Ornamental Bunker Grass, friend or foe

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was thinking of the bunkers at Merion the other day, about their uniqueness, some of which is attributable to the Scotch Broom located in their midst.

Years ago, at a course in New Jersey that I'm familiar with, a green chairman who had recently played Merion became enthralled with the Scotch Broom and inserted same in some of the bunkers.

GCGC has islands of grass/underbrush in the 9th fronting greenside bunker.

Boca Rio has islands of rough grass in the midst of bunkers on the 16th hole.

Other courses have similar features with the islands containing varying degrees of grass/underbrush.

Moderate to thin grass appear to pose a benign threat to golf balls that come to rest in it.  Other grasses and heavy vegetation pose a highly penal obstacle.

It would seem that landing in a greenside bunker, not far from the pin shouldn't cause the golfer to encounter a second, more random, almost unplayable hazard as well.

What courses contain this feature ?

How did these courses come to employ it ?

Do you think it is too radical, or that it belongs ?

Initially, let's confine our discussion to playability.
We can discuss aesthetics subsequently.

[John L. Low]

MacKenzie said that there is no unfair hazard (paraphrasing here). It would seem that if you can see the hazard, and the grass within, and you hit it there, you have hit it poorly, "...as it should be obvious that if a player sees a hazard in front of him and promptly planks his ball into it, he has chosen the wrong spot" (quoting here, page 21 of Golf Architecture, MacKenzie). You may not have the same philosophy.

Pat, the Sand Hills is full of grassy lies that are worse than the sand that surrounds them. When I was there a few years ago, the 10th at NGLA had some ornamental grass in the fairway bunkers--very unnatural looking but penal if you hit it in the wrong spot. Rub of the green I believe.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

Which bunker on # 10 at NGLA had the ornamental grass ?

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

If you are defining the "whiskers" on the bunkers at Royal County Down as 'ornamental', then I am all for that type of ornament.

The whiskers not only make the bunkers appear fearsome, but they also make them play tougher as well.

[A_Clay_Man]

I happen to believe that the rugged look that Pat describes is a good start to curing the planet of the cookie cutter benign look. I do think that any vegatation that is in play should be a flora or fuana variety which is extricable from. IMHO Aloe plants or other stiff leaves with pronges aren't viable. Yes, I accept my shot, that was a foot or two short, to find some penalty but unplayable is too harsh for the degree of mis-hit.   As for shaggy islands the sixth at pebble has them down the left side of the lower fairway and are very difficult but not impossible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman & John Low,

What about the proximaty of the islands of grass or underbrush to the green ?

Should a shot 12 feet off the green be severely penalized with an unplayable lie, especially when the grass or undergrowth isn't that visible ?

[grampa (Guest)]

Doesn't it depend on the application of the grasses around the course? To many times we see the ornamental grass poorly planted in an unnatural state and it appears to look like a bad hair transplant. The older looking bunkers with scotch broom at Merion were terrific but alot ( if not all ) were removed during the restoration. I recently drove by Merion while visiting a friend and noticed that numerous broom plants have been planted. Appears to me that the plantings look contrived and unnatural. So I feel that the look or effect on the player from a visual state makes the grasses friend or foe.

Natural looking = friend
Bad hair transplant, contrived = foe

[TEPaul]

Just read the other day that the idea for the bunker grass which was (and is?) so traditional to Merion, originally came from the Country Club of Atlantic City.

[John L. Low]

Pat,

I was only there once. The 10th is a par 5 I believe and the grass was somewhat uniformly spaced in the fairway bunkers. I have a picture that I took at the time to refer to. I just hope I have the right hole number.

As for proximity to the green, the world is full of very penal shots right off the green. They don't have to include grass either. The Road hole bunker and bunkers like it are often so penal one has to hit backwards or sideways away from the hole to just get out of the bunker. At NCLA, there is a hole, the one right after the par three over the street, in which if you miss your approach just 12 feet right of the green, you are in the water/reed grass/mess. #12, #13, #15, #16 at Augusta, all dead in the water just off the green--unplayable Adam.

I gotta go with rub of the green, since there are SO many examples of unplayable lies right next to the green. But that is just my opinion.

[John L. Low]

grampa,

I was mildly shocked (if that is a possible state) at the uniformity and unnaturalness of the grasses at NGLA. However, I don't think the fact that they were planted on equal spacing about 5-6 feet apart as opposed to randomly spaced has any bearing on golf shot value on the hole. But they were the ornamental grass equivalent of a bad toupee.

[grampa (Guest)]

Low

Didn't mean to imply that the grass had an effect on shot values. Whatever shot values means but that is a topic for another day. But the fact that you noticed and were surprised at the plantings means that they had an effect on you. It obviously didn't have an effect on your playing. So would you consider the grassing to be part of the architecture?

[John L. Low]

gramp,

I consider the grass to be a part of the architecture, though I was lucky enough to avoid it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

# 10 at NGLA is a par 4.  Perhaps you were thinking of #5, #7, or # 9.

# 14 at NGLA requires a fairly short shot into a highly visible, large green, with a buffer bunker between the green and the water.

# 12 and # 16 at ANGC are relatively short par 3's,
# 13 and # 15 at ANGC are short par 5's
In each case the water is clearly visible, and in each case, the water can be easily taken out of play.

Many of the bunkers surrounding greens have islands of grass/underbrush very close to the green, some of which aren't visible from the fairway.

[John L. Low]

Pat,

I will give you some of your argument but only the first time you play a course. After that, you should know where the hazards are. If you want to break down the examples I gave, and there are a thousand more out there, maybe ten thousand, then you should give us several detailed examples of holes that are not short par whatever and that fit your very specific criteria for this thread and how they must be played in a specific way. It seems to be getting more specific. But for me, there is no unfair hazard anywhere, anytime. Unless you are talking about island greens or the like, you can avoid hazards every time. Instead of hitting that 7 iron into the grassy bunker next to the green, lay up to the other side and pitch on. Simple. Or take your medicine in the great tradition of golf. Just my opinion. Rub of the green.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm no expert, but shouldn't one distinguish between native grasses and ornamental?  I have never seen Merion or NGLA and can't comment.  I have played courses that made a big effort to import ornamental and I tend to agree with JLLow above that ussually they appear like a bad hair transplant.  Placement and judicious use is everything.  For instance, a course striving to have firm and fast greens, with significant contouring that will channel balls to roll off into greenside bunkers should not have the extra lip of ornamental or tangle of native grass incorporated into the greenside bunker to present the double jeopardy hazard as a repeating feature.  Perhaps one or two such instances is acceptable if done well.  But as a repeating design theme, I don't like it.  The manner of incorporation of places like Sand Hills takes a pass on this general rule of thumb for me, because it is integral to presenting the course in the natural setting.  Even there, I think that C&C took care to not have the native unkept fringes of bunkers in the key greenside locations like the knawing into the green front bunker on #8 and several others.  There, the fact that the firm greens easily feed balls into the bunker is penalty enough and hairy bunker fringes are not in order.  Same with Wild Horse green gobbling bunkers such as 3-7-9-14-15 -17-18.  Native grass wild fringes are better suited to the fairway bunkers.

Irrigation of these grasses are the big difficulty to maintain the nested tangle without it getting so thick that it is unplayable.  I don't think you should have a situation where no shot is possible.  I don't mean a shot to simple recovery, I mean no shot at all that forces one to take unplayable relief without question.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low & RJ Daley,

I'm not focused on grasses that the ball can be extracated from, my focus is more along the lines of Scotch Broom or underbrush on islands in the bunkers that are inpenetrable and unrecoverable from.

Doesn't playability take priority over "the look"

RJ,

I agree with you, all to often, for visual or cultural appeal, golf courses plunk down grasses like follicle transplants.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I am at a loss to discuss the specific examples of the Scotch Broome grasses you are speaking of at Merion and GCGC since I haven't seen them.  But, could you tell me what your definintion is of non-extractable or impenetrable?  Is it total inability to get a club on the ball (if you can even fined it) causing one to take an unplayable lie for certain?  Or, is it the inability to advance the ball more than a couple of feet or yards but where one can choose to try and make contact with the ball with some chance to move it from its lie?  

I am also curious as to the rulings for taking an unplayable where an impenetrable island within a bunker captures the ball.  Can the drop be taken within the prescribed club lengths dropped into the sand of the hazard, or must the drop be taken within the island of grass hazard within the hazard?  My ignorance shows in this regard.  :-/

I think it is a crucial maintenance meld issue that the superintendent do what he must to knock down the native or ornamental in the situation you describe of an island of grass within the sand bunker hazard.  It must be a proper balance.  It doesn't have to be anything near fair, just that one could plausably play the ball even if in an opposite direction from the target green or fairway advancement.  If the island gets irrigation, it is likely to become impenetrable without some maintenance practice to knock it down.  

There is one objectionable area on Wild Horse that has gotten away from the super, due to irrigation and fert migration.  It is along the back through the fairway area of #3.  It has become impenatrable, and needs to be selectively herbicided to revert to a more sparse growth-undergrowth.  I'm not sure what method that would take, but I think some experimentation by the super is in order.  But that is rough area, not a fringe of bunker.  But, the over-growth is the same as the characteristic you are speaking of with the islands in the bunker or fringes of the bunkers.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I share Paul Richard's appreciation for the bunkers at Royal County Down.

What I don't like is contrasting bunker styles on the same course. Arcadia Bluffs and Doonbeg are two modern courses which exhibit this feature.

I recall Dick recall did not share my view concerning Arcadia.

[A_Clay_Man]

Patrick- I don't have a problem with the scenario you put forth. 12 feet is different than one or two and the fact that it's invisible doesn't scare me. The justification or defense against the argument is "what if it was water"? That's usually as unplayable as it gets. The islands at Pebble sixth are from 260 to 200 yds from the geen.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

Some islands of underbrush make it difficult to find the ball, and if found, usually impossible to advance.

All too often these islands can be in significant numbers, almost insuring that a ball entering the bunker has a high probability of finding them.

[Dunlop_White]

Playability:

As far as playability is concerned, ornamental bunker grasses cause a great deal of difficulty for golfers. If golfers actually find their golf ball in this mess, they will inevitably have a hard time getting their club face on the ball for their next shot. No options exist. Often golfers must take a swing and a prayer with a lofted iron when negotiating with ornamental bunker grasses. If they become engulfed too close to the bunker, especially those with steep faces, ornamental grasses can serve as a double hazard as well.

Many greenside bunkers are buffered by ornamental grasses, such as zoysia and broomsedge. Otherwise, they would naturally receive more balls as intended. Many believe that there should never be a ribbon of ornamental grasses, regardless of its height, around a bunker to prevent a ball from running its due course therein. After all, the point of these bunkers is to have them "in play" as opposed to having them protected by taller grasses.

Ornamental grasses are a "foe" from a playability standpoint!

[Dunlop_White]

Aesthetics:

The use of different supergrasses distinguishes many of today's bunkers from their originals. It further portrays just how far we have strayed from the initial character of our original classical designs. Native fescues, whether you label them "prairie grasses", "blue stems" or "Scottish broom", surrounded many original bunkers. These were the type of grasses which were native to classical designs. Tillinghast, CD, MacKenzie, Maxwell etc.and their contemporaries simply did not have the variety of grasses available to us today. The character of the course was centered around the look, the "natural" look, of these tawny, wispy fescues.

Newer grasses have a manufactured look. Secondly, maintenance practices are different today. Notice the rugged, weathered look of the bunkers below. Notice the jagged edges which are naturally integrated into the surrounds.

Today, many of these bunkers maintain a rounded and upholstered look. The edges are well defined, cleanly cut and manicured. These are the ingredients for today's generic bunker style, the very type which were foreign to the classical architect. Consequently, bunkers have lost their natural appeal, their style, and their intricate shapes.

Look at these beauties below:

[Dunlop_White]

Aesthetics continued:

In my opinion, all too many hazards on a golf course simply blend in with their surroundings. These hazards can be emphasized or highlighted through visual contrasts. For instance, ornamental grasses can promote distinct turf colors, textures, and heights. Your superintendent could plant ornamental native grasses, such as broom sedge, on the shoulders of a plain bunker or on the banks of an indistinguishable creek. Fescues will compliment the broom sedge by growing tall, seeding-out, and turning wispy and brown. Consequently, hazards will appear multi-dimensional as if they could reach up with finger-like extensions of their own. Against a sea of smooth, emerald green fairways, these hazards will become sharply defined and visually accentuated.  Bunkers and creeks, which were once unnoticeable, will emerge as signals eliciting attention and awareness from the golfer.

Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw's newly opened Hidden Creek Golf Club in Egg Harbor Township, N.J., best demonstrates the power of attaching visual contrasts and textures to undesirable course locations today.(see link below)

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/hiddencreek2.html

Thus, from an aesthetic perspective, ornamental grasses are our "friend"!!

[Dunlop_White]

Which brings me to the question, what is more important as far as "grasses" are concerned: aesthetics or playability?

Incidentally, Kris Spence, a traditional architect from Greensboro, NC who you will hear much more about in the future (with a little help), has a fine fescue recipe for ornamental grasses in our climate.

Not to give away his secret, this formula consists of different percentages(%) of the following:

1. Side Oats Gramma
2. Little Blue Stem
3. Jamestown Chewings
4. Creaping Red Fescue

Distribution: High, Dry Lean Areas  (90 lbs. per acre)
                Lower Areas   (70 lbs per acre)

This will produce a greater array of color and contrast and more importantly will compliment recovery possibilities as these are "fine" fescues with slightly lower stalks with less dense undergrowth. Very playable with a gorgeous look.  

[John L. Low]

As for playability, remember that a good three inch blue grass rough can do in a poor golfer on a given hole. That is why I don't have a problem with unplayable lies. I have seen golfers who cannot play out of a cleanly edged sand bunker. Does that make the bunker bad because it is for some golfers unplayable? What about the argument that you simply take the steps necessary, as best you can, to avoid those hazards that you cannot play out of--grass, sand, water, trees, whatever? Isn't that a large part of golf? I still don't get how a thick tangle of rough next to a green is any different than a pond at green's edge, except that you might actually have a slight chance of playing out of the grass. Plus, isn't it up to the architect to decide how penal a given bunker is while taking into consideration a lot of things, including whether or not a really penal bunker is called for at this point in the round?

And as for all the holes I listed above that Pat pointed out were short, it is my impression that architects choose to make the green complexes on shorter holes more difficult so that accuracy is rewarded. No?