Crap Bunkers, Great Course

[wsmorrison]

I played golf the other day with Craig Disher and Adam Messix (both of whom would love to come to the Winter Gathering but have other plans) at a course in Maryland.  The golf staff (especially Pat Owen) was terrific, knowledgeable, and keenly interested in architecture and the history of their celebrated course.  It is a very late William Flynn (USNA circa 1944) where he renovated 9 holes and designed 9 holes.  There are terrific greens, nice ground contours, and an interesting routing over relatively hilly terrain.  It has bunkers for the most part in excellent locations but so out of place in style and as poorly funtioning that I have ever seen on a first rate course.  There are crowns all around on nearly all of them and many resemble swimming pools or bath tubs with large bulging surrounds.  Some of the bunkers built into the hillsides are fronted by rough with such large rises that they would hardly accept any rolling shots.  This is a great course that needs to have its bunkers restored in the proper style.  What other examples are there where the architecture is so undone by the renovation of a particular class of features (bunkers or otherwise) in a style and functionality that just doesn't fit?

[Mike_Cirba]

I'll resist the urge to pick on some of the latest bunker "restorations" that have been discussed here ad infinitum on great courses, and instead mention one where the bunkers are really non-descript and somewhat disappointing for a course of its lineage...that would be Manufacturers by Flynn.  Would you agree, Wayne?

[GC Thomas]

Go West!:

LACC North Course
Ojai

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

I do agree that the bunkers at Manufacturers are not up to the standards of the design heritage of the course.  Scott May, the head superintendent, agrees and knows that the club needs to consult with an architect and develop a master plan including bunker restorations.  Some bunkers were improved upon in-house yet a certain someone who cannot do Flynn bunkers (I'll resist the same urge, Mike) consulted on other bunkers and did a poor job with a sympathetic restoration.  However at Manufacturers, Rolling Green, and a certain significant Philly grand dame the results are tolerable in comparison to the otherwise very good USNA course.  Craig, Adam, and I were each dismayed at the lack of consideration that went into these bunkers, both in their look and their function.

As you know Mike, you saw me in them quite a bit, there is a greater problem at Manufacturers and that is tree proliferation.  This has caused agronomic problems for fairways, tees, and greens.  It has also compromised the architecture and led to some bunkers with trees in front and back.  However, the knowledge that Scott brings and the energy he has should help steer things in the right direction.  Tom Paul and I were there last week and his thoughts were welcomed by the superintendent staff.   It looks like Ron Pritchard, Ron Forse, and David Esler (Glen View restoration) are going to give presentations to do the master plan.  That should include bunkers and trees.  We made copies of the 9 hole drawings by Flynn that we do have and maybe this will help.  Unfortunately they did not have explanatory notes to detail the construction instructions.  I trust they will still be helpful.

Regards,
Wayne

[wsmorrison]

GC,
Can you get into some specifics?  Is it the bunkering that you are alluding to at LACC-North?

[Mike_Cirba]

Craig;

Great to hear that Manufacturers seems to be heading in the right direction!!  And, of course, the tremendous overgrowth of TREES there are probably the bigger issue as you mentioned.  

Boy, there are a couple of Flynn courses I think anyone with a Flynn course in their possession should see for improved bunkering understanding...Philly Country Club is way up there on my list, and from what I've heard, Lancaster and Brookline are superb as well.  

p.s...sorry I missed your call last weekend...I was out of town for the holidays.  See you next week!

[Mike_Cirba]

GC Thomas;

While John Harbottle's bunker work at LACC (North) might not have been quite as good as the original, I wouldn't put them in the category of "crap bunkers", by any stretch.

Of course, I had just seen the "restored" Thomas bunkering on the 7th and 8th holes at Riviera that morning, so after that sensory affront, perhaps I was not quite as critical as I should have been during the afternoon round!

Still, I believe that your criticism is overly harsh.  Could you explain what you find so objectionable??  While the bunkering no longer has the "jagged edges" of old (as seen in "The Golden Age of Gof Design, page 104), they seem to have some degree of interest and flair and it must also be said that the bunkering at Riviera...even those bunkers acclaimed to be in original Thomas-style bunkers, no longer have the same raggedness, either. (see pages 97-99 of the same book).  

[Daniel Wexler]

Mike:

Though I'm sure GC Thomas can reply for himself...

Basically I agree with you completely regarding the softening of bunker edges at Riviera and elsewhere.  However...

If you compare your photo of LACC's 11th with the 1930s image of the hole on pg 184 of The Captain, it's difficult to suggest that the modern bunkers in any way look like an evolved version of the originals.  The general shapes are just substantially different.

Personally I liked the Captain's better....

DW

[Mike_Cirba]

Daniel Wexler;

Yes, I looked at Geoff's book and the pictures of the original Thomas bunkers at LACC prior to posting.  I also looked at a pic of the 11th from the 1970's in William Davis's "100 Greatest Golf Courses...and then some" at which time the bunkers had lost even much more of The Captain's shaping.

My point isn't that Harbottle's work is completely authentic or even nearly 100% consistent with what Thomas had originally done, especially losing a lot of the jaggedness GT originally designed into them.  Instead, what I'm saying is that the current bunkers do not fall into what Mr. Morrison describes here as "crap bunkers".  I believe that assessment is too harsh, even among those of us who greatly prefer true restorations.

I hope the distinction I'm making makes sense.  

[TEPaul]

One should certainly compare to those two photos above the photo of the restored bunkers on #6 Riviera by Coore and Crenshaw in 1995 on p. 173 of Shackelford's "The Captain".

Those bunkers shown on that page are certainly very clean and don't look much at all like the rugged grassiness of the original Thomas bunkers.

Is this architecture or maintenance or a bit of both?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

Good question!  

This recent pic of #6 shows the bunker considerably "cleaner" than the one in Geoff's book.  Is it inevitable that all small detail work gets lost over time?

[Mike Hendren]

Wayne,

Interesting you mention Flynn.  I found the bunkers at Cascades to be uglier than a pair of bowling shoes.  I assumed either 1) they had been watered down over time to accomodate resort play; or 2) perhaps he did not want them to compete visually with the severe topography and stunning scenery.  The most appealing bunkers on the course were at the par three eleventh, but they were out of character with the balance of the course.  I also liked the cross bunkers at the 12th.  

Regards,

Mike

[wsmorrison]

Mike,
I know what you mean about Cascades' bunkers.  I was underwhelmed by these as well. They are a lot shallower now than they ever were designed to be and the maintenence practices are definitely geared toward the resort guest.  However, this was designed as a championship course and the bunkering hardly matches the demands of the course's other features.  

Flynn on other hilly courses would not temper the bunkering for visual reasons (Brookline, Rolling Green, Huntingdon Valley, Lancaster, etc) I think rather he would complement dramatic topography with dramatic bunkering, especially into the hillsides.  I'll have to review the hole drawings and determine the construction instructions to see what was intended and then with the aid of John Hoover (Homestead historian) study ground and aerial photos further to determine how they were at the time of construction.

Interesting that the bunkers we see presently on several Flynn courses are far from intentions and design plans.  But I repeat, the resulting bunker work at USNA is really bad and on such a good course it looks so out of place.  A real shame.  When you speak about the bunkers at Cascades, are you referring to their playability and look or the locations as well?

By and large, the locations of the USNA bunkers are good (we don't have any drawings of the course so we can't say what was intended) but the way they are constructed with large uniform mounding all around so they just don't work as they should.

[Mike Hendren]

Wayne,  

Regarding Cascades, I was thinking in terms of playability and look.  The bunkers are remarkablly plain in appearance and relatively easy to play from.  The locations are OK with the exception of the two fairway bunkers way right on the seventh - which only serve to help the higher handicappers by keeping their ball in play after a slice caroms off the extreme side hill fairway.  

BTW, they had just installed the fairway irrigation system when I played there last year.  The rough, particularly around the edges of the fairways and greens, was the most penal I have ever played, period.  Hardly consistent with the resort clientele (unless you have the lost ball concession).

Regards,

Mike

[Daniel Wexler]

Mike:

To a great degree we're splitting hairs here because again, I don't disagree with your fundamental point.

My problem with the specific bunkers in question is that they can't reasonably be seen as in any way resembling what GCT's originals might naturally evolved into.  That might be okay if the "restoring" architect had been working without benefit of photographic evidence but that's clearly not the case here.

Whether or not this qualifies the bunkers as "crap" is, of course, a highly subjective decision.  But when the person doing this "restorative" work either can't or won't match the new hazards to the general shape of the old ones, my personal opinion is that we're getting close.....

DW

[Craig Disher]

This view of the 1st hole at the Naval Academy partly shows what Wayne is talking about. The bunker below and left of the green has a ridge completely surrounding it making it impossible for a ball rolling off the hill below the green to roll into the bunker. The manufactured appearance is even more jarring on bunkers built close to the truly wonderful greens.

[Mike_Cirba]

Daniel;

I think we are coming from the same place here.  

In my first post, I said I'd resist the urge to identify any number of the very questionable "great course" bunker "restorations" in recent years (which have been discussed here ad nauseum) and instead focus on what Wayne Morrison seems to be really asking.  

If you and I were to visit the USNA course tomorrow, I bet we'd really find some "crap" bunkers, probably shallow, shapeless, shrunken, etc.  

I doubt that any of the bunkers at USNA look anything nearly as good as the present bunkers of LACC, or Merion, for instance.  

So, perhaps we might just agree to call the present bunkers at LACC or Merion, or Yale, fairly decent bunkers in their current state, but "crappy restoration"?  

Sorry to split hairs, but I think that there is a distinction between poor restoration work and the type of dysfunctional bunker that Wayne is addressing here.  

[ghost of seth raynor]

Mr. Cirba

Would you really call this disfigurement of my work "fairly decent bunkers".  Would you want this on your newly built home course?  I agree with your assessment about the restoration.

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh Great Seth One;  

Perhaps including Yale in my example was a bit of a streeetttttccchhhhhhhh!

I didn't realize they were converting to sand greens there.

[Daniel Wexler]

Mike:

Agreed.

DW

[TEPaul]

"So, perhaps we might just agree to call the present bunkers at LACC or Merion, or Yale, fairly decent bunkers in their current state, but "crappy restoration"?  

Sorry to split hairs, but I think that there is a distinction between poor restoration work and the type of dysfunctional bunker that Wayne is addressing here."

MikeC:

No kidding! That's sort of what it's all about. It's not even a question of just semi-poor restoration work either--a lot of it has to do with where the restoration is. I've been saying that about the Merion bunker restoration for years--a lot of it's because it's Merion. Those bunkers if you look at them today aren't bad at all as bunkers go these days, but at Merion that takes on a whole different meaning.

I got to know the Green Chairman some years ago over the bunker project and the first thing I ever mentioned was that no matter what I hoped he understood that he was going to be on the firing line bigtime from all over the map because this was Merion!  I said I couldn't see that he had much latitude like we might at say Gulph Mills because who was going to get that concerned about our place?

He said he certainly understood that. It may have turned out to be even more of a firing line than either of us ever imagined though because at that time neither one of us had ever heard of Golfclubatlas.com--actually it didn't even exist back then!

[wsmorrison]

Mike Cirba,
Yes, you are right on track of the thread I intended.  Yes, there are some bunker restorations in our back yard that are hard to swallow given their former greatness, but what I intended to bring up was a complete abomination of the intended design such as the USNA bunkers.  Craig's photo shows how difficult it is to make out a bunker built into the slope of the 1st hole; this is an anathema to Flynn.  You have a steep lip into the bunker and on the back side too.  Balls from both directions will not roll in.  It is not an isolated case at this course but a systematic design that plain stinks.  I'll try to post some other pictures I took that day (with Craig's assistance).

[ghost of seth raynor]

I believe this butchering of the hillside on #2 at Yale fits the description Mr. Morrison is intending.  The steep linear wall of the hill has been mangled so that balls will not roll down all the way into the bunker.   In addition, supposedly maintenance friendly paths have been added I guess because it was so much easier to keep it mowed in my day   (note the steps no longer go down to the bunker and there is space between the bunkers not in my original work)

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul;

Good question!  

This recent pic of #6 shows the bunker considerably "cleaner" than the one in Geoff's book.  Is it inevitable that all small detail work gets lost over time?"

MikeC:

That really wasn't my point. What if that picture in Geoff's book is the way Coore and Crenshaw restored that (those) bunkers? Geoff wrote that book in 1996 and that photo (in his book) was taken in 1995.

[D. Kilfara]

Wow...I hadn't seen those pictures of Yale before. Those REALLY are awful. Sorry, I don't mean to distract from the main gist of the thread, but I can't resist commenting on how bad those bunkers look. I'm glad I got to see the course in its pre-renovation state...

Cheers,
Darren