[RJ_Daley]

Caution: The following is a feeble attempt to be teasingly sardonic, to use sarcasm as humor, and in no way in the writing hereof has there been any attempt by the writer to defame, slur, slander or bruise the feelings of any architects, golf writers, GCA faithful posters, or lurkers of the procedings herein...

But, is it remotely possible for anyone to discuss or describe a golf course without first bringing up the darn bunkers?  Is there no alternative subject or feature to open a meaningful discussion of golf course architecture/design than to pan or praise the bunkerwork.  In fairness, JamieS's post on the recent tour of Applebrook did open with the first statement about the awesome bunker work of Gill and Bill, but then proceded directly thereafter those opening remarks to describe equally important features about elevation changes, use of contour in fairways, and utilizing greensites and surrounds to blend into next tee locations, angles of attack, etc. Those comments were much appreciated.  

But, must it be a general rule of thumb that all evaluation begins with an opening remark based on our first impression of a course's bunkers?  Look at the recent Merion thread... bunkers, bunkers, bunkers...  Oh yes, yours truly is guilty as charged.  When going to a construction site of a new course such as the opportunities I had this year to visit Bayside (Proctor-Axeland and bunker-landscaper O'Neil), Kingsley Club (DeVries), Rustic Canyon (Hanse, Wagner, consulting golf historian Shackelford);  I find myself standing at a tee upon my first look at a hole, with the eye travelling down the hole corridor picking out bunker placements as I scan up to the green, only to first look how the green is set among bunkers (when they are there).  It seems that it is our rote trained method to evaluate any hole in that manner; first identifying the hazards and scope or them.  I don't think many step onto the tee of a course or construction site future hole and look first at the construction of the tee (free form or squared shape), built up platform or natural siting on a knoll top or plateau.  Do we first see a series of subtle or dramatic rolls in a fairway before we see how the LZ is "framed" or presented with bunkering within or outside of the LZ?

Do we first look at a greensite by observing the shape, angle of orientation, elevation, and cant of a green before we see how it is presented among an array of bunker surrounds when bunkers are used in the surrounds?

One reason that I am enamored with the Sand Hills, is that like the oldest of links land sites, it is perfectly possible to route and construct a golf course without actually building a single bunker as a specific feature to be sited and constructed.  There are enough natural blowouts and quirks and locations of topographical features to be real bunkers from the begining, or evolve into bunkers through wear and tear in specific areas where wind erosion will take over.  I know that is not practical in real world GCA to ignore the detailed and focused construction of bunkers.  And, hail to all the bunkermeisters out there who have a deep understanding for how to position and construct bunkers that give variety and excitement to the game and that emulate nature and will evolve into what nature has on rare occasions given through the timely process of erosion.  

[aclayman]

Dick- A couple of things: I like the legalease. You've boned up well. Now, How about a similar disclaimer as to the return on/of ones investment. With you being the general partner, you can make a fair assesment of what your fiduciary responsibilities will be. Leaving the decision to pony up, completely on the Limited Partner. Different classes of partnerships could include "working" partners and therefore be entitled to full shares after commensurate grunting and input.

Back to scmunkers: One of my favorite bunkers, anywhere, is on the front left of the 16th at Spanish Bay. It's naturalness attracted me way before I ever owned a computer, let alone found this educational forum. The bunker WAS just a simple natural extention of the dune that gaurds the left side, Now, the Kikuyu grass has encroached all along the back wall and the bunker has lost almost all of it's natural character. My miniscual point being that there is more than just erosion that alters the look and feel, there is the penalty in football, too, Encroachment.

Cheers  
adam

[RJ_Daley]

Well Adam, I hope Mike O'Neil chimes in on this, because the man builds a mean bunker using a technique of shaping it out in the overal basin, and building up the rims to desired height and curl with a patchwork of native sod torn from the prairie.  When he is done, you have the scruffiest and most natural of pits one could imagine.  But, one reason that he even has to do this much hand work is to provide for the drainage, even in the case of sand hills subsoil-sand, particularly where sited on hill sides and slopes.  Although that is my opinion and I could be wrong...the bunkermeister will have to explain  

On your specific point, I think "erosion VS encroachment" (sounds like a landmark legal case over landowner's rights) is a matter of weather and fertility conditions to a large extent.  In the sand hills and perhaps in areas like Pac Dunes, erosion is the predominant force if the surrounding turf is maintained as sparse and designed to be left scruffy and native.  The entrance and exit of players hacking out of a naturally sandy based slope, where wind is a constant, will be predominated by the erosion force.  But, if an aggresive species of grass like Kikuyu or even a well fertilized-watered bluegrass is used as bunker walls and lips, then encroachment is the dominant force.  If the design is a stylish, crisp and clean country club look to bunker edges, then the stuff of the Sand Hills method, (and like Pac Dunes) is out of place and unwarranted.  Funny though, real bunkermeisters like Axeland and Proctor can go the stylish route (restoration-preservation work at Riviera) or the rustic route (Sand Hills-Wild Horse)...  these guys are good!

[TEPaul]

AHA, Dick; What are you saying? Are you getting sick and tired of hearing about and thinking about bunkers? Clearly, it sounds like you want to think about some of the other things and the other features of golf.

Have you come to the conclusion, like I have, with bunkers, that you can put two perfectly intelligent people shoulder to shoulder looking at Merion's bunkers pre-2000 and one says the bunker looks really great after all these decades and the other says the thing is totally falling apart and is an embarrasment?

So one prevails, the bunker is completely redone, and those two stand shoulder to shoulder again and one says, now they look great and well-made and the other says that's the most embarrassingly incongruous and unnatural thing I can imagine on this golf course.

Well, join me and try to come up with something that can replace the bunker entirely! I can't imagine what that could be, unfortunately, as hard as I've tried for about three years now. Grassy mounds or hollows perhaps, in the middle, on the sides here and there?

Hunter and Thomas wrote that bunkering was in fact an inherently incongruous feature on many golf sites. But Max Behr, though, said that the bunker is one of the architect's best vehicles to produce what he wants to produce on his golf course, to create strategy and such. Behr even said the bunker really isn't necessarily supposed to be something that ultimately serves some penal function, only that it is there to function as a "pressure point" on the player's mind.

But if you're saying that you're getting tired of hearing about them all the time, I agree, bunkering is starting to be a real "pressure point" on my mind and I'm not on a golf course.

If we can't think of anything to replace them, though, I guess that may be why they are curiously one of the only holdovers from the very beginnings of golf.

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ,

You blasphemer!  

Perhaps it was simply all the conical, volcano-style bunkers we viewed together at Whistling that remain in your thoughts like scrabrous sores, negatively coloring your viewpoint temporarily?

Beautiful, natural bunkering is to a golf course what beautiful eyes are to a woman.  Not only a mysterious pleasure to look at, but more importantly, the place where you can see if there is any real SOUL in there.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, I guess all I am saying is that we seem to be fixated on bunkers and they take an inordinately high priority on our considerations of GCA, as a generalization.  I don't want to sound like a nattering neighbob (Agnewspeak), but sometimes the level of passionate discussion about the bunkers gets so focused that you would think that most of the round is spent playing golf in the bunkers rather than some small percentage of shots.  I like a great bunker design and location as well as the next guy, and I really appreciate them when they are constructed and blended into the design in such a way as to flow seemless with the surrounding landscape.  I almost felt like jumping into and rolling around some of the beauties that I had a chance to see at Riviera recently with Tommy.  (I'm betting he has done just that!)  

But, there are also different materials for bunkers.  I believe it is perfectly possible and effective to construct a course with ALL grass bunkers and that it would play with the same amount of difficulty as one with sand bunkers.  Bunkers with a thick 2.5 inch grass bottom would be just as hard and demand just as much skill to play from greenside or fairway as sand; don't you think? Rather than rough lips surrounding grass bunkers, mow them right up to the depression and let the ball roll into them unimpeded.  Sort of like some of the stuff we saw in Australia last winter TV events there, although they are sand bunkers there, grass would work, I think.  Here in our area we have an abomination of design (IMHO) of water bunkers.  One course near here has about 4-5 greenside water bunkers in the exact place of a traditional sand bunker-greenside.  Those are reltively deep and steep and are both a safety hazard and goofy feature.

Other than random tallgrass clumps of traditional bunker dimensions strewn around a course, I can't think of any realistic alternative to cause "pressure points" however.  It wouldn't surprize me if one of our panel of ex-college bowl participants or former rocket scientists could come up with some "out of the box" design though...  

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I can never tell in your posts if you are writing for a romance novel or GCA!  You'll know when I have truly gone round the bend when I start playing shots into them, like a certain person's encounter with the "devil's a-hole at PV" whom we know.

[jim_lewis]

RJ:

I applaud your post, as far as it goes. I think the problem is greater even than you suggest. Not only is there far too much emphasis on bunkers on this DG, there is an obsession with the LOOK of bunkers.

Now, I appreciate a well designed bunker as much as anyone, but bunkering is only one of many considerations in evaluating a golf course. Furthermore, the look of a bunker is less important than its position, its strategic impact, and the appropiate level of difficulty in recovering for the bunker.

For all the discussion about the look of the bunkers at Merion, I consider the tree removal work to have been much more important.

[T_MacWood]

I'd feel the same way if I were surrounded by the work of Robert Bruce Harris.

[Mike_Cirba]

jim lewis,

I believe you would feel differently after viewing them fore and aft.  

[T_MacWood]

Jim
Don't you think that the position, difficulty and look are all important and inter-related? Isn't that a major part of the equation when seperating the average from the good from the great course? There aren't too many great courses without bunkers or where the bunkers do not play major factor in the strategy.

What good is a well postioned bunker if is relatively harmless and looks harmless? What good is difficult bunker if it is poorly positioned and looks harmless? What good is fearsome natural bunker, if it is poorly positioned or actually harmless? Of all these scenerios, the fearsome natural bunker, that is actually harmless is the only one that might work from psycological strategic sence - although I can't think of example off hand.

I agree that looks are only part of the equation, but an intragal part.  Do you think the criticism of Fazio creating beautiful looking bunkers, but not beautiful strategy is fair? When you think about the 'look' being over emphasized, what architects or courses do you think of?

[Ed_Baker]

Doesn't "look" affect playability as well in many cases?

In a more "natural" bunker with shaggy edges and longer native grasses on its borders isn't it more likely to get a really tough lie and resulting tough recovery than say perfectly edged resort bunkers? For example, Myopias bunkers against AAC as they were for the PGA?

[jim_lewis]

Let me try to make my point again.

IN MY OPINION:

There are many factors to be considered when evaluating a course. Bunkering is important but only one factor. Many of the regular participants on GCA semm to place an inordinate emphasis on bunkering. I believe that was RJ's point.

Further, when evaluating bunkers, there are also many factors to be considered. "Look" is an important consideration but only one. Many of the regular posters on the site seem to think that bunkering is the single most important characteristic of a course and that "look" is, by far, the primary requirement of a good bunker. Some seem to pass judgement on a course and its architect almost solely based on how they like the bunkers. This is particularly easy to do if you have only seen photographs or t.v. carmera shots of the course.

At least, that is the impression I get from reading the numerous posts that seem to focus on bunker "look".

Tom:
It was not my intention to comment on any particular architect.

It is interesting that there has been few, if any, comments about the tree removal and trimming project at Merion. In my view, those changes are as important as the bunker work, and at least, that part of the job was positive.

[TEPaul]

I think some of those who have said they don't think the "look" of bunkering is that important would very likely change their minds if they could have seen the bunkering  during the Inniscrone/Applebrook outing yesterday. You really don't see bunkering often that's that good. The Hanse firm did both courses so the bunkering on both courses is quite similar in style but in many ways the general "look" and "feel" of the bunkering is far more impressive at Applebrook.

At Applebrook the golf course is far more open (less trees) and the routing at Applebrook is basically in a big box whereas Inniscone's routing is much more meandering so you tend not to see much of other holes at Inniscrone and you tend not to see much of the bunkering on one hole from the other. But at Applebrook you can see almost all over the golf course from most any point except for a couple of holes.

And at Applebrook the sizes and the shapes and even the function (or lack of it) is far more varied than at Inniscrone. There is a bunker walking up to #17 that can't be more than a foot of two wide. It is far short of the green and can't have much function. But it just looks so cool where it is. There is also a big bunker to the right of #17 green and behind and to the right of #11 green (next to #17) that appears to be far from the 17th green from the tee (and is obviously blind from #11 tee) but when you get up on either green you can see how close it is to each green and clearly deceptive (from #17) and of course it's shared too which is very cool. So you have a teeny little bunker like the one that's about two feet wide and you have a bunker below and to the right of #18 that must be about 8,000sf. And you have every other kind of shape and configuration in between; bunkers in mounds, bunkers that are mounds, revetted bunkering, all kinds of bunkering in the middle of things etc. But when you look around from almost any point on the course the bunkering just seems to be a part of the general landscape and sometimes not even part of the hole it's actually on, like when you look over from #1 at the wonderful set of ruggnedness fronting #10 green.

And the lines where the grass meets the sand is as random and natural as nature can be. All this is hand done--you can't do that with machinery and the entire aura of that kind of bunkering does have an effect on the golfer, I think. Even if I knew nothing whatsoever about golf architecture I can't help but feel that Applebrook's bunkering would have to have at least a strong subliminal affect on me.

[T_MacWood]

Jim
There have been many positive comments regarding the tree removal. But one right does not forgive numerous wrongs. I admire you for excentuating the positive, but should you ignore the negative?

I disagree with your assessment of this DG, this DG concentrates on courses of great strategic merit, which includes routing, greens, ground contours, natural features and bunkers. And many on this DG believe it important that all these features blend naturally into their environment. You may feel this DG is overly critical or unfair to certain architects or possibly obsessed with preserving the integrity of classic courses (including, but not only bunkers), but I do not believe it is accurate to portait this DG as over emphasising any single aspect -- with the exception of flat tees.

What are examples of an over emphasis or obsession on the look of bunkers? Merion? Since the bunkers are not to be moved, isn't the look/natural integration the issue? And isn't Merion's historical nickname the 'White Faces of Merion'?

Would you have a lassez faire attitude if the character of #2's bunkers were altered, perhaps with MacKenzie bunkers or Flynn bunkers or Travis bunkers or Colt bunkers or Macdonald bunkers? What is the Ross Society's view on the preservation and/or restoration of his bunkers, what is significance of their appearance? What golf course in the top 25 in the world does not have distinctive looking bunkers(other than ANGC)?

[RJ_Daley]

See what I mean, we are off to the races discussing them in great detail as if they were the only thing out there.  Tom Mac is asking what course of the top 25 does not have distinctive ones.  Yes Tom I hear you about routing, green contours, natural features that you mention, but I really think if you go back to most of the really long threads starting with diverse subjects, the thing that begins to creep in - then dominate the discussion are "those", as your last post exemplifies.  I did get a good laugh out of your comment on being surrounded by the work of RBH and his protogees and how that effects my mindset, and I assumed that was intended for me up here in Dairyland.  

[jim_lewis]

You guys sure know how to make a guy feel humble. I thought I had done a good job of clarifying my opinion on the subject of bunkers, but you still seem to read things into my comments that I never intended.

I think we agree that bunker design and look are important. We probably differ  only in degree of importance relative to other factors in evaluating a course.

That is all.

[T_MacWood]

There is a reason why there is great debate about bunkers. They are many times the architects most obvious signature.

Architects work with many diverse sites in numerous districts, circumstances and climates -- flat sites, hilly sites, sandy sites, high sites, low sites, treed sites. Each architect has tendencies regarding routing, green placement, green shapes, green contours, par-3s, par-4s, par-5s etc. -- but the most obvious characteristic is normally the bunker placement/strategies and bunker aesthetics.

You might be able to tell me how MacKenzie routed the Valley Club, but I doubt it, but you would be more likely be able to describe the character of his bunkers. Likewise with Raynor, can you tell me how he used the natural features at Shoreacres or Camargo to contrast with engineered look of his greens and bunkers? When I say Robert Bruce Harris, what do you immediately think? I'm fascinated by Ross's ability to route a course and frankly it is a mystery to me, I'm still trying to figure it out. And Maxwell's greens or Park's greens, how many here could describe or recognize their tendencies? All these aspects are extremely interesting, but many are less obvious and more difficult to analyze.

There is also a great deal of talk about restoration and preservation, returning greens to the their original size, removing trees to reintroduce lost strategies and restoring bunkers - all three are equally important, but frankly the first two are relatively mundane in comparison to the artistic/glamorous side of replicating the signature of a past designer. And of the three, there is the most potential to screw up!

[Mike O'Neill]

Dick,

I have a sort of philosophy of aesthetics about golf holes that I have been scribbling down for a few years now. In it I conclude, among other things, that bunkers provide probably the best opportunities for "visual contrast" on a given golf hole. I think that "visual contrast" is of the utmost importance to the "experience" of the golfer, again speaking strictly of aesthetics. The human eye must have contrast to function. Contrast allows us to put into perspective what it is we are perceiving. I believe that our eyes first go to the bunkers because we are "attracted" to the contrast. Does this go back to some deeper, evolutionary function of the eye? Maybe. That is probably not all that important. However, at a higher level, at the level of aesthetic appreciation, we take that first visual reaction and couple that with an artfully and strategically informed "eye" for golf holes and away we go. The rest of the hole unfolds from there. Just a theory. What do I know?

The effect is the same as if I were to wear my red Nebraska t-shirt into a Notre Dame football game. All eyes would turn to the "guy sporting Satan's team color."  

And as for the construction of bunkers, you are correct to identify drainage as a useful reason for building up the high side of the bunker. But it is preventing drainage INTO the bunker that I am worried about in that instance. I do not believe in allowing surface drainage to flow off of the turf and into the bunker. The amount of damage that does typically outweighs any aesthetic value that might be lost. The sand gets washed down the face to the bottom of the bunker and then the soil gets washed down on top of the sand. That kind of contamination is costly. It is best to prevent that if possible, IMHO.

Hopefully when it is all said and done, the build-up on the high side suggests the sand that has "blown out" of the bunker and/or the high side a high into which the wind is carving a bunker. That build-up also can provide the elevation necessary to make a sand face visable to the golfer from a certain location, such as the tee.

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

I suppose you are right that bunkers are the most recognizable signature of some architects. I guess that could be said about
MacKenzie, Raynor, and Ross, but I doubt that their bunkering is what made either one of them a great architect

You mentioned Fazio in a couple of earlier posts. Do you think there is a bunker style that is typical of Fazio? If so, will you dscribe that typical Fazio bunker? It will be helpful if you will mention some Fazio courses that you have played that illustrate your point.

If you will, please name some other architects whose bunkering is their most recognizable signature. I just never thought of it that way.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I have both cited and applauded the tree removal at Merion, but the fact is, Merion was never really much of an "over-treed" golf course in the first place.  Thus, the tree removal that was done, although laudable, simply pales visually in comparison to the other most obvious changes.

The change in look is both abrupt and startling.  When you're talking about a course where EVERYTHING had always looked about perfect, then you can probably understand what all the hubbub is about.

What's particularly strange to me is that Tom Fazio is quite able to build really good looking bunkers.  I've played eight of his courses, across the spectrum of the past 15 years, and his best work has a great look to it, no question.

Of course, then we get to the strategic importance, placement, and playability values of his bunkering and on a number of his courses, one questions those things.

What happened to the Tom Fazio who built World Woods Pine Barrens or your course?  Hopefully, we'll get to see more of that at Victoria National.  Are you going, Jim?

[T_MacWood]

Jim
You want me to comment on particular architect?

I've played Victoria National, Pinehurst #6/#8, Palmetto Dunes-Fazio and the Inverness tragedies. From my first experience at Palmetto Dunes it was obvious he was influenced by the PV look and I think he was best able to replicate this look when Strantz was on board, that was the high point of his bunkering.(early 90s?) Ironically the bunkering at VN is not its stregth and generally I believe his Strants-period of bunkering was his most interesting. His bunkering has evolved as his team has evolved.

Other architects with distinctive bunkering - Stanley Thompson, George Thomas, Tom Simpson, Hugh Alison, William Langford, Herbert Strong, Seth Raynor, Herbert Fowler, Harry Colt, James Braid, Walter Travis and Billy Bell off the top of my head.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

That's a very interesting point you bring up re: Mike Strantz's work under Fazio.  Does anyone know if he was on board during construction of World Woods?

Strantz, despite his tendencies to go over the top at times, is a visual artist and his bunker work reflects that, as well.  Of modern designers, I can think of many who have trademark bunkering for better or worse...Rees Jones, Strantz, Arthur Hills, RTJ Sr., Rulewich, Smyers, Hanse (with his amazing crew of "hands-on" guys), and Hurdzan/Fry just off the top of my head.  

[jim_lewis]

Mike and Tom:

Wow! It is apparent that you guys are much keener observers of bunkers than I. The two of you mentioned 20 architects that designed "distinctive" bunkers. I have only played courses by 16 of the twenty (never Thompson, Thomas, Langford, or Hanse), and I couldn't describe a typical bunker of any except Raynor. I guess that proves my assertion that I pay more attention to bunker positions and stategic impact unless the design is truly special such at Sand Hills, Bethpage Black, TOC, Carnoustie, Cherokee Plantation, Wilmington Muni, Royal Melbourne, PVGC, Cuscowilla, or the Ocean Course (to name a few).

It would be very educational if you (and others) would describe what makes the work of individual architects, like the ones you named, distinctive.

Mike:
I absolutely agree that Merion was not "over-treed" when compared to most older courses. However, trees had been allowed to grow up in places where they did not exist in 1930 (left of #11 and right of the quarry on #16), and some branches had been allowed to grow over bunkers (left greenside bunder on #3 and right fairway bunker on #2). Those trees have been removed, and I believe they were important improvements. I will have no comment on the bunkers until I see them. In any event, Merion will always be a small notch short of perfect until they figure out a way to eliminate the streets and traffic that run through the course.

Tom:
You mentioned 5 Fazio courses, three of which were built over twenty years ago while he was still working with George. I really don't know what level of involvement he had with bunker work at Inverness, Palmetto Dunes, or #6. I know there was some re-work done at Palmetto Dunes around 1990, but I believe that work was done by Clyde Johnson.

I have played a lot of Fazio courses, and frankly, I have noticed considerable variety in his bunker designs. For example, If you visit Galloway National, Belfair-East, Pinehurst #4, Forest Creek, Sea Island, and Pine Barrens I think you will see bunkers that are very different from those found on any of the other courses I've named. I don't know about Pine Barrens, but I am sure that all of the other courses I mentioned were built long after Mike Strantz had left Fazio. I Have not seen Victoria National yet, but I gather his bunkering design there is different still.

Yes Mike, I will be there!

[T_MacWood]

Jim
Wow! You should consider yourself the foremost Fazio expert -- I'm not sure there is a person on this site who has gone out of his way to play more of his courses.

As some one who concentrates on bunker placement, how would you describe Fazio's tendencies regarding bunker placement? Based on your criteria would you consider bunkering his strongest attribute or weakest attribute? And based on your criteria, what are his best bunkered courses and why? His poorest bunkered courses? And why?

Why do you think you are able to recognize the variations in Fazio's bunker styles, but not other architects -- might it be that Fazio is a special area of concentration for you?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()