Classic vs. Modern bunkering??

[Mark_Fine]

I get to see many "restored" courses as most of you do.  Many are deemed a historical success because the shapes and scale of the bunkers are now somewhat consistent with the aerial photos.  I think what some fail to realize is that classic bunkers (at least the best ones) get their life in the third dimension.  I am convinced that failure to pay attention to the details in that dimension is what often separates modern bunkering from classic bunkering.  Anyone agree or disagree?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

If one refers to the classic bunkers of the links courses in Scotland I would agree with you. A classic bunker in the late 19th Century was deep and had revetted walls and was generally small ( except for exceptions like Hell's Bunkers, Cottage Bunker or Shell Bunker on the Old Course). It was accepted that form the fairway you more or less lost a shot or two and certainly didn't gain much distance.
Modern bunkering caters for the bunker machine and the wide angled lens. Also it is considered "fair" that you can always get a full stroke in the direction of the green.
Also it a As a result there are some big ones out there that have a whole lot of good practical reasons (maintenance, outside watering pattern, transition areas, no top soil available, difficult growing conditions, can be seen by the TV Cameras, etc) for being there but sometimes don't seem to have much to do with the Spirit of St.Andrews.
John Chilver-Stainer

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Do you feel that the original designer, and especially the original general contractor and construction crew on the original course paid as much attention to detail in building these bunkers as you and others seem to believe ?

Or, were these architects and contractors interested in the profit motive just as architects and contractors are today ?

Are construction crews today, substantively different from the construction crews that built the originals.

Could you define what you mean by attention to detail with respect to bunker construction  ?

Would you consider the bunkers on the short course at Pine Valley, designed and supervised by FAZIO to be well built and great looking bunkers, in harmony with the short and big course ?

[RJ_Daley]

Mark, sorry to be dense but I am trying to figure out exactly what you are asking.  Are you suggesting that modern bunker design or restoration is oriented to how they fit in, proportionately, and on a pre-conceived scale, and in somewhat symetrical-orderly placement as the result of them being planned from overhead?  Do you mean, the two dimension drawing mentality, or block importing of CAD designed bunker files placed on a drawing followed by a prescribed standardized construction technique?  That as compared to designing the bunker on the ground from the ground up, three dimensionally, with no pre-conceived technique or tendancy other than what the specific site dictates?  

I think that terrain and soil conditions in addition to style-theme of the course design dictates the approach to shape, scale, and depth inorder to select a construction method that works for that specific plan. It also seems to boil down to the process of the interface between the architect and constructors.  If the project is largely a button down, by-the-document sort of job with a chain of command between the archie and the construction team working predominantly off of drawing plans, the two dimensional quality appears.  But, if it is a design-build on property and in an atmosphere of design and build as you go with drawings serving only as a rough guide, and design-builders as the same entity, then you get more recognizable three dimensional quality.  

[Matt_Ward]

Mark F:

Can you define for me what you mean by "classical" vs "modern" bunkering?

Also, why is there so much interest on how a bunker "looks" rather than how it "plays" from a strategic point of view? Isn't the marriage between the two elements I just mentioned really the ideal?

I just get the feeling that there are some denizens of GCA who really get into the artsy fartsy aspect of appearance rather than substance. Can you help clarify what you mean for me?

Thanks ...

Maybe you can help me better understand

[Joel_Stewart]

I think what some fail to realize is that classic bunkers (at least the best ones) get their life in the third dimension.

Mark:
I have no idea what the third dimension is and I slept at Holiday Inn last night?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
"...Artsy fartsy..." It doesn't sound you put much weight on the artistic side of golf architecture (although you claim to advocate a ballance between the two elements). Frankly I'm not sure how you seperate the visual aspects from the staregic aspects. Our greatest architects - past and present - seem to understand this relationship. To assist your understanding I would recommend Wethered & Simpson's 'The Architectural Side of Golf' and Miller & Shackelford's 'Art of Golf Design'.

[Tom Doak]

Mark,

I agree with some of what you're saying ... Weiskopf and Morrish were building "Thomas" or "SFGC" bunkers a few years ago, but with the sand flat in the bottoms, it wasn't really the same.

Then again, some of the restoration work we've done has been surprising to me, because the bunkers on older courses have changed so much in 3-D over time.  Riviera's bunkers were much flatter in the old days, with less sand showing -- all that play gave them their high lips.  Some of the bunkers at SFGC were much deeper originally, and have just been filled in with sand time and time again.

Similarly, at The Valley Club, we found that some of the fingers of sand in MacKenzie's original bunkers were so skinny that we couldn't restore them exactly -- you wouldn't have been able to take a backswing in some little parts of them!

[buckeye_bob]

TOM:
       What am I missing in the walk un-spoiled?  
       When I play a golf course the TRUE character is reflected within it's bunkering.  Playing a course upon varied elevations, with a sea of grass (few bunkers), is very unappealing.  Balanced greenside bunkering (Rt/Lt) has become a MUST for excellence.  Colloton River (Nicklaus) is a wonderful course till the under utilization of holes #17 & #18.  Hole #18 encompasses a fairway and greenside right single bunker, totally underwelming the round experience.  Doonbeg (Ireland), unfortunately, has copied this same formula.  My experience has always expected the #18 to be the climax.

[TEPaul]

I think when any of us look at or think about bunkering we should always look at it in about three independent but interrelated ways.

1. The "look" of the bunkering in it's detail--its shape, scale, surrounds, edges, (both in it "lines" and grassing), naturalness in both grassing and the way the architect constructed it to blend into the ground (or not).

2. How the actual "architecture" of the bunkering effects "playability" through depth, steepness of faces, etc. Believe it or not there is actually distinct "architectural formulae" involved in bunker construction of various types.

3. The overall placement of the bunkering to create whole hole strategies and in this way it shouldn't be looked at so much in an individual shot sense but more how the bunkers of any hole react in relation to each other on the entire hole.

Max Behr made the important point that all the bunkering of a hole should react toward each other to create "unity" so that a player on a par 5, for instance, would very much have a bunker at the green become of concious concern to him when he stood on the tee! That to Behr was true "strategic unity", even if the possiblities were mulitiple.

Behr, had an odd way of explaining this when he said a bunker should not necessarily be considered a penal element but one that 'made a call upon the intelligence of the golfer' (this in a way related to intelligence as a form of "experience"). I suppose he meant that any bunker anywhere that was a good one should do that wherever the golfer may be on that hole (except when he was past it, of course).

But I think that any bunker should always be looked at in at least those three ways, although not always meaning they should be identical on different courses. Difference is good--to some probably undefinable degree.

[Willie_Dow]

Where is Mike Cirba?

My limited college recollection says that Ralph Waldo Emerson said:  "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Mike do you recall this thought?  Does it apply to bunkers?

[TEPaul]

If anyone wants to see what really great looking grass bunker lips look like drive into Merion's driveway and stop just past the 13th green, get out of your car and look to your right along the far side of the creek just below you. What you see  is what a natural bunker lip is all about!

[Forrest Richardson]

I nominate Joel for one of the most humorous ending remarks (Holiday Inn) in any post I've ever read here. Thanks, Joel.

I am probably very much in the minority here, but I will show my inner thoughts on bunkering styles. I feel the entire issue of bunker styles is way over-rated. Sand bunkers are a manufactured hazard (today). They take the place of what were natural and almost natural sand areas of the past.

I liken the effort to replicate and mimick styles of bunker edges, slopes and shapes as I do much of the pueblo architecture I so detest. The forms and fake beams sticking out of walls, and even ladders from one level to the next, tries to hit the mark of the real thing, but it never comes close. Often it is awful.

What counts is good architecture and not some faux approach to mimicking a style that was also somewhat a faux approach in its day. To bring this further around the circle one might imagine the GCA discussion in 40 years...another back-and-forth about restoring a course to the look of that enjoyed during the 2010s.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Forrest
I take it you're not a fan of accurate restorations. At least you're honest, the guys who talk a good game and then go out and butcher a great old course in the name of restoration are the greatest risk to historic designs. At least we know going in with you - the hell with the old, your all about 'good architecture'.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom -- I have nothing against the old. In fact, I appreciate it a great deal. But I find it out of balance to spend such a great percentage of effort and budget focusing on bunker style...at least in many cases. Do I like the "nail-clipper precision" of bunker edges that we have fostered? Not always. Some things work. Some don't as well. Times change and so do bunkers -- that is a hallmark of golf. When and if a course must be defined by its bunkers there is usually something missing from the offering.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

Attempting to make any bunker on new or restored architecture somehow look somewhat like nature today is probably an extremely misunderstood endeavor at best.

Except for a rather well known group of architects today who really do attempt to do that the whole idea of bunkering as a fairly accurate representation of orginal linksland dunes-like bunkering has been almost forgotten. That's probably a completely understandable evolution but at the very least the bunker feature should probably maintain some semblance of a naturally occuring feature although anyone can understand that a natural linksland bunker is not site natural to say a golf course in the Canadian Rockies.

We've discussed this subject a lot on this site but maybe before you joined us. Most of us recognize how inherently out of place a linksland dunes-like bunker may appear on many natural sites in this world that may not have a grain of natural sand within hundreds of miles of them.

How or even why any architect strove to express this odd connection (the sand bunker) to the original linksland in his bunkering style is extremely interesting. As soon as golf architecture first left the linksland and began again in the English heathland and then on to the rest of the world the bunker as a strategic medium and also a respresentation of the linksland dune or sandy ground formation (possibly aided by sheep) has been evolving in all kinds of ways, forms,  expressions, types and styles.

But through all that curious age-old evolution the thought to design and construct bunkering, particularly the details of the grassy edges of it, in a way that somehow mimics or represents the look or rugged broken down lines of nature and how wind and water works on the earth to create that look has been a fascination with most of the best architects.

That's a connection that shouldn't be lost in the creation of bunkering, today or in the future. It's a difficult connection to maintain, I'm sure, given the extremely varied sites that are used for golf today and the extremely varied styles of architecture on those diverse sites.

Even if it means somehow matching the constructed "lines" of bunkering to those overall natural "lines" of diverse sites that would at least appear more naturally occuring than say a bunker that mimics a Norse Sword!

But that's just the "look" of bunkering. We all recognize the necessity of the architectural formation of bunkering for puposes of playability and also the overall placement of bunkering for strategic purposes.

As a good example of how the basic idea of bunkering may be adapted cleverly and also somewhat naturally to diverse sites far removed in every way including natural "look" from the Linksland would be the example Tom Doak pointed out as a clever adaptation by Jack Nicklaus at Desert Highlands.

Nicklaus, according to Tom Doak, at least cleverly blended the "look" of his "transition bunkering" from the fairways into the rugged natural desert to make the transition from clearly man-made architecture (the green fairways) to nature (the untouched desert) as natural a "blend" as possible.

For this Tom Doak thinks Nicklaus should be commended for at least he thought of a way to "blend" man-made architecture into nature! And I certainly agree with Tom. In a very difficult environment Jack thought to try to execute what Doak believes is one of the highest goals of the architect, to, "integrate the course into the natural landscape", and Jack used the basic bunker feature to do it.

That's the kind of thing architects should do, even in diverse sites with the bunker feature, in my opinion.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Forrest
I believe many fine courses are (or were) defined in major way by the bunkers: Royal Melbourne, Kawana, Banff, New Zealand, West Sussex, Muirfield, Chicago, Walton Heath, Riviera, Seminole, Merion, The Golf Club, Sand Hills, Prarie Dunes, Engineers, Kingsly, San Francisco, Bethpage, Ekwanock, etc. I don't think these courses have anything to be ashamed for, and there is not a lot missing - is there? The interesting aspect is the variety of styles, you wouldn't want them all to be of Richardson mode or MacKenzie or Raynor - or would you? Courses and bunkers do evolve, but many courses also protect and preserve the original look and feel of their designs. Variety is a major reason why golf architecture is so interesing.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

There are a variety of bunker styles out there--a huge variety and certainly some styles that are obnoxious to many of us--to many golf analysts.

You should mention that too and express your opinions about some of those various styles or is all your saying is that whatever the style of that original course the restoring architects now and in the future should adhere exactly to that original style no matter what?

Should the Norse Sword or Jaws bunker of Desmond Muirhead's "Stone Harbor" be exactly restored now? Personally, I think so--it was almost one of a kind! A very odd kind but one of a kind nonetheless!

[Forrest Richardson]

You both should write a book on bunkering. Lots of very good insight. Tom -- I certainly have nothing against the wonderful courses you cite...they are among the world's best. But none of them have to be defined by the bunkering. The fact that some may be defined by bunkering is further proof of our fascination with bunkers. There is much more to these venues than the bunkers, even at those which are literally set into one gigantic "bunker landscape". I also have nothing against restoration to a particular period, especially the architect's original intentions. I'm all for it, and I'm all for the very wonderful more- natural bunkering we are seeing crop up on new courses which are trying to attain a feel of an era.

But I remain cautious when I see such time and energy being spent on the look of bunkering. There are so many other things, including the location of bunkers, new bunkers, removal, etc. which are also important. Not to mention categories which have nothing to do with sand at all.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Forrest
Obviously these courses are more than interesting bunkers, but as I said, the bunkers are integral to the identy/playing characteristics of these courses, they are defined in a major way by their bunkers. No doubt your de-emphasis on the importance of bunkering is a reflection of your design criteria. It is clear to me that MacKenize, Thomas, Thompson, Simpson, Colt and company were a little more focused on this design element than you appear to be. Certainly it would be wise when hiring a restorer of these men's work to make sure the architect shares the same values - which goes back to the original topic of this thread.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom -- I don't have a design criteria per se. But I hope several which can be called up and deployed for the moment; the site; and the need. At least that is a goal, although I'm sure I've failed to live up to this 100%.

Mankind has been on earth for roughly 1/4th of an inch of the deepening of the Grand Canyon. Things do not stay the same while we are here. They change. They should change. To spend so much energy focusing on a particular treatment, style or look is secondary to the bigger picture and a much larger concept. I appreciate restorations, but I appreciate change even more. It's sometimes hard to swallow, but it is what keeps things so vibrant.

Mark's thread commented about the dimensional aspects of modern versus classic bunkering and whether this was appreciated in restorations. I was really commenting on the whole notion of "bunker-mania" -- our preoccupation with making sand-filled pits look one way or another. And, I suppose, I was trying to enlist some discussion about how we have come to conclude that there is a modern versus a classic -- all bunkers are rather "modern", except those we come across and leave in place as they were found.

I fully expected to be in the minority on this thread. You are probably correct in all your statements.

[GeoffreyC]

Forrest-

There are hundreds of new golf courses being built around the world each year.  It seems that this allow more then ample opportunity to apply "modern" or individualistic stylized bunkering or strategies or mounding or length or any other feature the designer would care to place into their work.  Why would your philosophy include believing that changes to the style of older masterpieces is generally OK? I think this is perhaps the single biggest reason that "big name" architects like T Fazio, R Jones and R Rulewich get hammered on this site.

Sometimes the realities of a particular situation simply don't allow an opportunity for fully sympathetic restoration but given a realistic setting why not restore?

[Forrest Richardson]

Change is good. It makes some people unhappy. But it is good. I am not for wholesale change to masterpiece courses. But change is good. Hammers are good, too.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

I don't really know where you're trying to go on this thread with bunkering either, particularly some classic styles on significant courses. Those really aren't great candidates for change as you seem to accept or even admire change.

I couldn't agree with GeoffreyC and Tom MacW more--there's plenty of opportunity to create many different styles and looks in bunkering on new courses now and in the future. The original styles and the original look of bunkering from some of the great older courses should be carefully restored and an attempt should be made to maintain it as it was originally designed to be. That's what makes the evolution of architecture so interesting and that should not be changed and lost, it should be preserved--as it makes architecture richer, more interesting. It's fascinating to see first hand where the art has been, where it's come from and preserving that entire evolution is important.

Your argument that there are so many other things in architecture so why concern ourselves with just bunkering doesn't work for me either? This thread is about bunkering, there's plenty of time and opportunity to discuss all the other things about architecture on here and frankly we probably have and will again. This is just about bunkering--and it isn't anymore or less important than all the other interesting things and features that go into architecture and its entire evolution.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Forrest
A certain amount of change is inevitable, but not all change is good.

What is good about the Taliban destroying the ancient colossal Buddhas? Was the cultural revolution in China good? What about the works of art that have vandalized in Europe -- was that change good (hammer time)? Many of Frank Lloyd Wright's designs are deteriating - would you object to those who attempt to protect and preserve Taliesen West, would their further deteriation be good vibrant change? What was good about the destruction of many of older inner city neighborhoods in the name of 'modern' tenament housing? What was good about the destruction and/or alterations of Yale, Lido, Mill Road Farm, Tokyo and Timber Point? Not all change is bad, but saying all change is good is an overly simplistic point of view.

TE
I would have liked to have seen Stone Harbor preserved.