bothers me is that they said they changed it because of input from the pro ranks.  That group should have very liitle impact on a course that is played 99 44/100ths of the time by golfers and not tour players.  They won't host the Open for at least a few more years.  Why now if it's for them?

[Mike_Cirba]

Slag;

It's frustrating and even infuriating...

If not for my utmost respect for the history of these great championships, and my instinctive, gut feeling that the best tournaments really should be played at our very best venues, I'm almost willing to say that I wish the tours would build their own freaking monstrosity, over-conditioned, FAIR, spectator courses and leave the rest of us and our golf courses alone.

[Slag_Bandoon]

Mike, It's also suspicious that they announce Hoylake getting the Open.  Is that to diffuse and misdirect the topic like George Bush refusing to talk about the economy or Osama Bin Laden?  

  Tour players "Stay Away!" from our gems.    

  I am curious to see if the new bunker will have a flat bottom.

  

  

[Mike_Cirba]

"It is this Road bunker, with the slopes leading a ball to it, which makes this hole of such intense interest.  Notwithstanding the abuse showered on it, this bunker has done more to sustain the popularity of St. Andrews than any feature on the course."

Dr Alister Mackenzie - "The Spirit of St. Andrews"

Incidentally, there is a fairly good pic of the location and severity of the Road bunker on page 150 of that book, looking to be from the 1920's.  The green edge of the bunker is literally higher than the green surface itself by about 2 feet.

[Pete_Pittock]

Watched the video. The road bunker is now more steeply faced, higher by at least a foot and has moved probably three or four feet closer to the green. If anyone has Donald Steel's Classical Golf Links..., the photo on page 65 is quite similar to what was shown on the Sarazen/Cotton exhibition. Also, the bunker was not as visually intimidating when viewed from the approach shots.
    I'll have to re-read this thread to see if they have lowered the mound two feet, which may have been caused by sand buildup from bunker shots, or if the lip is about two feet below the top of the mound, which is consistent with the 60s.
    While lowering the mound might not make many putts go directly into the bunker, subtle contouring changes could easily expand the gathering area.

Pat Mucci,
    I was feebly trying to tie this with the memorable Merion restoration thread. I know photographs won't go back 400 years, but what about extant paintings.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba, et al.,

ESPN just aired some coverage over the controversy surrounding the road hole bunker, including some file footage from the Opens.

When Tommy Nacajima (sp?) hit into that bunker it had about a three foot beveled edge, leading from the green down onto the top of the brick faced bunker.   And the bunker looked relatively shallow

Subsequent file footage reveals that that beveled edge was removed, and the top of the bunker was built up so that it was higher than the adjacent green, and the bunker looked relatively DEEP.

These changes represent a major departure in the configuration of the bunker, and its PLAYABILITY.

So, when did the change take place, why, and under whose direction and authority ?

And, If they made these changes previously, and noone objected, why wouldn't they logically attempt additional changes ?

It would seem that more changes have taken place at St Andrews than most are aware of, or would like to admit.

In viewing the sequence of file footage, I was rather amazed at how the bunker had been dramatically changed.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

It is funny that this hole is being changed with the same lack of being in touch with reality and honesty that our foriegn policy is now. Ultimately it may be, but not now. Golf at its base is a true reflection of our world and values. I hope the links society really takes a look at their actions and reliezes the ramifications of the actions. It is a shame that we are so sensitive on here and so lacking in sensitivity in the greater society.

[ForkaB]

I just had a look at my ancient (1976) version of The World Atlas of Golf, and the picture of the RH bunker in there confirms Mr. Mucci's and Mr. Pittock's observations.  The picture of the bunker in that book shows it to be nothing like the bunker that was there until recently.  It was then (mid-70s) at least a yard away from the green, with a gently sloping transition area (no steep face) and only about 3-4 feet deep.  Obviously, the bunker has changed dramatically over the past 20-30 years.  It sounds to me as though the LMC has undertaken a thoughtful restoration, but I'll reserve my judgement until I see the finished product.

[Paul P]

I applaud them. Takes some guts to change St Andrews. I'm sure you agree with sensitive restorations in the US, so why not here?

Earth is soft and moveable. If it doesn't work out, they can change it back.

[TEPaul]

I believe this matter should be handled in the exact same fashion as the Bush Administration and the United Nations is handling this little mess in Iraq since that country has been hiding things, even moving things around with stealth for too long.

This matter should be resolved in a very simple and swift way. The world of golf must deputize Patrick Mucci to go to St. Andrews to investigate this matter with ZERO RESTRAINT and DEMAND in no uncertain terms that these architectural hoodlums PRODUCE ALL the FACTS and also their MASTER PLAN for tampering with that bunker!!!!

If they try to hide or withhold a single fact or their master plan from him, or worse yet it turns out they don't have one, well, then, they're going to have bloody Hell to pay!!!!

Frankly, these Links Management people, whomever they are, have to be considered now a menace to the future of world golf architecture and logically must be overthrown and replaced with a competent administration.

I never really wanted to see it come to this but I'm afraid that now is the time to have GAP (the Golf Association of Philadelphia) take over that golf course and protect it from hoodlums like this!

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter/Patrick/ForkaB;

Thanks for your feedback.  I was looking at the World Atlas of Golf this morning based on what you mentioned and INDEED (is that word copyrighted by Tom Huck and do I need to pay a royalty for using it? ), the bunker pictured in the 1960's, 70's is shallower and further away from the green.  

Instead of being dug in to the rising slope of the green, it seems to be set out further away, less steep, more shallow, and much tamer.

Sounds like a perfect candidate for a "restoration" to that time period, right?

Well, not exactly in my opinion.

I say that because the pictures of the very same bunker that go back to the turn of last century, as well as up to the 1920's look considerably different, and MUCH more like today's (or yesterday's) bunker than they do to the 1970s pic.

The pic on page 166 of "The Scrapbook of Old Tom Morris" (from virtually the exact angle) is in fact, cut up into the slope, just under the green, and is considerably steeper, deeper, and larger than the bunker in the World Atlas.

It also looks as though the top edge of the bunker is higher than the green surface, altough in both pics, all of the surrounding land flows "into" the bunker.

Another good look from what seems to be the 1920's is available in "THe Spirit of St. Andrews", on page 150.  Although that angle if from the other side of the green, the placement and dimensions of the bunker are pretty clear.  One sees the bunker "cutting into the very vitals of the green", with the top edge of the bunker again higher than the green surface by what looks to be two feet.  It's size is also similar to what we are used to than the pic in World Atlas.

So, what are we to surmise?  One good guess might be that the bunker was changed, or regrassed, or redone sometime between 1930 and 1970.  Perhaps the top end was regraded and levelled off, and grassed.  Although it might seem that evolutionary forces would make the bunker continually deeper and the high end higher with splashup, I've seen any number of bunkers over the years (many at Yale) who's evolutionary forming was just the opposite and where bunker space and depth was lost due to encroaching grass growth and overfilling with sand.

So, it seems that photographic evidence supports both views (anyone who owns both books, please weigh in here with your visual observations...I'm certainly offering just my opinion and opposing views are welcomed) so that leaves us with the question and reasons for changing it back to the 1960's version.

From everything I've heard, it seems a concession to the complaints of professionals that the bunker is too difficult of a hazard at present.  Is that a good reason?  

[Mike_Cirba]

One other thought just occurred to me that the photographic evidence seems to support.

In the pic in the World Atlas, the green mowing pattern seems to have "lost green space", maintained as fringe and creating a pretty wide swath between the green surface and the bunker itself.  Although the green edge of the bunker in the older pic is clearly steeper and cut more into the slope, the edge of the old green seems to be also cut closer to the bunker than the 60/70s photo.

We have all seen the issue of lost greenspace over time.  It seems to me that is also a part of the issue here.

[TEPaul]

If photographic evidence indicates that that bunker was tampered with as early as 1930 then I think the children or grandchildren of the people responsible for that should be prosecuted!!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

Do they still employ "The Rack" or "The Iron Maiden" in bonnie Scotland?

Such a "penal" device seems consistent with the nature of the crime.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Even in the last 10 years it appears that the bunker has undergone major changes in its configuration, as I described in one of my posts.

What strikes me as odd is that if the green was bordered by water, would the Pros complain to have the water moved further away from the green ?

I draw the following conclusion:

This is a concession to medal play golf.

I believe the pros have said, we agree that a bunker should be a hazard, but not to the extent that, with a bad lie, several strokes are lost, perhaps affecting the outcome of a Championship.

And, to compensate for the softening of the bunker, those in charge are trying to diminish the penalty for entry by increasing the chances of same vis a vis..... grading.

In the ultimate, the attention that is being focused on this move is positive.  It is the type of scrutiny necessary to avoid the disfiguration of golf courses.

[ForkaB]

They did not move the bunker, after all.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,378,00.html

[Craig Disher]

The evolution of the bunker from the 20s until the 70s is clear from looking at the pictures mentioned by Mike Cirba.

From Spirit of St. Andrews


From WAofG:



What's also clear is that the evolution is not natural - the beveled edge shown in the picture from the 70s shows that the bunker was intentionally reshaped at some point. I don't have a contemporary photo but vividly recall David Duval standing in front of a 4-5' revetted vertical wall - a further intentional reshaping. So, what version of the Road Hole bunker should we mourn?

[THuckaby2]

I was looking at the World Atlas of Golf this morning based on what you mentioned and INDEED (is that word copyrighted by Tom Huck and do I need to pay a royalty for using it? ),

Yes.  You owe me $1.  I shall collect when I see you.  
TH

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick writes:  "This is a concession to medal play golf."

That is spot on, but should be qualified:  "This is a concession to medal play  PROFESSIONAL golf."  If the Scots prefer match play and foreign pilgrams delight in trying to extricate themselves from the Road Hole Bunker, later bragging on its toll, the only concession necessary is for the Open.

Accordingly, it follows that the professional game is to blame once again.  

Regards,

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

CDisher,

That was one of my early points, that the bunker had undergone so many transformations, and which one is selected into perpetuity, or for at least the next 2 years ?

[RJ_Daley]

If anything, I believe that the 70s picture is the result of poor maintenance practices and a trend in design maintenance meld that were common and in a downward spiral in the late 60s and 70s.   The best evidence is; what do the people who have played the course all their lives say?  I am more inclinced to believe the comments of those quoted earlier in this thread from interviews of townspeople.  You would think that there would be 1000s of pictures of that bunker from as far back as cameras were invented to be found within the photoalbums of the citizens of St Andrews.  Why stake our arguements on a few distorted pictures in the three of books used in our discussion above?

[Bob_Huntley]

Does anyone have a photograph of Doug Sanders, hitting one of golf's greatest shots, when he extricated himself from the RH bunker in the Open duel with Nicklaus?

How deep was it then?

When I hear complaints of Duval losing the Open because of his exploits at 17, I think the reply should be that he could declare the ball unplayable, go back, hit another ball, but well to the right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley,

You should know from your prior experiences that eye witness testimony is not always accurate.

Filmed exercises, witnessed by law students revealed that eyewitness powers of observation are far from precise, and that time has a way of distorting or diminishing perceptions.

At a golf course that I'm familiar with, a lake was excavated from where a small pond existed.  Islands were left in the lake with some specimen trees.  The work was done off season.
When the members returned, some thought the lake had always been there, others marveled at how they were able to get the trees out onto the islands.

So, recollection by members and townsfolk may be totally inaccurate.  I would think that photographic evidence might better depict the bunker configuration at varying points in time.

It has also been my experience, perhaps yours too, that
alcohol blurs memory but not the development of photos.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()