The architectural "randomness" of Esler bunkers

[TEPaul]

David Esler, the Chicago architect, restored the bunkers at Flynn's Glen View G.C. in Chicago a few years ago. Initially the grass surrounds were a bit more rugged than they apparenty are now as the club toned that down a bit.

But the thing that really interested me about the bunkers David Esler did there was what I'd call "architectural randomness". David Esler claims he studied the bunkering of Merion East and a few other Flynn courses before decided on this approach to his Glen View bunker redo.

The primary reason the Glen View bunkers have "architectural randomness" is they have some very narrow little capes and bays here and there in them which serve to make playability really difficult if any golfer happens to get in those parts of the bunkers.

Apparently some members really like this "architectural random" feature, or "iffiness" to the bunkers and others don't like it at all.

But they're there to stay apparently. If any golfer happens to get his ball in those difficult and narrow little capes and bays it's called "getting Eslered" at Glen View.

Personally, I love the idea and the concept. It definitely gets any golfer's attention when they think about getting in those bunkers or not.

How about you---do you like this type of architectural bunker "randonmess" and the prospect of "getting Eslered"?

[Craig Sweet]

I love it. Bunkers and their " grass surrounds" are hazzards. End of story in my mind. I'd like to see golfers actually face the possibility of losing a ball if they hit into them

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Dr. MacKenzie and Walter Travis were two others who occasionally built bunkers with little keyhole sections which made recovery very difficult.  [George Crump, too.]

At The Valley Club there were several bunkers which appeared, in the combination of old plans and photos, to have little bays of sand which were almost completely flash with very little floor for the ball to come to rest, so that the ball would have rolled back off the face almost right up against the tee-side lip of the bunker.  I had no idea whether this was a construction mistake, or a deliberate tactic -- if deliberate it would have been Robert Hunter's decision, because MacKenzie was never around during the construction as far as I am aware.

We decided in these cases to make the relevant section of bunker slightly larger so the members wouldn't think they'd been Doaked.  I would only do that to them on my own original design!

[Dan Herrmann]

A quote from Gil Hanse:
"A big part of the thrill of playing a well-designed course is not knowing, when you hit a shot toward a bunker, what kind of situation you'll find yourself in when you get there. If every bunker were a severe, automatic penalty, basically you'd have water—the ultimate hazard, which gained prominence only in the last century and which is far less fun to encounter. In bunkers, however, outcomes can vary widely. You might have a perfectly playable lie in the center of a sandy expanse. Or you might have a challenging lie with a high lip looming, requiring a sideways exit. Or you might find yourself in real trouble, such as with the ball buried in sand on a steep slope. The anticipation as you walk to the bunker, and the ensuing elation or despair depending on the lie, is an integral part of the classic golf experience, but one that the modern, primarily American insistence on pristine courses undervalues. "

The whole article is at http://www.travelandleisure.com/tlgolf/invoke.cfm?objectid=654D20D7-25C5-4DD7-9FBFE1859F7CEBF7

[BCrosby]

Couldn't agree more that recoveries from bunkers ought to be unpredicable. Even well neigh impossible sometimes.

But placing bunkers randomly on the course as a design theory? For what service was Essler being compensated? I've got a seven year old nephew who can do random. He's very, very good. And the price is right.

But even worse, Essler brought this theory to a Flynn "restoration"? Tom, you should have been screaming bloody murder.

Surely I am missing something.

Bob  

[Dan Herrmann]

Bob,
I think Tom Paul was refering to the shape/depth of the bunkers and surrounds - not where they were placed.

[SL_Solow]

David did not place bunkers randomly (although that theory seems to work quite well at the Old Course).  David essentially restored and reshaped what was there with a few aditions and subtractions.  I believe Tom was referring to the random nature of the lies and stances that might occur in the bunkers due to the variety of shapes and depths.  The restoration added considerable interest to the course from almost every standpoint whether one focuses on strategy or visual appeal.

[BCrosby]

Rereading Tom's post, you guys are right. I stand happily corrected.

Bob

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I know what you mean about some of those Mackenzie knooks and crannies in some bunker areas. Obviously Maxwell did it too (I'm sure he got the style from his collaboration with Mackenzie). We've long had one area in a front bunker on our #8 Maxwell green-end at GMGC which was so narrow you really couldn't get in there and swing toward the green. That cape did vegetate out and grow significantly wider though over the decades signifcantly narrowing the long sand bay. We looked carefully at the aerial just after it was built, scaled and measured it and Gil restored it to it's original width so it's a little easier to swing out of now.

The incredible multipicity of shapes, sizes and every other bunker dimension does fascinate one about Crump and PVGC for sure but obviously many of those bunkers have vegetated out and narrowed things. I was just there today with your head honcho looking the place over from every angle, particularly the greens and some of those quirky little bunker areas. Behind #13 (where few likely go) there's a really narrow what I call "river" bunker that runs around most of the back of the green. If you got anywhere in that it looks like you could only swing sideways---although your stance would have to be outside the bunker and you'd probably have to be nearly on your knees. Only problem is if you had to swing side ways from back there it looks like there's no reasonable place at all to go--except into even more trouble. That's why PVGC can be so unique.

There was a very famous bunker area like that to the left of #10. All golfers who knew that course well in tournaments I know knew to avoid that area at all costs, and it sure always got in my head on the tee. Sometimes I just hit less club to the green to be sure to avoid that area altogether. Many a really good player could get stuck in there for a while because basically you couldn't come out at the green and were always in real danger of having the ball hit you in there. The smartest play, perhaps the only play, from that area was to just putt the ball down to the front of the bunker at the front of the green.

They've changed that area now, cut back the lips and smoothed that sand area out and you can play out of there now. And then, of course catty corner to that bunker area was the DA. In all my tournament years there I thankfully never got in the DA, but if I had I think I would've just gone back to the tee and played stroke and distance.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Yeah, Esler never repositioned en masse the bunkering of Glen View that I'm aware of. It's just that he came up with this rather interesting idea of little knooks and crannies (narrow little sand bays inside grass capes) where the golf ball can actually come to rest. He said he got that idea from studying Merion East and some other Flynn bunkers. To be honest I've never really seen anything like that with the old bunkering at Merion East (except perhaps the big cape and narrow bay on the old greenside bunker right of #12 green) or really any other Flynn bunkers but maybe I just missed them. Flynn wasn't really that big a cape and bay bunker designer, but we can't forget that a good deal of Flynn's bunkers were intended to vegetate in over time in all kinds of interesting little ways. One of the reasons for that was Flynn was both a proponent of bunkering some courses in over time if they'd let him and also a large proponent of letting bunkers grow in in various ways over long periods of time as Merion East did intentionally. It took about 20 years for the surrounds of Merion East's bunkers to get the way they wanted them. Part of that was Flynn (and probably Valentine too) were fascinated by experimenting with all kinds of grasses. But mostly those capes and bays that were part of the long time maturation process of Merion and a few other courses (Shinnecock too) were not areas the ball would come to rest like in some of Glen View's Esler bunkers.

[gookin]

TEP,

Great point.  It is very much at the heart of FCGC's bunker restoration.  As you know we restored the steep and deep bunkers on our Raynor designed course.  A two or three foot difference in where your ball comes to rest can mean the difference between a reasonably easy recovery and no shot. As you suggested, this can fracture a membership. And even a small vocal minority can make it unpleasant for the rest of us. I have been told that other bunker projects at other Raynor designed courses have been more conservative than ours.  Yale is an example that has seen a lot of discussion on this site.  I am told Camargo has no bunker faces steeper than 30 degrees. I would be interested in hearing from others, what issues were considered when deciding how steep and how deep.  Fox Chapel has many bunker faces that are 6 to 10 feet high at angles much sharper than 45 degrees.  Can a Raynor bunker be too steep or too deep. Not according to our old photos.  The vast majority of our members love our bunkers. They are the defining characteristic of our course.  I am still interested in others thoughts.

One last thought. Picture the right side of 13 green at PVGC. A two foot swing can mean the difference between an easy chip or a soft bounce left onto the green vs being in that tiny sliver of a bunker with no backswing or follow through.  On one of golf's greatest second shots, there is a great example of TEP architectural randomness.

[gookin]

TEP,

Your post came while I was crafting my reply.  Only Don Wolff and I are on such a similar wave length.  I better drink heavily this evening.

[TEPaul]

"One last thought. Picture the right side of 13 green at PVGC. A two foot swing can mean the difference between an easy chip or a soft bounce left onto the green vs being in that tiny sliver of a bunker with no backswing or follow through.  On one of golf's greatest second shots, there is a great example of TEP architectural randomness."

David B:

That kind of thing I just call "ultra thin MARGINS for error"---some of the best old architecture in the world has some of the thinnest margins between glory and disaster! But obviously with the angularity of man-made features that's the hallmark style of Raynor (Macdonald) those margins can be about the thinnest.

But I know just what you mean about members who might complain to you about the steepness and verticalness of some of the banks on your flat floor Raynor bunkers (#5!!!) and the difference between straight out recovery or having to perhaps go sideways that a foot or so can make.

But if any of your members actually tell you they're being unnecessarily and unfairly penalized because of the fact that their ball is a foot closer to one of those steep faces means they actually hit a better shot than someone who's a foot father back, do me a favor---write down their names and I'll send their names to Tommy Naccarato and he'll take care of them in his usual "don't ask any questions" modus operandi!

[TEPaul]

Eckstein:

When David Esler said he studied Merion East's bunkers before doing Glen View, he wasn't talking about Fazio's new Merion bunkers I don't think. I believe he was talking about Merion's bunkers before the recent bunker project. But maybe not. Merion's bunkers today have more capes and bays than they did before the recent bunker project (but the ball doesn't really come to rest in those bays).

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I don't know about that.  When I played Merion last summer, on both the second and third holes, I had to play bunker shots with one foot in and my other knee outside the bunker edge.

[TEPaul]

"When I played Merion last summer, on both the second and third holes, I had to play bunker shots with one foot in and my other knee outside the bunker edge."

Tom:

Maybe balls do hang up in tough little knooks and crannies in the post bunker project bunkers at Merion East but you know what some say about bunkers in golf and architecture---"Your ball shouldn't be in there Pal, or you might have to pay!"