[TEPaul]

"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?"

W:

Are you really asking me to explain that? Seriously?

OK.  If you're standing in a bunker and the top lip was one foot high (or deep) as opposed to a bunker where the top lip was 6-7 feet high (or deep) which bunker is the sand splash more likely to get onto the top of the bunker profile and onto the green, the one foot high one or the 6-7 foot high one?

Of course I'm saying that if Merion's #13 fronting bunker top profile was originally constructed as high as it is now very little sand splash would get to the top of it. But that's not the way it was originally constructed and in 1930 it came up to Bobby Jones elbow or so. How high was that? It sure isn't the height it is now which would be way over his head.

[Richard Mandell]

I apologize to Willie, thank you Tom Paul.  It just sounded like sarcasm, especially responding to my own sarcasm.

It is funny how consistent all Ross's construction details talk about 4' - 6", sometimes 3' - 6".  Beyond the obvious (to me being that good design should not be so rigid, especially in the face of changing field conditions), I am curious what else specifically is funny to these other Architects about Ross's intentions.

[mike_malone]

  Well i posted this question then could  not access the site,then went to a movie"The Quiet American"--excellent BTW.Now it is the next afternoon after listening to the Quakes talk about not being anti-war but pro-peace.

    Pat Mucci
   I definitely think it is fascinating how unintended things happen to golf courses that enable them to adapt to changing technology.It seems that happens to bunkers.Part of my original thought was that the bunker by #18 at Pebble seemed so dramatically flatter that it must have been a conscious change.Is it okay with traditionalists that significant depth be added to the original bunker and still be consistent with the designer's intent?
    I think it is okay and does adapt the game to new technology.It may be a different manner when the surface of the green becomes blind.That seems to me to be a different design element.
   Dave Miller
      I am surprised i am still allowed to post on this site----my language is so bad!!!
      Did Flynn or other classic designers make notations about bunker depth as they did about green contours?If not,does it mean they did not care much about an issue we can obsess about?

[W.McNally]

Interesting theory.

 If bunker has a face of 6 or 7 ft there will be more shots hit into the face or even plugged into the face than a bunker with a 1 ft. face...no? As you know a shot to extract a plugged ball creates more sand splash....where does this sand go....heaven? Bunkers with mega faces have more sand than a shallow bunker and even more opportunity for splahing outside the bunker....shouldn't the process excellerate not slow?

 Do you see evidence to support your sand splash theory at Cypress Point, Royal Melbourne or Royal County Down?

[wsmorrison]

Mayday,

Flynn was very specific in his construction of both bunker depths and mound heights.  In the explanatory notes section of his hole drawings on grid paper, Flynn would label each bunker and noted the depth of each whether from green or fairway level.  His instructions were in increments of 6 inches for the bunkers and mounds.  If the mounds were located along the edges of the greens, he would instruct that they blend in naturally with the green at a specified slope, usually 1 in 10.  It is interesting that he had a period of activity where he called for revetting the faces of many bunkers.

Regards,
Wayne

[Patrick_Mucci]

W McNally,

The angle of the slope of sand, depth, throw radius, gravity, moisture, particle weight, particle size, wind direction and velocity all effect dispersion patterns making it far more difficult for sand splash to escape bunkers with certain configurations.

The DA at PV is an example of an extreme as is the 13th at Merion, compared to the left greenside bunker at # 18 at Seminole.

Would the sand splash theory apply more to fronting bunkers than it would to flanking or rear bunkers ?

TEPaul,  

I don't buy the sand splash theory at # 13 at Merion.
It would seem to be too severe a change on an existing deep bunker to be solely due to sand splash.  
Are you sure other work wasn't done in and around that bunker ?

[wsmorrison]

Patrick,
Tom and I will be meeting with Richie Valentine and his son Tom in the next week or so.  Among other issues, we hope to ask him about the buildup around various bunkers (particularly 8 and 13) and his thoughts on the mechanics involved.  We also look forward to studying the voluminous records of Joe and Richie from their daily diaries at Merion.  Most of the records deal in expenses and labor allocation...but they will certainly help putting together a timeline of construction activity and perhaps shed some light on maintenance practices.  We hope that there will be information regarding Merion's architectural history as well.   John Chissard, the course superintendent at Lehigh CC has similar records of a Mr. Weiss, an early Lehigh superintendent with over 40 years of service to the club.  Tom Paul is currently studying these materials.

[Willie_Dow]

RM

My apologies for sounding sarcastic.  I was trying to think through what you envisioned with your work on Ross type bunkers @ Monroe Country Club, and compare that to the white faces of Merion.  

I would suggest that this thread is helping all of us understand what a variety of depths and configurations can add to the character of a golf course.  My suggestion of study was directed to just that.

Pat

I'm looking at a picture of the 13th painted by Roy Spreter and comparing this to the cover of the May/June 1981
Golf Journal photo by Brian Morgan.  Only the sand could have created such a valley, as I'm sure Mel Lucas's probe would confirm.  Remember too, that as Tom suggested, rain and irrigation would wash away the effect of blasted sand. Conditions evolve naturally.

Tom

My wife just wiped her brow in sarcastic disbelief.

[TEPaul]

Patrick wrote:

"Would the sand splash theory apply more to fronting bunkers than it would to flanking or rear bunkers ?

I don't buy the sand splash theory at # 13 at Merion.
It would seem to be too severe a change on an existing deep bunker to be solely due to sand splash.  
Are you sure other work wasn't done in and around that bunker?"

Patrick:

I'm going to have to give up as your teacher and send you back to kindergarten. You ask too damn many questions, you refuse to think for yourself and you refuse to listen to the obvious. Plus you refuse to do homework and the necessary research.

Why the hell are you asking if fronting bunkers get more sand splash? What difference does it make where they are? But the point is Pat, fronting bunkers on holes like Merion's #8 and #13, PVGC's #17 get so much more play and players blasting out of them than side or rear bunkers. So naturally they get far more sand splash coming out of them. And if you're going to challenge that fact just forget it--I'm not discussing anything with you on here anymore as it's a total waste of time. You get an F for today's class asking a question like that!

On Merion's #13, I'm not surprised that you disagree with me--that's sort of automatic with you but have you ever seen a photograph of how much shallower that bunker used to be than it became?  Do you have any FACTS on this one? Why do you assume it was built deep? Have you ever seen a photograph of it with a player in it from around 1930? If so did you notice how low the top of the bunker is in relation to the player? Have you seen old photos or Merion's #8 fronting bunker top or PVGC's #17? If you had you understand what I'm talking about.

Anymore of this screwing around asking stupid questions and disagreeing with the obvious on this thread and I'm gonna suspend you from school for a month or more! As it is that last post will cost you 10 demerits!

[W.McNally]

Patrick said:
"The angle of the slope of sand, depth, throw radius, gravity, moisture, particle weight, particle size, wind direction and velocity all effect dispersion patterns making it far more difficult for sand splash to escape bunkers with certain configurations."

The larger the face the steeper the angle, the larger and steeper the face the steeper the throw radius, gravity is a constant in all bunkers as far as I know, bunkers should remain dry most times, wind direction is not much of a factor inland. Another factor is the volume of sand per shot. The steeper the face the more likely a ball rest on the face or the base or plug into the face, the volume of sand throw created from those three scenarios is greater than from a conventional shot from a shallow bunker. Yes fronting bunkers would logically be effected by this alledged theory, shots rarely bury into the face of flanking bunkers.

I don't buy the sand splash theory either, if it were true to the extend some are saying some of our older bunkers would have climbed eight or ten feet.

[TEPaul]

W McNally;

I'm not sure you or Pat need to get into things like gravity, wind velocity, moisture and throw radius to understand somehow the effects of sand splash that causes evolutionary buildup on the tops of bunkering and the edges of greens particularly shallower bunkering. The point is there'll be a lot more sand coming out of a bunker onto the tops of bunkers and onto greens that're 2 feet above the player's club as opposed to 8-10 feet or more above it. Don't accept it if you don't want to but how many golfers have you seen cast sand 10 feet high? A bunker that high most of the sand cast would go right into the face of the bunker not the top of it.

[RIchard Mandell]

Willie Dow:

I am glad to hear what your intentions were.  I couldn't understand why someone would take a shot as I perceived it when we were debating so well at the time.  I'm glad Tom Paul could take the time to bring us together in the midst of all his flogging.  Thanks again Tom.

[TEPaul]

Richard:

It's an ongoing phenomenon to me but some people, maybe most, can't seem to get across very well with the text communication of the Internet what they really intend to.

I'm certainly one of them--but I think it's just something that we all learn to live with after a while. The speed and comprehensiveness with which we can all communicate with each other over the Internet probably makes up for, and much more so, that inherent problem.

[W. Rand]

W. McNally

I wouldn't have believed what we have found had I not seen and experienced it in person either - yet it is there.  Perhaps some further explanantion will help.

It is not every bunker nor every green which has shown to have risen the amount described.  As I said it is mostly the short right greenside bunkers and the greenside bunkers cutting across the line of play.

I do believe that TEPaul is correct in his assumption that sand splash will affect the bunkers more noticably earlier in their existence than later.  I refute what you stated in that the steeper angle of the sand the, "more likely the ball will rest on the face."  I believe the opposite is true.  The chance of plugging is higher on a steeper face only if there is an undue amount of sand depth in the face.  If a proper amount of 2-4" is present it is fairly unlikley for a ball to plug.  I also do not believe that a steeper face inherently causes more sand to be thrown onto the green surrounds and green edges.  I believe that the higher face captures and retains more of the sand because of the height.

I also think that sand splash build affects warm season turfs (kukuyu & bermuda) more than cool season courses.  The aggresive and stoloniferous growth habits of these turfs allow for the build up more quickly, hence the situation we have found.  Again, I am simply reporting what we found in the field doing the work.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()