[Doug Siebert]

The thread about bunkerless holes got me thinking about this. I'm not asking if it would be AS great, obviously not. But would it still be considered a great hole, if not one of the greatest in all of golf?

If instead of a bunker you had a very steep swale with rough in it that prevented a running shot the same as the bunker, it is not much easier for good players. Poor players would prefer it because they already fear bunkers, and knowing they might never escape the road bunker (and have a small audience watching while they flail away until forced to use a hand wedge) amps their fear up to 11.

I think the distance the modern ball goes and the ease of hitting the modern driver has hurt the challenge of the hole much more than removing the bunker would.

[paul cowley]

Yes...but first you would have to put a waste area down the entire left side and add 2 stories to the Hotel facade.

[Kalen Braley]

And also don't forget...

You would need to add stands (where possible) around the entire green area with a few rules:

1)  Every patron has to drink at least 5 beers
2)  Players who don't hit the green with a viable birdie chance,  would suffer mandatory booing/whistling.
3)  Any eagles would mean patrons must shower the green with said beers.
4)  All players must be subject to the Ole, ole song followed by God Save the Queen chants.

This is how one makes a great hole!!

[BCrosby]

MacK's 5th at ANGC was meant to replicate the playing characteristics of the Road Hole without a Road Hole bunker.


Bob

[Jon Wiggett]

Doug,

I suspect that a hummock would better fulfil the role of the bunker in making the approach shot awkward. However, I am not sure I would want to see this changed.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

I can see a hollow of equal depth to the existing bunker but comprising short cut grass as being okay. Short cut grass so that some folks could putt out of it if they wished, a shot that might be easier than a bunker shot for a lessor playing, although I'm not sure it would be that easy - you'd feel a right chump trying to putt out of it and then have the ball roll back to you feet or giving the shot to much whack and putting right across the green onto the road.


If it were a grass bunker however, in heavy rain it would become casual water.....so free drop time. Also the base over time might end up full of divot marks from those attempting wedge shots out and as it's sand based, well enough divots over time and it kind of goes back to being a bunker again.


It would however, still be a damn fine hole. I go along with your comments about distance. Once upon a time it would have been 2 or more good hits for the top players, now alas far from the case.


Atb

[Bill_McBride]

If the bunker weren't there, a LOT more balls would wind up on the road.  That green is both very shallow and very [size=78%]firm. [/size]

[Josh Stevens]

I suppose it depends on what the bunker is replaced with.  A hollow, or a hump or perhaps a little pond might be able to replicate a half or full shot penalty for going in there, but there are few hazards that can reproduce the risk of a 3 or even  4 shot penalty as proved by Duval and Nakajima. 

That potential for utter disaster is one of the things that grabs your attention.

[RJ_Daley]

With the observation that the road hole bunker hasn't been a static feature in overall depth, face steepness, size area of gathering influence, cuppy sand bottom, flattish sand bottom, sod wall face, grass steep face, depth of face, etc., I think as long as whatever would be there besides that bunker would need to have the same penality and potential to be as great as the traditional concept of the bunker.  That seems to me to require a feature like a deep grass swale just as steep and requiring just as mighty of a blow and risk to get up from the bottom and onto the green without running over to the road.  It still needs to have the size area of gathering which challenges both the bounding ball onto the green and the aerial assault, with the narrow safe runup area  for a chance to run onto the green.  I don't think a hummock convex feature can be a substitute.  I think it has to be a deep swale or grass bunker. 

Since I only played it once and my unfortunate result was to go from left to right rough and and didn't have a chance to optimally play the hole as it was intended, it is hard to say.  I reckon only folks that have played it on multiple occasions and through its varied dimension changes and tweaks over the years can adequately address the question.

[Bill Brightly]

Very interesting question. With just a grass swale, I think the contour of the land would be just as effective in defending the green. But the approach would appear SO much easier, and so in turn, all of the other features of the green complex would appear much less daunting. So I don't think the hole would be considered great throughout history and therefore, perhaps not copied by CBM and others.

[Mike Hendren]

No.
 
The Road Hole bunker dictates whether one choses to play for four or five from the tee though a four can still be made by the rare thinking who is smart enough to leave his second short and well right, again because of the bunker. 
 
A patch of rough in lieu of the bunker would stand out like a sore thumb and be wholly inconsistent with the balance of the course. 
 
Bob, as much as I adore Augusta National and the 5th hole in particular, I find nothing remotely similar about the green shape and dramatic internal contouring there and the tabletop 17th green at The Old Course.  The back bunker at Augusta is a piece of cake to handle (In my time in the bleachers, just about everybody gets up and down from there) - the road and pebble path in St. Andrews, not so much.
 
Arguably, the Road Hole bunker is the most effective bunker in the world. 
 
Bogey   
 
 

[MCirba]

MacK's 5th at ANGC was meant to replicate the playing characteristics of the Road Hole without a Road Hole bunker.


Bob

Bob,

Which hole at ANGC? 

I think the question answers itself. 

[BCrosby]

Mike -

The 5th at ANGC. MacK said it was inspired by the RH. The green has a deep swale front right which (I assume) is supposed to function as a Road Hole bunker. And it does. Leaving your ball in or short of the swale makes getting down in two very, very difficult. (At least it did before the advent of 60 degree wedges.)

The 5th is a great hole, but I'm not sure its great because it is a "Road Hole". The green is not set at an angle to the fw and is much wider and deeper than the original RH green. Which means that the strategic choices you are asked to make from the tee to position your approach aren't as pressing as they are on the real RH.

Bob

P.S. God I hate this new software. There's no excuse for having to deal with things shifting in and out of different fonts.
 

[Sven Nilsen]

The 5th at ANGC was designed in the reverse layout of the hole at St. Andrews.  Mackenzie planned for a large fairway bunker on the left side to replicate the carry over the hotel, and just like the RHB the swale at the front right (as pointed out by Bob) was there to offer intrigue to any tee ball played too far to the right.  There was a slight angle to the original planned shape of the green which gave a bit of a benefit to any approach from the left, the green becoming more shallow the further right you played.


The similarities are there, you just need to look in a mirror to see them.



Sven

[Sean_A]

Well, no matter how Dr Mac was inspired, it is nigh on impossible to claim there is a similarity between AN's 5th and the RH when there isn't a large building, road and famous bunker to contend with 

The Road Hole may still be great without its bunker, but I wouldn't like to find out if this is the case.


Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Well, no matter how Dr Mac was inspired, it is nigh on impossible to claim there is a similarity between AN's 5th and the RH when there isn't a large building, road and famous bunker to contend with 

The Road Hole may still be great without its bunker, but I wouldn't like to find out if this is the case.


Ciao

I gotta agree whole heartedly with Sean on this one.  This seems like a total urban myth.

Plus to boot:
 -- 17 was originally a par 5, unlike ANGC 5.
 --  The bend in 17 is far more abrupt and severe compared to the gentle arc of #5.
 --  There's no road or building or OB on the inside of the dogleg.
 --  Unlike 17, there is plenty of room to miss on the mirror image side of #5.
  -- The entrance to #5 isn't super narrow like 17.

On and on...




 

[Sven Nilsen]

Sure, go ahead and debunk Dr. M's own words (contained in the early programs of the course):

"This is a similar type of hole to the famous Seventeenth, the Road Hole at St. Andrews."

No one is saying it is an exact replica, but then again neither is any CBM/SR/CB Road Hole.

Here are Mackenzie's thoughts on what they were trying to accomplish:

"It has been suggested that it was our intention at Augusta to produce copies of the most famous golf holes.  Any attempt of this kind could only result in failure.  It may be possible to reproduce a famous picture, but the charm of a golf hole may be dependent on a background of sand dunes, trees, or even mountains several miles away.  A copy without the surrounding might create an unnatural appearance and cause a feeling of irritation, instead of charm.  On the other hand, it is well to have a mental picture of the world's outstanding holes and to use this knowledge in reproducing their finest golfing features, and perhaps even improving on them. 

At Augusta we tried to produce eighteen ideal holes, not copies of classical holes but embodying their best features suggested by the nature of the terrain.  We hope for accomplishments of such unique character that the holes will be looked upon as classics in themselves."

[BCrosby]

What Sven said. MacK was quite clear about what he was trying to do at the 5th at ANGC.


Bob

[Kalen Braley]

 I absolutely love Dr. MacK's work as much of the next guy, and no doubt he was a freaking genius who did a lot of superb work.  He was undoubtedly a cream of the crop/pantheon golf course design Hall of Famer.  That being said, I'm sure he had a fairly large ego and was prone to an exaggeration or two in his day.

I don't dispute he said what he did on ANGC #5, but it just doesn't ring true and seems more akin to marketing speak.

Just my opinion of course....

[Sven Nilsen]

 I absolutely love Dr. MacK's work as much of the next guy, and no doubt he was a freaking genius who did a lot of superb work.  He was undoubtedly a cream of the crop/pantheon golf course design Hall of Famer.  That being said, I'm sure he had a fairly large ego and was prone to an exaggeration or two in his day.

I don't dispute he said what he did on ANGC #5, but it just doesn't ring true and seems more akin to marketing speak.

Just my opinion of course....

Of course.

[Sean_A]

Sven


Thats just it, two of the most important features of the TRH are not terrain influenced...they are man-made and rarely asssociated with golf.  As I say, an influence is a far cry from similarity.  This is simply a case of the mind's eye....


Ciao

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven


Thats just it, two of the most important features of the TRH are not terrain influenced...they are man-made and rarely asssociated with golf.  As I say, an influence is a far cry from similarity.  This is simply a case of the mind's eye....


Ciao

I'll stick with Mackenzie when he says the hole is a "similar type."  If you strip out the superficial (which seems to be tough for some people to do), there are underlying strategic elements going on in both of these holes that are similar. 

Sven

[Doug Siebert]

If the bunker weren't there, a LOT more balls would wind up on the road.  That green is both very shallow and very firm.

No doubt the green is shallow and firm, but I'm not sure it would mean a whole lot more balls end up on the road. Sure some people would feel more free to go at the green without the bunker there, but probably not a lot. Trying to hit that shallow green (especially from the left where the safe drives end up) would be as difficult as ever. Even if the fear of making a 7 or 8 due to getting next to the bunker lip and requiring multiple shots to escape is removed, that shot doesn't become any easier. The best strategy for minimizing your score on that hole would still be playing out to the right and trying to get up and down, as getting up and down from whatever is in the bunker's spot or from the road would be quite a bit more difficult than from the right where you'd have plenty of green to work with.

Last time I played there was in 2001. I drove just into the wispy rough left of the fairway with 173 left to a left center/back pin and a very light right to left wind. My caddie told me to aim 20 yards right of the green, but as I posted in other threads I don't play golf for lowest score but for maximum fun.  I wanted to take on the bunker since that was a nearly impossible shot and if it failed I'd enjoy trying to play out of the bunker or off the road since I'd not found myself in either previously. So I took dead aim at the pin and hit an absolutely perfect sky high cut 7 iron (back when I was in my mid 30s and hit my irons higher than anyone you ever saw) and landed it in absolutely the perfect spot just over the bunker. For a moment it looked like it would do the impossible and stay on the green, but it ended up dribbling over and finished on the blacktop. From there I chipped a 4 iron into the back that nestled a foot away for a tap in par. If only my drive had stopped in the fairway, or my irons had square grooves, maybe I could have pulled it off!

My shot would have been almost exactly as ill advised if the bunker was replaced by some rough or a hummock or whatever.  The people who are taking the shot are either like me and know they're not pursuing a strategy to leads to minimum score, or they're too dumb to realize they have zero chance of making that shot.  I don't think there would be a lot of people who fear that bunker enough to stay away but will go for it if the bunker is replaced by something else that takes away the chance of an 8 but still makes 5 or 6 much more likely than from the safe shot to the right. Removing the bunker wouldn't make that green any deeper or softer, so you'll still be playing your third from elsewhere...

[Doug Siebert]

I suppose it depends on what the bunker is replaced with.  A hollow, or a hump or perhaps a little pond might be able to replicate a half or full shot penalty for going in there, but there are few hazards that can reproduce the risk of a 3 or even  4 shot penalty as proved by Duval and Nakajima. 

That potential for utter disaster is one of the things that grabs your attention.

Those three and four shot penalties aren't the result of hitting into the bunker, but hitting into the bunker and trying to do too much.  That's not really all that different from having something in its place that would make it likely you either don't escape, or go over the green and have to contend with a shot from the other side.  Rough (albeit thicker than that found in the fairways) would serve that purpose - if you try to get cute and hit a high flop out of it you might get your club stuck or fluff under it, or in order to avoid that you might get too much ball and go onto the road.  It would even bring a new fate that you can't have from the Road Bunker - hitting your third so strong you hit the road on the fly and possibly hop over the wall!

Your idea of the small pond is interesting. That certainly doesn't fit TOC (neither would a bunch of rough where the bunker is, but this is all a thought experiment not something I'd ever want to see!)  I've never seen a water hazard the size of a large bathtub, that would certainly be novel.  Especially if the lay of the land around it tended to funnel balls into it.  I don't agree it would only be a one shot penalty though.  Let's say you hit into it on your second, so you are playing your 4th from behind it.  I don't think anyone would say hitting a shot from directly behind the Road Bunker is easy, and hitting it over a tiny little water hazard would if anything be even more unnerving, especially with the little audience that tends to gather there. You'd have to hit a nearly perfect sky lob off a very tight lie to go over the bunker/bathtub and hold the green, so I think a water hazard there would most definitely bring the high numbers into play like the bunker.  I think it would be even more frightening, because good players at least have a hope of making par out of the Road Bunker if they get lucky with where in the bunker they end up, but there's no hope if your ball goes in the water. Unless your last name is Mickelson, you are probably doing well to average getting down in 3 from that spot.

[Andrew Simpson]

I can see a hollow of equal depth to the existing bunker but comprising short cut grass as being okay. Short cut grass so that some folks could putt out of it if they wished, a shot that might be easier than a bunker shot for a lessor playing, although I'm not sure it would be that easy - you'd feel a right chump trying to putt out of it and then have the ball roll back to you feet or giving the shot to much whack and putting right across the green onto the road.


If it were a grass bunker however, in heavy rain it would become casual water.....so free drop time. Also the base over time might end up full of divot marks from those attempting wedge shots out and as it's sand based, well enough divots over time and it kind of goes back to being a bunker again.

It would however, still be a damn fine hole. I go along with your comments about distance. Once upon a time it would have been 2 or more good hits for the top players, now alas far from the case.
Atb

Not sure why you think it would gather water when in the same breath you say it's a sandy base? With a turfed layer above the sand it would surely be higher than the existing water table!


I still think the hole would be as good, if not more difficult for the Pro's if it were a grassy hollow.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()