[TEPaul]

MikeS:

Those few photos you posted of Vineyard G.C. show some holes that sure look good to me---eg well bunkered and of the gathering type.

It certainly doesn't surprise me the course is by Donald Steel. The only Steel course I know and have played a number of times is Red Tail in Canada (the first course Steel did in North America). It has the same type of gathering bunkers that have that sort of shadowy pot bunker look in those photos above and they most certainly do gather balls into them. I have no idea how he handled drainage issues into them though as most of them look like they'd logically fill up like bathtubs. The course only has 30 bunkers on it but they function so well (they gather so effectively) it feels like the course has a lot more bunkers than that.

[Andy Hughes]

Mike, good pictures, thanks.

The bunkers you highlighted would actually have to be thought about, planned for, dealt with.  Almost all bunkering I come across can almost be totally ignored.  By having a gathering bunker (and the ground to support it), suddenly strategy and thought become critical to successfully navigate the hole.
The Vineyard Club looks like it would be fun to play.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Having just paid my first vist to Woodhall Spa I can attest that Gathering Bunkers work best with firm and fast conditions.  

Is the influence of the old course discernible here, as it's links golf in the dryest part of Scotland (- or is that just talking about the shallowest part of the Ocean?).

However with overwatered courses you are going to have more problems with surface water flowing into bunkers.  This then leads to maintenance problems with a bunker which isn't really 'gatheriong' and punching above it's weight like they do on some of the classic courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So,

Is the problem with gathering bunkers in America architectural or cultural ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
My guess is some of both, with architectural in the majority. I think that the combo of drainage issues, heavy soils, rock, etc., you know, the kind of stuff found in most locales, tips the scale against their use.

[Jimmy Muratt]

I had the pleasure of playing Palmetto Golf Club in Aiken, SC this past weekend and the recently restored bunker work was one of my favorite aspects of the course.  The fairways are cut right up to the edge of the bunkers so mis-placed shots easily trickle into the bunkers.  Combined with the firm & fast conditions, it made for a wonderful set up.  The green complexes are also quite severe and feature closely cut run-offs that often feed into greenside bunkers.  

It's amazing how much more precise you must be with both tee shots and approaches when you have bunkers that easily collect slightly mis-placed shots.

[Mark_Fine]

Sad to say it is a fairness issue Pat!  For the purist, they are a great challenge, a true hazard and a feature many of us enjoy (though we might curse them when we are in them).  For the vast majority, however, they are deemed unfair because a ball hit 10 yards or so from one of them can get sucked right in.  The arguement is that the game is tough enough.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I"d equate cultural and fairness from the perspective of the golfer, but, what about the architects who design these courses, do you feel they've acquiesced to the "fairness" mentality ?

[Tom_Doak]

It's to practical with me, certainly not that I'm acquiescing to the culture of "fairness".  (If you think so, you need to go see the second green at Sebonack or the thirteenth at Barnbougle.)

But I will try to think about it more in the future.

[Mark_Fine]

Architects definitely think about the "fairness" issue whether they agree with it or not.  They have clients to please and if they want to continue in the profession (or on that particular project) they have to consider it.  Most (if you talk with a number of them) will tell you that they would love to be less concerned about whether a bunker or a hazard is deemed "fair".  But most will also tell you that at least in America, the concept of what is fair is much different than what it is for example in the British Isles.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Could it be aesthetics? Americans just like to see their sand. Below are Google aerials of Hidden Creek and The Vineyard Club. Different angles and satellites, but close enough. The terrain is very similar; inland, wooded, a couple of miles from the ocean on sandy soil. Being on Martha's Vineyard, TVC had more environmental constraints to deal with (also better beaches as a result! ). I was definitely in more bunkers at Vineyard compared to HC, yet it looks like there are barely any bunkers at The Vineyard.





On the ground Hidden Creek, a course I love, is prettier to the eye.



While maintenance may be an excuse, it seems that the gathering bunker is a more challeging, but maybe a less visually appealing bunker to Yanks.

This is based on my vast experience of 1 play at The Vineyard.  

[ForkaB]

Pat

In general, the American punters don't want them (for the reasons cited above), and the architects do not have the cojones (or maybe even the desire) to build them.  And then even when they do..........the powers that be emasculate them by growing rough around them--both at the edges and in  the lead-in to the bunker.

This is all a crying shame, as the gathering bunker is one of the finest architectural features in all of golfdom.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
The entire surrounds of the bunker don't have to "gather".  You can still have bunkers that gather and at the same time are as you state very aesthetically appealing with eyebrows on the back sides.

[TEPaul]

"Mike,
The entire surrounds of the bunker don't have to "gather".  You can still have bunkers that gather and at the same time are as you state very aesthetically appealing with eyebrows on the back sides."

Mark:

This very issue is a seemingly complex one from a lot of perspectives. I've seen more than a few maintenance departments who claim for a variety of reasons this (low cut incoming sides and rugged back sides or outgoing sides) is not easy to do and may be far more expensive to do).

Whether that's simply some excuse not to do it sort of remained to be seen a few years ago but probably no longer. The reason for that is in the last few years in America a good number of new courses as well as a few of the older ones (Atlantic City C.C. is a great example) have done it.

About two years ago I did a whole lot of checking of old photos of old American courses and it seems the ring of rough surrounding American bunkers had pretty much always been super prevalent over here. In the old days those "rough rings" surrounding bunkers may not have been quite so high as some are now but it seems they always existed over here.

But just because they always did exist over here does not mean they always have to exist, and the examples in some of the photos on here of courses over here is proof of that.

In my experience this is an issue where some maintenance departments may be more intransigent on this issue than their memberships!  

But like all things in golf and architecture and maintenance practices education and good communication will resolve it in the future!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
The bunkers that Mike pictured could be designed to gather (very similar to some of the bunkers at Royal County Down).  No question there is more delicate maintenance involved.  As pointed out, drainage is also an issue but I am still convinced that fairness is the major culprit behind their lack of use.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

With your familiarity with Pine Valley and the folks at Pine Valley, I'd be interested to know why the DA bunker on # 10 was altered from a gathering bunker to a non-gathering bunker.

At one time the green and forward surrounds fed into that bunker.

Then, around the time of the Walker Cup, the bunker was altered when a buffering lip was inserted that prevented balls from entering the bunker from the green side.

I recall balls being hit from the DA bunker, on to the front of the green, only to see them slowly roll back into the bunker.
This can no longer happen due to the alteration.

I'd be curious to know who suggested the change and for what reason.

[ForkaB]

Pat

Don't want to steal TEP's thunder, but isn't the answer in Mark F's post above?

"You can still have bunkers that gather and at the same time are as you state very aesthetically appealing with eyebrows on the back sides."

I know it's a slippery slope, but aren't most arseholes eventually hair-covered 360 degrees, 24/7?  And, when that happens, it is not "appealing" either aesthetically or strategically, at least IMHO.......

OK, just had to add this.......

Maintenance Workers of the World, unite!  Where bunkers are concerned, go for the full Brazilian!

R

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Your question about when the filtering effect above the 10th hole's DA was changed is a good one. All the years I've played there (which I think is somewhat before the Walker Cup there) it seems to me that area was not of the filtering type (but I could be wrong about that as I can't recall ever being in the DA a single time until last year).

There very well may be another and entirely different reason for why that filtering effect (short cut grass above the DA) was let go.

There were a few holes at PVGC that were originally designed with the fronting areas to the green and their fronting bunkers much much different than they are now. The most notable examples are #2 and #18. But #10 was one too. And so was the area to the right of #8.

Those three holes used to have fronting bunkers that were absolutely massive single bunkers and on which the sand swept all the way up to the front of the green surface above.

Unfortunately it did not take long to realize bunkers of that size and that dramatic an upsweep where vitually unmaintainable. The fact is a a portion of the front of #2 green just above that massive fronting bunker collapsed. The same was a problem on #18 and perhaps on #10 too.

On all three of those holes eventually far more defined bunkers were established with grass sweeping well down between them. Check out the photos and the differences on all those three holes compared to the way they used to be and were originally designed. The point was that solution basically stabalized things. We also feel there's a very strong liklihood that William Flynn may've done this work and if not it may've been Perry Maxwell when he added bunkering to the right side of the 5th green.

How does this potentially or possibly answer the question of why the short grass filtering effect was let go just above the DA? Well, when the large bunker to its left was reworked to be far more grassed down they may've just carried that longer grassed-down look to the right around the front of the green and above the DA too.

But I can certainly ask someone like John Ott as he certainly remembers that golf course a lot farther back than either of us do.

[TEPaul]

As a point of historical interest and since I may be one of the very few who've ever actually studied with a real purpose Colt's hole by hole drawing booklet, it is certainly fascinating to see some of the things on some holes that Colt was calling for that were never done by Crump & Co.

One was certainly the 2nd green and the other was the 18th green. On the latter Colt called for a front to that green and a virtual "false front" green section/approach area that slopped massively from back to front and all the way into the pond below!!!

The fact is that Crump raised the entire front section of that green up massively (we're probably talkiing about an area here that could've been up to or over 5,000 or more square feet! With that raised up green front Crump put an absolutely massive single bunker in there where Colt's design had called for a grass area sloping backwards down to the pond.

Another marked difference in Colt's hole by hole drawings is he called for a form of fairway chipping areas on many of the holes, particularly in the rear sections of many of them. None of that was ever done by Crump & Co on any of the holes at PVGC, and certainly in none of the rear sections of them.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Your course may be different (certainly if you have a majority of members in favor of this) but it is surely not what you find around the country.  You may not want to admit it, but you are in touch enough to understand what the perception is out there.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom,
Your course may be different (certainly if you have a majority of members in favor of this) but it is surely not what you find around the country.  

Mark,

I agree with what you are saying but how can "they" know if they have never had any real exposure? 99+% of my rounds played have been here in the states, over 30 years on a fairly broad range of courses. Yet, Vineyard was the first time I was really exposed (almost every bunker) to gathering bunkers.

How can you know they are "fair" if you have never played them?

PS. My apologies for sounding like Matt, however I will resist the tempation to mention how "Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass" do not get up from their comfy sofas!

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Good point about most golfers not being exposed to them (at least not in person).  However, the concept of fairness is unfortunately ingrained in most golfer’s heads.  Much of it comes from watching golf coverage on television.  Also, as we’ve heard many times here, the medal play verses match play mentality is very influential.  This is something that was brought up almost by every one of the architects we interviewed for our book on hazards.  You might be surprised how many said they would love to design bunkers that are true hazards, but the American golfer mentality rarely allows them to do it.  Is that a cop out, some may say it is.  I just know I play and see a lot of different golf courses around the country every year and finding bunkers that gather is quite rare.  You said it yourself, that you were not exposed to them until just recently.  

One of the things Gil Hanse said to me regarding our hazards book was that if we could accomplish one thing, “Eliminate the word fair and its association with hazards”.  We sure tried but we’ll let others be the judge.  

One of our upcoming articles in Golf Tips is on the concept of fairness.  It should create some interesting discussion and if nothing else, make people think about their perception of hazards.    
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Your course may be different (certainly if you have a majority of members in favor of this) but it is surely not what you find around the country.  You may not want to admit it, but you are in touch enough to understand what the perception is out there."

Mark:

What do you mean I may not want to admit that I understand what the perception is out there?

Of course I understand what it is. The difference between me and someone like Pat Mucci, or perhaps even you, is I certainly do understand the perceptions out there but I simply feel the need to do something about it other than just constantly crowing like roosters on here what the PROBLEMS are! I believe in SOLUTIONS and both communicating and educating memberships to those solutions instead of constantly railing against them about what the PROBLEM is which apparently in Pat Mucci's mind isn't much more than THEM!

Do you think my membership at GMGC is really that different than any other membership? Of course they aren't. The reason my membership in large part has bought into something like this is almost completely due to the fact that we have taken the time and made the effort to communicate with them about these things and to try to communicate with them in a friendly and logical and non-adverserial way and SURPRISE of ALL SURPRISES it really didn't take all that much time to do it and to educate them. Not all of them perhaps but certainly enough of them to make a marked difference in these types of things. It's pretty amazing to see how, if you can and do educate some significant slice of a membership into many of these things that they then go out and basically communicate it to most of the rest!  

My membership inherently different in these ways than other memberships?? What a laugh that is!!

This really great new young head professional we got last year from Seminole mentioned the other day that he feels our membership has what he called a really "high golf IQ'. That sure did surprise me but I know what he's talking about now. That's what he sees compared to other memberships that's a direct result of the communicating and educating about many of these things we've been doing for the last few years as a result of all that happened with our Master Plan and restoration.

No Sir, my membership is basically no different than any other, or they certainly weren't. What they now feel and know is a result of a process we used of friendly and civil communication and education. We didn't exactly wait for them to come to us with concerns or complaints either---we dedicatedly went to them in both formal forums and also one on one to a large extent.

Have you ever seen the reaction of a 30 handicapper when a scratch member of his club (who may be on something like a green committee) goes to him and talks to him about the 30 handicapper's own game and how he feels it relates to his golf course? Well, if you haven't, you should try it sometime. The reaction is positive beyond belief. In less than five minutes you generally have a willing participant and audience to be able to explain to him the logic of most all of this stuff we propose on here. And the reason he begins to understand it and see it is because in the real world and in fact it really does work for him and everyone else out there on the golf course simply because it is so overridingly logical!

I see some on this website constantly rail against the out of control egos of past green or golf chairman who only wished to do things their own way. Did those who complain on here think those people in the past were willing to talk to their memberships in the past about anything? Apparently not.

So what's the difference between those old egoistic golf and green chairmen and a philosophy like Pat Mucci's? There is no difference at all and that's most of my entire point here. He thinks memberships are nothing more than a bunch of uneducated idiots; he thinks they’re the enemy and he treats them that way---eg adverserially or with no communication at all.

Pat has for years stated on here that the best clubs are run by czars or benevolent dictators. I agree with that---that's true---there's no question about it, history has mostly proven that. But how many golf clubs are or can be run by that kind of benevolent dictator? Very, very few, perhaps less than 1%.

The rest, perhaps even your famous 99% number Mark are run by committees with the general consensus of memberships. My club is that way, was structured that way originally in 1916, has always been that way and is frankly proud of it. We are a fairly civil club and membership and perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here in that too.

I understand what the perceptions are out there Mark. I saw it in my own club about five years ago, I've seen them for years in all the clubs I've had contact with while on GAP and to some extent the PA Golf Assoc. and also all the clubs I've vistied in this vein while having gotten so interested in architecture (particualarly Flynn courses with Wayne) and that's why I so often propose the "process" we used in dealing with it back then and today.

Pat Mucci says he's been on green committees and such for forty years. I'm sure he has but what has it accomplished if his attitude towards the memberships has always been as adverserial as it is today--eg virtually treating them as idiots or the enemy? He says most old green chairmen and such are egoists who just do what they want despite what others at the club may feel. Is that any different than him? Of course not. Who's being the egoist now in proposing his philosophy of dictatorship?

This "process" I advocate of membership education through communication works. I've seen it happen at my club whose membership is no different than most others. I've seen it happen at other clubs too---Fox Chapel being a great example of a club who has used this "process" of non-adverserial communication and education. Some on here better start to pay attention to it and buy into it if they ever want some positive things to happen for all on their golf courses.

I know precisely what the perceptions are out there, and I think I know what the best way is to not just constantly crow about the PROBLEM but how to affect a decent SOLUTION to the problem for all.

Calling memberships idiots and treating them like an enemy is not the way to do it unless someone really wants to spend forty years banging their head against the wall and arguing and fighting with people constantly.

Everyone needs to learn this and GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and even its very best participants and contributors are certainly no exception.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
No one (I don't even think Pat) is calling anyone idiots.  You just gave me the impression from your quote: "Not if my club and course is an example" that you felt your club's movement toward "gathering" bunkers was typical out there.  I'm glad we both agree that it is not.  

As far as doing something about it, I like to think I am especially outside of this site where everyone here is already converted  
Mark  

[ForkaB]

Great post, Tom

It should be put on the GCA achives and be required reading for anybody interested in "hazards" or other GCA matters realative to real golfers.

Rich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()