[Patrick_Mucci]

Two holes at GCGC seem to have bunkers that are no longer a factor in the play of the hole, or have a highly diminished strategic role in the play of the hole.

Holes # 10 and # 16.

On # 10 the old tee was to the left of the 9th green.  Today the tee is to the right and further back.  The green slopes away from the golfer on a right to left cant.

Three step bunkers start at the left center of the fairway, working their way into the rough and woods.  The farthest bunker is almost entirely in the woods.

Originally, a tee ball that carried the farthest bunkers was rewarded with a prefered angle into the canted green.  Today that bunker is out of play in the woods, the next farthest bunker is in the extreme right rough and only the shortest bunker, a great bunker is in the left center of the fairway.

Moving the bunkers over, more to the right, would reinstate their strategic importance in the play of the hole

My questions are as follows:

What good is a bunker out of play in the woods ?

And would the hole be better served by relocating these bunkers, bringing them bunkers back in to play ?

I'll cover the 16th hole later.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
I don't know the hole but... how did the bunkers end up in the woods? What would happen if the trees were cut back?

[A_Clay_Man]

Patrick- Do these bunkers have tie-ins with other bunkers on the hole and if they do would they also have to moved?

I don't know the hole(s) either, I am just trying to further my education on tie-ins, and if and when it is neccesary to do so.

[ChipOat]

Bunkers that were formerly of strategic/penal importance under the "old" assumptions about distance should be moved if lengthening the hole is no longer feasible.

I know that's a blanket statement to which we could all find a few reasonable exceptions, but, as a normal philosophical approach, I'm pretty comfortable with that as "standard".

[Steve Lapper]

Pat,

Knowing #10 a little bit, it would seem relatively obvious that the powers that be saw fit to not further penalize a long carry from the present tee that clears the obvious fairway bunker. Interestingly, were those step bunkers that are fading into the rough and woods to be refigured back towards the fairway today's long hitters would have nearly no advantage to driving long left and thus enjoying a preferred angle to the cant of the green.

No bunker play out of the woods approximates anything near fair or strategic. The disappearance of these bunkers is simply a reflection of the super/greens cmte/membership's desire.

Your last question regarding the bunker's relocation is one of personal opinion and mine likely echoes yours. Bring'em back in play, let the player see the original risk/reward nature of the hole and let GCGC's teeth show a bit more.

[Mark_Fine]

Moving bunkers around can have major implications on a golf hole.  It's not as simple as just moving them further from the tees or in from the rough.  Playing angles are changed, visual aspects of the hole are changed, and so on.  Often bunkers were established in their respective positions because of the contours of the land.   Moving them may be at odds with the terrain from a drainage standpoint and an asthetic standpoint, etc.  

Take an extreme and look at what you would have to do to move the bunkers at Sand Hills!   :-/  Not an easy task!  Best option is to move tees back and if that is not feasible, look long and hard before making changes and mucking things up worse.

Pat is does sound like some trees need to come out as well!
Mark

[mike_malone]

Pat
  I think Mark hits it  right.If possible you should divine the bunker strategy of the designer.For instance,Flynn wrote that he preferred bunkers to sit in the natural contours and provide strategic options,whereas i understand Mr.Fownes at Oakmont observed where people hit balls then put bunkers there.I do not know which is better,but i think changes should be consistent.

[MBL]

Pat-

Would 'moving' the bunkers strategically alter the hole given your reference to the tee box being moved to the right?  Even if the trees came down (patience requested in that I haven't played GCGC - but would love to some day), with the new tee box it sounds like the far bunker really wouldn't come into play?  My question would focus on the tee box.....

[SVEN]

PAT,
  I agree with MB Lewis here. Also one must consider that building a new tee box and removing a couple of trees would probably remedy the problem in question much easier than filling in and reconstructing bunkers. The construction process for tees is much less disruptive and costly as opposed to the removal, reshaping, and reconstruction of bunkers.

  Another point I would like to address is " Does every bunker on a golf course have to serve shot stratagy? Or may some be used to infer it? Or even be used as visual tools to create balance and continuity for a certain "look"?".

  Uh Oh, have I strayed from the original point?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Pat,
I thought it was your objective to see Garden City restored to its 1936 state? Wouldn't moving these bunkers from locations that differ from the 1936 locations, seriously contradict that objective?

And how would you avoid this inconsistency while demanding that other features be restored to their 1936 state? Or is only what you selectively determine to be what is restorable, what should be rediscovered and what should be redesigned?

Geoff

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

If you start moving bunkers, where does it end?

How many bunkers on how many holes should be moved?

Should it theoretically come into play for the fellow who carries the ball 200 yards, or 230 yards, or 250, or 270, or 290?

There are only 2 sets of tees, as you know well.  

I think you have to be consistent as far as your restoration goals.  I would love to see the 12th restored, and I know we talked about the fact that the course was probably optimum in the 1930s as a target restoration goal.  I see not a thing wrong with that, perhaps with a few new tees where acreage allows and angles of attack can be preserved.

You've been listening to our friend Rich Goodale too much!

How many acknowledged great and good classic courses have been markedly improved by design changes in the past 50 years, and how many have been f-ed up or left as some patchwork quilt of incongruity??

I think your other club in north Jersey might be a good example, given your past laments.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark Fine,
Finally a post where we meet! Way To Go!

Pat, Step back from the computer and think this one out.

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine and Mayday Malone:

You sure are correct when you say that bunkers are often placed considering the contours of the land etc (generally on rising topography) and if they are moved that might get screwed up and become a problem!

Whatever you do though don't say that too loudly because if someone like TomF heard you he'd just move the contours of the land and the topography too and it would be all better again.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Mike

Patrick listens to no one, particularly me!  If he had, he would be campaigning for the elimination of those bunkers, not moving them.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Once again you're wrong! Pat Mucci actually listens to me very carefully! He just doesn't understand what I'm saying  and of course that's no fault of mine!

You know when you attach a perfectly good document to an email and send it and it comes out all garbled at the other end?

That's what happens when I talk to Pat! He listens but the valuable stuff I'm telling him just comes out all garbled on his end!

[Tom Doak]

I was going to make a good point on this subject, until I got on the thread and saw that Pat is prosecuting our consulting work at Garden City again.  If someone wants to start a new thread in a couple of weeks that doesn't reference GCGC, I'll get back to you.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

A couple of weeks won't make a difference. To Pat there is always an analogy in anything to do with classic architecture to the 12th hole of GCGC!

I suggest you just restore that green just the way it originally was and Pat will figure out how to mow those dramatic ridges within the green surface and also how to teach the entire membership how to play the hole!

Even if they think they don't like it, don't worry about that either. Pat has shown he's perfectly capable of making that entire membership aware that they're biased in favor of the Jones family and completely biased against Emmet and Travis and they're simply taking it out on you.

And if he doesn't convince them of that he will gaurantee you he will argue them into submission!

So just restore the damn green--you have absolutely nothing to worry about and you will have the added benefit of having Pat on your side!

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
Does that mean I am finally right for a change  
Mark

[Tom Doak]

Okay, then.

I have not been 100% consistent on this with the clubs I consult at, but my general rule is that bunkers should never be moved.  If an original feature of the course has survived until today, it should stay.

If a club does want to address playability in the 21st century, we advise them on where extra tees might be relevant.  And, every now and then, we propose an ADDITIONAL fairway bunker to back up the original ones, if we feel it can be fit into the topography and style of the golf course.  But we don't want to take the original bunkers out.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark, It simply means that we both agree about the same thing, and yes, this time you are RIGHT!:)

Tom Doak, I too am in complete agreement with everything you are saying in all of these posts today. (Of course, I'm usually in complete agreement with everything you always say, after all, I am biased right?)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I am not prosecuting you or your firm's work at GCGC.

But, that doesn't mean that I'm willing to accept anyone's word as gospel, including yours.  No one is above questioning.

This thread was a theoretical exercise, not an advocacy.

It originated during an exchange I had on another thread with Tom MacWood.  Since I play GCGC and am familiar with the relationship between the bunkers, fairways and tees, it seemed logical to use holes # 10 and # 16 as EXAMPLES of holes where the bunkers have lost a good deal, if not all of their strategic significance due to technology.

For someone who wrote, "The Confidential Guide to Golf Courses", you seem unusually sensitive, which seems strange, considering the critical, if not demeaning, assessments you wrote concerning the works of others, in your book.

If you or anyone else want to criticize or blast me for a position I've taken on a given architectural feature or theory,
go ahead and do so, presenting your case, the facts and circumstances supporting your position, which counter mine.
I'm not above reproach, and won't take it personally, and neither should you.  

If you would like to address the 12th or 7th holes at GCGC, I'm more than willing to listen and be reasonable, provided you'll do the same.

With respect to the 12th hole I have been critical.
I'm critical of your 1998 rendering, the May 2001 rendering, and your lack of support for a sympathetic restoration.

With respect to inconsistencies, no one's perfect, and inconsistencies can occur within the same golf course.

Geoff Shackelford,

As I stated to Tom Doak, this thread was a theoretical exercise, not an advocacy.  

My position on GCGC remains consistent and unwaivering, restore the golf course, sympathetically, as close as possible to its 1936 configuration.

Which would bring the bunkers on # 10 more into play, especially the one that is sitting in the woods.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
How many architects are capable of moving and replicating the bunkers of MacKenzie, Thomas and Thompson? What does the lay of the land play in the position of bunker and the decision of moving or not moving a bunker?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Since Tom Doak and the club have already done the creation of new bunkers at GCGC, I'm confident they can continue to do additional work, or do you feel only certain holes are eligible for this type of work ?

Get the facts, then question me !

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

What does TDoak and GCGC have to do with your inability to answer my simple questions central to your original question? Same old story - G.Shackelford was right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I answered your question and was site specific.

Since the theoretical exercise centered on two holes at GCGC, wouldn't Doak and the Club, including any in-house work be germain to the issue ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()