8th at St George's Hill

[Paul_Turner]

Anyone have a v.good quality (300+dpi), recent pic of this hole i.e. since the bunker redo?

I'll make a trade!

Thanks

[Craig Disher]

Paul,
When were the bunkers rebuilt? I have a photo from 3 yrs ago that I'll post if you're interested.

[Marc Haring]

Craig and Paul. I am sure any bunker rebuilding that has been done will have been done in the recent past, maybe within the last year or so. Unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of playing this great course for some years now. Many years ago it was a fixture of ours when I was an artisan member of Stoke Park and the prohibitive price has since put me off a return visit. My father lives only a mile away and I am due a visit in the next couple of weeks but as many will no doubt be aware, even a visit is not that easily due to the fact that the estate has become gated with security everywhere. I might have a go at getting in as I am also intrigued about that bunker but unfortunately this could be easier said than done.

[Paul_Turner]

Is this the worst ever redo of a great and famous bunker(s)?

[Paul_Turner]

I don't know who did this work.  It looks similar to Steel's company work at Tandridge which was almost as bad.

Anyone know?

[Jeff_Mingay]

 

[SPDB]

I've seen worse. But, your picture makes it look splendid compared to this one:



how about some before pics?

[TEPaul]

Paul:

It'd be very interesting to know the history and evolution of those fronting bunkers on that hole. I sort of wonder where water went vis-a-vis the two fronting bunkers and their massive swept up sand faces (except directly into them), the way they once were. It is one of the coolest looking holes the way those beautiful bunkers with their massive swept-up sand area once was but I wonder if they didn't eventually face the same problems and fate the massive green fronting sand faces on PVGC's #2 and #18 eventually did. Basically both of those were simply not supportable, unfortunately. In the case of PVGC's #2 early on the massive swept-up sand face completely collapsed taking part of the front of the green with it.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

This is how it was in October 1999.  They seem to have opened out the trees behind.

[TEPaul]

I'd be willing to bet if someone looked into the evolution of that hole and particularly it's fronting bunkers they'd find those bunkers, at some point, were subjected to massive and extremely destructive sand wash outs. That's probably why the swept-up sand area as it once was (the front jacket of Hunter's "The Links") has been replaced by much smaller and flatter sand floors and significantly strengthened earthen sod faces.

[Marc Haring]

Tom Paul. You are entirely right. Here is the pic of the original borrowed from Tom MacWood’s Art and Crafts Golf IV.



A little crude but here is what the original would have looked like with a bit of photoshop overlay work using that famous old picture.  

[TEPaul]

Marc:

You need to sweep the sand up a good deal more on the far right bunker. It's probably a bit hard to see in any of those photos but it seems to me the degree of fall on those original old up-swept sand faces (both bunkers) is really significant. How did the architect's expect that sand up-sweep at that kind of angle to withstand wash-outs?? It wouldn't surprise me if the entire upswept sand faces (both bunkers) as well as the sod surrounds above them on those original bunkers didn't completely collapse---perhaps a number of times.

Today, however, there may be an answer to restoring those massive high-degree upswept sand faces. Today there is a product generally referred to as bunker-wol that golf architecture didn't have back then.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

You may be right.  But unlike PV #2, the bunker survived, as originally built, certainly into the late 80s and I think even the early 90s.   So it can't have been that bad.

PS

There is another bunker on the far right (out of view) in the old pic.

[Marc Haring]

Tom.

Didn’t have time to touch the right hand bunker I’m afraid.

You are right about that new sand holding stuff. It’s called sandtrap or something in the UK. It’s expensive but St Georges Hill is not the poorest club I’ve ever come across.  

[Paul_Turner]

Tom Doak's Confidential Guide, "Gourmet Choice" review has a pic of the bunker and it looks practically much closer to the old black and white pic.  I reckon that was taken in the early 90s.

[TEPaul]

"Tom
You may be right.  But unlike PV #2, the bunker was as originally built certianly into the late 80s and I think even the early 90s.  So it can't have been that bad."

Paul:

Really? Well, that should say a lot. I guess the best way then to find out why they changed the look so dramatically would be for someone to just get in touch with them and ask them.

[Paul_Turner]

It would be cool to have a scan of Tom Doak's pic for comparison.  Providing he doesn't mind of course.

I have a good pic from the 80s club history and will be able to scan sometime later.

Tom

Several other bunkers have been through this redo and they look just as poor:  smaller bunkers would not be susceptable to wash out.  

[TEPaul]

"smaller bunkers would not be susceptable to wash out."

Right. Smaller flatter bottomed sand floors are much easier to maintain and aren't as susceptible to having the sand wash off a steep face because there isn't any steep sand face---just sod and grass that these days have massive pins in them to stablize things. Can't put those massive pins in up-swept sand though unless it's to fasten down the bunker-wol or Sandtrapper just below the sand.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

I've posted this pic before.  You can see the same philosophy.  I agree that they are easier to maintain.  But I don't think that the old "sand splashed up" design (as Colt would put it) was unmaintanable.  The bunkers lasted for too long in that style, for that to be true.

[Mark_Fine]

We have all the history and many old photos of the 8th hole.  Much of this will be included in our hazards book in a section covering great hazards.  The original fronting bunker on #8 was awe inspiring.  

[Charlie Logan]

Gents,
I have a full image scan of this hole that looks to be the same image from British Golf Illustrated which waslooks to have been used for Mr. MacWood's Arts & Crafts piece.

I was fortunate to gain access to my good friend Authur Sykes-Henby's enchanting library and his lovely collection of golf books and memorablia, which produced a very fine and outstanding photograph of the 8th at one of my favourites, St. Georgie's Hill. I'll try to produce it later.

Someone will also have to help me as far as posting this most impressive photograph.

SDPB,
One of us needs a visit to the optomatrist to get our vision checked out, or is it your computer vs. mine?

I thought the two images looked to be quite similar almost as if it was the shadowing was affecting one vs. the other. one other item of note is that in one of the images it looks as if the heather hasn't teached its time, and where the other it's in a magnificent color.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

In my opinion, there's no reasonable excuse whatsoever, for bunkering that's as consistantly dull and similar in its matched form and look as the photo on your post #18. Elevation change that may've been some factor in the alterations to the bunkering of #8 is of no consequence whatsoever on that photo in post #18.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Just for your info:

The bunkers in my last post are from the 4th at SGH.  These have the same curvy sod edge that is now apparent in the redo of the famous 8th.  Both had sand "splashed up" in the original but just on a different scale.  The same job, probably.

The post Mark Rowlinson posted, shows 3 bunkers with the sand further up the face.  This was the bunker redo that Tom Doak mentions in his Confidential Guide.

I see no excuse for the current bunkers on the 8th at SGH.  The bunker was stable for 60+ years.

[ian]

"Right. Smaller flatter bottomed sand floors are much easier to maintain and aren't as susceptible to having the sand wash off a steep face because there isn't any steep sand face---just sod and grass that these days have massive pins in them to stablize things. Can't put those massive pins in up-swept sand though unless it's to fasten down the bunker-wol or Sandtrapper just below the sand.

Between geotextiles (bunker wol, sandtrapper and others), pre bunker drainage networks (in this case), more intensive internal bunker drainage sytems (2" interceptors in the lip through to tight herringbones), or simple water diversion around the bunker (raised lips to mild swales). There is always a way to keep classic feature bunker the way it was, without subjecting yourself to washouts.

We used all of these at Capilano to keep bunkers, in particular the front bunker on the 9th, which has a series of these techniques to preserve Thompson's bunkering (the green falls steeply directly into the front bunker).

[Paul_Turner]

This is the bunker in the from 1983 club history...my estimate at age is 1970s.  Anyway the bunker survived 60 years+ without losing it's "raw power" as T Doak put it....sand not quite as splashed up as the original pic, but not far off.  In comparison, the new redo is rubbish in every respect:  it's ugly, tame and boring.