[mike_malone]

 During the recent Shell match between Jack and Gary they showed shots of Jack in previous matches.One was the 18th at Pebble.His second shot went into the trap by the green .I SWEAR THAT TRAP WAS NO MORE THAN A FEW FEET DEEP.Much is made of trap location on this site when speaking of restoration or preservation,but it seems to me that changing depths is an issue.I would like to know how to use our aerial photos from our course to evaluate changing depths.Is this possible?

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

Aerials can't tell you much of anything about bunker depth. Don't even try to estimate bunker depth from them. The reasons are obvious. Some people think they can estimate low sun shadows off bunkers to estimate bunker depth but believe me that's really inaccurate.

One way to analyze bunker depth is to use on ground photos of whatever age you're interesting in but what club has those as comprehensively as they'd need them to gauge all their individual bunkers?

A better way is what might be called architectural archaeology--that's basically coring down through the tops of the surrounds (grass) for soil samples and such until you come upon the top of the original construction. Then you do the same on the bunker floors until you come to the top of the surface of original construction on the floors, and  comparing the one to the other you get the original bunker depths.

All bunker surrounds tend to grow higher particularly the high use greenside bunkers, the fronting ones the most because fo the most play from golfers. In a period of decades this could be as much as feet where the balls are outgoing on something like Merion's #8 and #13 green fronting bunkers.

The reason for the increased height is sand splash from out coming balls because that sand splash is basically the same thing as daily topdressing which just increases the growing medium (makes it higher).

Aerials only really help with size and shape from above not depth and height at the golfer's eye level.

I think a number of clubs may have missed the boat to some degree trying to do too much in dimension analysis in restorations through the use of aerials only.

[Richard Mandell]

TE Paul:

Good advice about not deriving positive information from aerial photography.  I disagree, though, with the observation that most bunker surrounds tend to rise higher over time due to sand explosions acting as daily topdressing.  The amount of sand being hit out of a bunker on a daily basis to actually make noise is too little.  This same amount of sand, on a daily basis, would also be directed so inconsistently that it would not have a real effect.

From my experience, most bunker surrounds actually get flatter over time as maintenance crews eventually smooth over this third diemnsion (elevation) to make mowing, spraying, and other maintenance a little easier.

Sand bunker floors are often raised over time for playability issues by many as well, resulting in bunker surrounds appearing flatter.  This is an observation of courses by all types and in all periods.

I am currently working on a bunker renovation of an old Ross course outside Charlotte called Monroe Country Club and the bunkers are very two-diemnsional compared to what we know about how deep Ross's bunkers would typically be.  This may have been a result of construction as my early research is leading me to think that Ross may have not been too invloved in the field.

p.s.  I also think people put way too much influence on how much topdressing raises contours of putting surfaces over time.  Usually topdressing and core aerifying is one process and the sand is worked into the cored holes by drag mats.  There is no way that can have a pronounced influence on raising putting surface by a measurement of feet.  Typically this practice is only undertaken two - three time a year, further making it highly unlikely, even for very old courses.

[TEPaul]

Richard:

Now this is truly fascinating. Not to be disagreeable in disagreeing with you but our differences of opinion on the effects of sand splash in increasing the height of bunker surround tops (and faces), (most particularly on the side the balls are outgoing) is something that should certainly be understood and resolved once and for all.

Whether the sand splash itself is responsible for what we've called "evolutionary buildup" on particularly front tops of fronting greenside bunkering or whether it is something else that's responsible, the question is have these tops and faces risen in height from when they were constructed or have they not?

That's certainly the first question. The second is if they haven't does it appear so possibly because the floors have been lowered? Certainly that seems illogical as how could it be possible to lower sand floors without redesigning them? Essentially to lower sand floors without redesigning them one would have to be going below their old construction and logically into their drainage construction below (whatever there was of that).

And also, there is no question whatsoever that various heights on bunkering has in effect risen dramatically. One of the best (and most historic) examples is Bobby Jones in the fronting bunker of Merion's #13. It can be easily seen that the top of the bunker comes up to only about his shoulder. We certainly know Jones was quite short and we also know that over time and just before the Merion bunkers were restored in 1999 that the top of that bunker would be feet over Jones's head! There's no question of that as that old photo of Jones compared to the height today is not lying.

So that leaves the question of how did that height increase? (the same dimension increase was app the same on #8 too, another fronting bunker with about the same amount of general play over the years!).

If that's not evidence enough, we also know that previous to 1999 the Merion bunkers had basically never been touched by redesign only ongoing maintenance.

And if it was only maintenance why then would they have risen? One would think they may have even declined in height subsribing to your theory that ongoing maintenance may even flatten the tops of bunker surrounds.

In some cases in some places that may be true but apparently not Merion. The reason a flattening of the tops of some surrounds in other places might have happened to me is perhaps a real maintenance "no-no" that Merion and other clubs are very aware of. That would be due to running mowing equipment constantly across the tops of bunker surrounds. The reason that's believed to be a "no-no" is simply that that machinery may be too heavy and is essentially crushing the bunker construction on top of the face and lowering it. This is believed to be a gradual way of destroying bunker construction through maintenance!!

But anyway, if you're right about some of these things and I'm wrong (that the tops of bunker surrounds do not increase in height evolutionarily) then companies such as Coore and Crenshaw and Hanse & Co are wrong too because that's the theory they work under and have with bunkering at both Riviera and Merion, as examples.

The other thing that would seem to be undeniable is that if core samples are taken from the tops of some of the old surrounds (Merion and Riviera as examples) and analyzed it can be seen that the medium is simply many feet of basically growing medium before one hits what is clearly the top of the original old construction of the bunker surround. Clearly the original architect would never have stacked many feet of growing medium on top of his bunker construction before laying on the sod or attempting to grow the grass on top.

An independent analysis was also done on a couple of Merion's bunkers by a man by the name of Mel Lucas who once was the simultaneous super of GCGC and Piping Rock. Mel Lucas is thought to be an expert on old bunkering.

He mentioned that if one were to core many feet down through the top of a bunker surround (front face) such as #8 and #13 Merion, many feet below the present top one would come upon what he termed "Hugh Wilson's fingerprints" (the top of the original bunker surround).

And he also recommended that if the club took that "evolutionary buildup" completely off the top of the bunker surround and restored back to the height of "Hugh Wilson's fingerprints" the club could, in effect, create a nightmare situations on the greens with playability as with today's vastly increased greenspeeds balls could actually spin backwards off the green surface and into the fronting bunker!!

As it is today with the clearly increased heights the contour over the top of those bunkers has created a downslope on the front of the green itself and a quite dramatic one!! This is clearly a reverse playability to the way it was originally as balls just clearing the tops of these bunkers hits a downslope and "turboes" across the green!!

Frankly, I think this evolutionary effect of increased height along with the "turboeing" effect on the downsloping green fronts over the bunkering is sort of poetic justice given the far more effective aerial game of today compared to yesteryear when these bunker tops apparently were in some cases the opposite playability because the green fronts above them actually slopes backwards into them!

And then there's the question of the greens of Pinehurst #2. There is little doubt that when Ross built them they did not have the "crowns" on them anywhere near the extent they do today. If they weren't redesigned to include that dimension and that height increase then how did they get that way?

Most think it was nothing more than continous topdressing buildup over the decades. But I asked Brad Klein at Alpine if that were so, then why did the contour only rise toward the middle of those Pinehurst #2 greens, creating those center crowns? Why would the evolutionary buildup of that continuous topdressing not be more consistent across the entire green thereby raising the entire green surface?

The only possible explanation I can think of is for some reason the buildup remained near the centers but on the sides of the greens it may not have remained possibly due to the effects of sheet drainage off the sides of the greens. Could this be something to do with hydrology perhaps? Perhaps something to do with the quantity or weigh of sheet flowing water during heavy rains as it built up volume and reached the edges of greens thereby skimming off topdressed sand on the edges even if it was below the green surface? It's a thought but somehow doesn't seem to be a very logical one, but who knows?

But anyway, this is a most fascinating subject and disagreement on whether something did actually happen and how so let's try to get to the truth of it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday Malone,

Would increased bunker depth at a golf course designed and built pre 1932 be an acceptable alteration to counter the effects and impact on playability due to the Sand Wedge invented by Sarazen ?

Is increased bunker depth in current times an acceptable alteration to counter the use of recently invented L-wedges ?

When the goal of tour pros and good amateurs is holing out, rather than just getting out, bunkers have lost their strategic and tactical bite.

Richard Mandell,

I would agree with you.
In my limited experience I've seen maintainance crews edge greenside grass faced bunkers up higher and higher until they are almost into the green.  And I've seen crews knock down bunker edges as well.  I can't recall one bunker or bunker surround at my home courses that has evolved through sand splash, but that is a limited observation.

I too have my doubts on the sand splash/buildup theory especially on deeper bunkers.

Rain, snow, wind and gravity tend to work against sand splash buildups.

[Joe Hancock]

I started to rebuild a bunker last fall that I personally helped build back in 1978(or so). The greenside lip of the bunker had approx. a 14" build-up of bunker sand. The build-up layer tapered off to a non-exsistant level at maybe 3 feet towards the green.

I think Pat raised a couple issues. Some courses aggressively maintain (edging often) their bunkers, while others might only edge once per season. This could cause the build-up edge to be constantly moved, increasing the size of the bunker. Another factor is amount of play, and the average ability of those players. Good players tend to take les sand, while Joe bag-of-donuts(someone else used that term, I liked it!) tends to flail away at that sand because all they know is "open up, hit two inches behind the ball".

Joe

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said;

"I can't recall one bunker or bunker surround at my home courses that has evolved through sand splash, but that is a limited observation.

I too have my doubts on the sand splash/buildup theory especially on deeper bunkers.

Rain, snow, wind and gravity tend to work against sand splash buildups."

Then, Patrick, you may need to come up with some logical explanation of how and why the tops of some bunker surrounds have grown and some by so much. The logic of it would appear to be that the tops of bunkering that front greens have been the tops that have grown in height the most compared to other areas of bunkers and other bunkers in other places.

And aren't you forgetting when you say you have your doubts on the sand splash/buildup theory on bunkers that are deep the FACT that those very same bunkers were once shallower!!! Read what Mayday Malone said about that in his original post. That particular fact is a fairly significant one to forget or not be aware of Pat!

But one thing is completely undeniable--and I do mean completely. And that is that the tops of fronting bunkering has grown in height by often feet!! There's simply no denying this, so please don't try. I can supply you with volumes of  photographic evidence of it from fronting bunkering all over the place. And given a relatively similar amount of time and a similar fronting bunker situations the increases are quite similar.

Merion #8 & #13, Pine Valley's #3 #7 & #17, GMGC's #8 & #11, all similar fronting bunkering and coincidentally bunkering that has never been redesigned! The latter is very significant obviously!

So again, keep in mind, they were shallower once and now they aren't! And I have the photographic evidence to prove it time and again. And yes, Pat, those photographs back then compared to today would be patently evident in this height increase, even to you!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The flaw in your theory is that one must not only look at the face of the bunkers (in photos or in person) but one must look at the rear and sides as well to determine if the bunker got deeper, or if one side was built up, giving the false impression that the physical properties of the bunker are at a deeper depth.

And, you can't conclude from looking at photos or viewing in person, what the cause and effect are, you can only determine incremental changes.

In many cases, sprinkler lines where put in to encircle greens and often that caused a slight rise near the top of the bunker.
In some cases the area around the top of the bunker had to be built up to accomodate the lines and heads.

In other cases, the area around the top of the bunker was deliberately, physically altered, as was the top of the DA bunker at # 10 at PV.

Other times the crew, when edging destroys the top of the bunker, requiring it to be rebuilt.  Prudently, the top is overbuilt, allowing margin for future erosion caused by edging.

You can't make the definitive statement on the cause of the change from a photo.

Core sampling can assist in determining the cause.

But, you can't attribute a specific cause to any change to the top of a bunker solely from a photograph of the bunker.

Unless, it's a picture, taken at night, of you, with a shovel, altering a bunker.  

You have to determine the facts, first, then conclude.

[Richard Mandell]

TE Paul:

First and foremost, let me clear up what we are talking about. We may be speaking of two completely different issues.  My reply earlier was specifically concerning the landforms, shaping, etc. that surrounds the sand bunker line itself (all considered part of the sand bunker complex).  Are you only discussing the face of the sand bunker where the sand line itself may have crept up over the years?  I.E. a sand bunker which may have had no sand flashing at its conception now has sand flashed three feet up the slope?  That same bunker which may have had no sand showing from the fairway, let's say, now can clearly be seen from that same spot in the fairway?  Is that what you are talking about.

If not, I still stand by what I say in general terms, but am not foolish enough to respond in blanket terms for every course in the world.  The situations at Riviera and Merion may be different. I can not say from first hand experience.  Let me ask you this, though:  Is it not possible that deliberate attempts to deepen sand bunkers were undertaken very "unofficially" by a superintendent over the years?  With or without any one's knowledge.  I do know that happens.  As a result, maybe sand displacement is not the reason the surrounds have risen, just simply the fact that the bunkers were deepened over time.  

Another thought that may be more plausible is the use of a sand pro, which can displace much more sand from the center of the green to the edges, or outside the sand lines.  That is much more plausible to the changing depth theory of sand bunkers than golfers displacing sand over time.


Another idea is that the faces and tops of sand bunkers are the most difficult place to grow grass and the first areas to die in summer.  It is possible that a superintnendent came in and added topsoil and seed many times to the top of the bunkers, again creating the illusion that the bunker got deeper and the surrounds taller.

Again, this is another solution that is more plausible than golfers displacing sand with their play over time (although, I have been known to move mountains with my wedge).  

Now if you are talking about the sand faces, that is clearly due to edging by the crew every year which can have an amazing effect on bunker shapes.

Regarding #2, if anyone is going to believe the topdressing theory, then why not believe that some of that topdressing was washed away from the edges.  I don't believe either theory.  I really think that we simply have faster green speeds due to new grasses and lower mowing heights, which in effect make slopes appear more pronounced.  I see it everywhere I go with old courses (not Merion or Riviera).  I am constantly asked to renovate greens to soften the contours.  Of course I am still waiting for the Pinehurst people to call...

Jim Lewis:  Not that I would change anything at #2, just looking for a phone call.  #6 is another story though...

Is it wrong to subliminally hawk work in this forum?  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
Have all the greenside bunkers at Merion undergone a similar build-up? Is it possible that #13 and #8 were rebuilt sometime after 1930 -- didn't #13 look very similar in 1950 as does today?

[Willie_Dow]

RM

Before you do too much "hawking" perhaps a study of Ross bunker design vs William Flynn bunker design would be helpful.

[Tom Doak]

We've discussed this before, and there is no one clear-cut rule for how bunkers evolve.  Well, maybe one -- the floor never gets deeper unless someone does it deliberately.  Generally, it gets shallower, because committees are always adding new sand to compensate for "loss" but in fact some of the loss is just sand getting mixed into the soil below.

Bunkers may appear to get deeper over time because the putting green itself has been raised a few inches by topdressing, but that's not enough to explain what you're seeing on the 18th at Pebble Beach.

I have certainly seen many bunker lips which got built up over time.  The Road bunker at St. Andrews does -- they have to rebuild it every few years, which led to the recent controversy.  Certainly Riviera and Merion had examples of this, and I don't think it's because the superintendent was trying.  We also saw a bunch on certain holes at San Francisco Golf Club, but some of that may have been deliberate, since it's not a busy course.

On the other hand, the bunker lips at The Valley Club got LOWER over time because the crew edging the bunkers eventually edged right through the tops of the mounds they were built on.  We were only able to figure this out because we had a lot of black-and-white photos, taken at ground level, and could put ourselves in the precise spot from which they were taken and deduce what had changed.

In heavier soils it's fairly easy to find the original floor of a bunker through archaeology, but the original lip has been torn away from maintenance, so there's nothing to find.

[Dave_Miller]

Mayday:
You should know better.  There is no such thing as a trap on a golf course.  They are Bunkers, repeat after me, Bunkers.  

As others have said it is pretty hard to find bunker depth from aerials.

We were successful at Charles River only because Michael Drake was actually able to find the original bunker depths.  

We also knew through research that very little had been done to the bunkers over the years and the changes were natural more than anything else.

Best
Dave

[W. Rand]

I am currently working on a bunker remodeling project for a 12 year old golf course and for the sake of discussion can offer what we have found.

The original bunkers were lined with Trevira 1114 and in most cases the original paint lines are still present when the traps have been opened.  From these lines it has been quite amazing to see what has occured to the bunkers since the day they were grassed.

First, not one single bunker has been edged to the architects original design.  Most, if not all of the bunkers have been edged higher over time.  This has had the effect of making the bunkers much more two dimensional than the original design.  Also, by edging higher more sand has been added to the bunkers to fill to these higher lines.  In some cases there has been 3-4 feet of sand added.  This made the bunker faces more prone to plugging, which became a playability issue, and sloughing, which became a maintenance issue.

Second, we have been able to see how the sand being splashed from the bunkers has influenced the bunker surrounds and greens tie-ins.  Obviously the green side bunkers, in particular the right hand green side bunkers, have altered the surrounding areas the most.  We have found some areas that have risen almost 2 feet (in only 12 years!)  I would say this supports the sand splash theory.  In our remodeling we are removing the excess sand and tieing in to these new higher contours.  In effect, the bunkers are deeper than the originals.

Third, we have found that many of the bunkers have migrated uphill.  The faces have been edged higher and the lead ins have grown in - in some cases 4-5 feet.  

What this has taught me is that superintendents, their crews and everyday play have a much greater influence on the aesthetics and evolution of bunkers and green edge contours than I had ever imagined.  

To point, as I am watching The Nissan Open this weekend I know that Riviera is not the course that George Thomas left.  I have seen photos of his original bunkers and they are not what is there today.  I know this may be considered sacrilege for many people here, but I believe the superintendents and decades of play are more responsible for the current look of the bunkers than Mr. Thomas.  I am not dismissing Mr. Thomas or his design in any way, I am simply saying that those bunkers have changed a lot in 70 some odd years and if an architect came in and did a true restoration back to the day 1 look, feel and contouring - he would be hung.  It all adds perspective for me.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You're unbelievable! Did I conclude anything about cause? Not at all. But I did make a number of assumptions that could be possible causes.

But you, on the other hand, seem to be asking for facts to establish the fact of the "effect" on a bunker like Merion's #13. You seem to be denying the fact of that "effect". If it was not redesign then how did it happen that photographs show a difference in height on Merion's #13, for instance, an increase of a number of feet in the height of the top of the bunker? That's not inconsiderable at all. There's simply no denying it when you look at the photograph of Jones in that bunker or others in that bunker 50-70 years ago compared to pre-restoration in 1999 (or even 1980). Comparing those photos you can pretty much conclude the "effect", and if it wasn't redesign, what was it?

As Tom Doak just said you're limited to how far you can drop down with the floors of bunkers (before you hit drainage construction etc) possibly creating the illusion of an increase in the height of the front top profile. As far as raising the floors that would show a shallower relationship not a deeper one that's not germane to this issue at all--it would be the opposite making things appear shallower. And with a bunker like Merion's #13 fronting bunker you probably can't come up with the height of the floor anyway more than a few inches or you'd be above the edge of the incoming side.

[W.McNally]

W.Rand

 They have risen one foot every six years? At that rate by the time they reach Merion's age they will have risen 15 feet. Quite remarkable bordering on the fantastic.

 Based on your sand splash theory wouldn't every bunker over fifty years of age have their leading edge 8 to 10 ft. high?

[TEPaul]

Richard:

I'm not talking about the flashing up of sand on the face of a bunker as opposed to grass drapped down the face of the bunker--not at all.

Just imagine the top of a bunker (the very top of the grass top profile). Forget if the sand is flashed all the way up near that very top or if grass is drapped down near the base of angle of repose.

The question is has that very top risen or hasn't it? In the case of a bunker like Merion's #13 it has risen a number of feet. That's substantial. And there are many other fronting bunkers on other courses I can find where essentially the same thing has happened.

A number of architects believe it's a result of sand splash that basically keeps increasing the growing medium as it would on a topdressed green, fairway, whatever.

But whatever the cause the effect is undeniable. Of course it's possible that at some point or from time to time a super may add topsoil and seed to the top of the bunker to keep the grass growing, as you said. But if that's the cause of the increased height that's not an illusion, Richard, that's a fact. And that may very well be the cause or one of them of the increased height although similar increases in height at other courses would say that might not be the cause. (Does everyone dump soil on top of their bunkering everywhere?).

But if you're denying the fact of this increased height and it's not redesign what is it? We already know the height you can take a floor down is limited.

Clearly there would seem to be a simple logic here to the theory of sand kick that might be in evidence at Merion's #13.

The height of the top of that bunker would tend to grow fastest when the bunker is shallowest wouldn't it? Why? Because the sand splash doesn't have as far to rise. But when the bunker height has grown a number of feet, then the sand splash reaching the top of the bunker would logically begin to diminish since golfers won't get the sand splash that high (the sand splash would basically be casting into the sand or grass face, not the top!).

And from looking at a number of photos through the decades of Merion's #13, that diminishing increase in height seems to slow down considerable as time went on. What does that say? To me it says sand splash is the most logical cause so far.

[TEPaul]

W Rand:

What you said in your post does lead to the validity of the sand splash theory of bunker top height increase. The fact that you saw bunkers increase that much in only 12 years supports the fact that sand splash build up happens fastest in the beginning when the bunkers are shallowest (sand splash does not have as far to rise when bunkers are shallowest in the beginning) so logically it increases in height fastest in the beginning and then begins to diminish in increased height as the top gets higher!

The fact that the right side bunker you mentionned seems to have increased the fast would probably support the fact that most lesser quality golfers slice the ball or hit it right!

And you're absolutely right about the bunker change you noticed at Riviera. Coore and Crenshaw determined that that evolutionary sand splash increase in height should be left as is and not taken down to the lower heights Thomas designed some of those faces. Why? Because they viewed that evolutionary change as just part of the ongoing character of the golf course as it evolved through play.

Just ask Geoff Shackelford about that--he was there--and he knows as much about the evolution of that course as anyone.

And one other thing you mentioned also leads to the validity of the sand splash theory. The fact that the contour of the green edges over this bunker tops does change dramatically too, and always to a more declining angle just over those bunker tops. Why would this suprise anyone? Have they never seen sand splashed onto a green like that? To the extent players play shots out of that kind of bunker this kind of thing is going to happen everyday, and many times per day perhaps.

Over the decades it has to change things and make them grow in height and change in contour.

[TEPaul]

"They have risen one foot every six years? At that rate by the time they reach Merion's age they will have risen 15 feet. Quite remarkable bordering on the fantastic.

Based on your sand splash theory wouldn't every bunker over fifty years of age have their leading edge 8 to 10 ft. high?"

W Mcnally:

That statement is not in the slightest bit logical and you must know that. Logically, sand splash can only get so high. And that's the very reason height increase happens much faster when bunkers are shallowest, and then begins to diminish as they get higher.

The photogrpahic evidence on so many of these types of bunkers very much supports this fast increase early and then diminishing at increased heights. It was an excellent observation on W Rand's part with the bunkers he menitioned and just how much they did increase in the first 12 years. And also the fact that the right side greenside bunkers increased the most. This does support the theory that all architects subscribe to that most golfers hit the ball right more than left.

Frankly, I'm very surprised that some on here question or deny this. To the couple of architects I know best this has been a given from way back. And from the 25 year super at my own course who is really good this is also undeniable. He's been aware of this for years.  I suppose he's been watching it happen for a long time and he's also take core samples that shows the extent of the increase.

[Richard Mandell]

TE Paul:

I am not denying the fact that bunker surrounds rise, etc.  Not at Merion or anywhere else.  I am also not denying the fact that bunker surrounds rise over time and my main point is that it is through redesign!!  I am just questioning the sand splash theory being the dominant cause.  

Willie Dow:  What?  First of all there is a concept called sarcasm.  Secondly, I don't need to study Ross vs. Flynn.  I am not really discussing Merion in my contributions at all, those are other people using Merion to prove their points.  I'm not sure of what your contribution was there.  

[TEPaul]

"I am not denying the fact that bunker surrounds rise, etc.  Not at Merion or anywhere else.  I am also not denying the fact that bunker surrounds rise over time and my main point is that it is through redesign!!  I am just questioning the sand splash theory being the dominant cause."

Richard:

I'm not thinking of redesign at all--not at all. Redesign is obvious, it's documentable, it's a know fact not any kind of evolutionary effect I thought we were talking about.

And I understand that you're questioning the cause of evolutionary build up and rise. But if you haven't, just go back and read down from W Rand's post and on down. It appears to me that the logic of this is becoming fairly undeniable. If you don't think so I wish you'd explain why not.

Thanks  

[Joe Hancock]

Keep debating it, fellas. Next time you play, take a look at the green that has a bunker close to it. Do you see any sand splashed out on the green? Is wind/ rain/ gravity going to put that sand back in the bunker? If you see that sand on the green, how much more is in the longer grass that typical surrounds most bunkers?

Bunker sand gets moved around, therefore bunkers change physically/ dimensionally over the years. It doesn't take a shovel/ rake/ dozer to relocate the sand.

Joe

[TEPaul]

Richard:

Seems to me that Willie was not trying to be sarcastic--he's really not like that at all.

Seems the point he might be making is a good one, though, such as a Ross bunker, for instance, that might start out 4-5 feet deep (or a height differential) between the sand floor and the top lip may not be a comparable example to use at all to a Flynn bunker, such as some at Merion or the ones that Mayday Malone was talking about at Rolling Green, another Flynn design.

Seems like the logic would be that any bunkers that started out shallow are the best candidates to be effected by sand splash evolutionary buildup. At least until they rise to the heights and/or depths of what some Ross bunker may have started out at.

It shouldn't be lost on you either that some of those archtiects I know who have done a lot of Ross restorations all almost joke about the fact that Ross seemed to like to call for bunkers that were 4 1/2 feet deep all the time.

And from all the Ross hole drawings I've seen there sure seems to be a ton of construction instructions on them that call for bunkers that are 4 1/2 feet deep. Just reading Brad Klein's new Ross book anyone would probably be struck by that.

[Richard Mandell]

TE Paul:

"But one thing is completely undeniable--and I do mean completely. And that is that the tops of fronting bunkering has grown in height by often feet!! There's simply no denying this, so please don't try. I can supply you with volumes of  photographic evidence of it from fronting bunkering all over the place. And given a relatively similar amount of time and a similar fronting bunker situations the increases are quite similar."

"But if you're denying the fact of this increased height and it's not redesign what is it? We already know the height you can take a floor down is limited."

Response to Quote 1:

Again I do not deny the tops of bunkers rise.  I just think there are other reasons in addition to your theory, of which you can review from my earlier input.

Response to Quote 2:

This quote is why I responded last that it may be redesign in many cases.


No where did I deny a height increase.  

[W.McNally]

TE said:
"Logically, sand splash can only get so high."

Why is that? Can you explain the mechanics of this theory of diminishing sand splash?

If I were to construct a new No.13 Merion bunker based on today's sand splahed version are you saying there would be no sand splash effect?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()