[Mark_Fine]

We’re working on an old Herbert Barker design built in 1909.  After spending time with the club historian and doing some extensive research, we are now convinced that the initial routing was laid out by Barker “without” bunkers.  The bunkers were added a few years later.  Other architects such as Flynn in a June 1927 Green Section article, said that “those around the greens and certain traps just off the fairways may be fairly well determined in advance, but the location of the others can be determined better after the course has been completed and played on for a time.”  At some Loeffler courses, bunkers were “added later on as the budget allowed”.  

The architect tinkering with a design after it was finished was quite common but here we are talking about as Flynn once said "being able to better determine the definite location of a complete bunkering system for the course,..." after it has been played on for a time.

How many new courses today could tolerate such practices?  Has any architect out there ever done the same?

[Mark_Fine]

If there is any interest in this topic I'll pick up on it later.  It is Mother's Day and I'm being summoned  

[Kelly Blake Moran]

von Hagge did at Seignosse in France.

I question the need to wait until later, give it your best shot now, if more need to be added or some taken away later that is another process, but initially I think the architect should bunker the course in accordance with their thought process at that moment.  

[Steve Curry]

Mark,

From Tillie's letter to BHCC...
"However, you will not have to anticipate the expenditure of this amount during the first year for much of the bunkering should be permitted to wait until the third year."

It has been my hypothesis along the lines of Pat's Depression thread that this is why much of BHCC's intended bunkering was either never done or done later.

Steve

[Joe Hancock]

I would presume that getting back out to disrupt the income flow of a public facility would make this unlikely.

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

That's not a Depression era thought.  A lot of golf architects back to the early days talked about waiting to build the bunkers until after the course had been in play for a year or two:  so many I can't remember them all.

MacKenzie's work at Kingston Heath was to a golf course that had just opened and didn't have any bunkers yet ... I think that was the case at Victoria also.

As for practicality, I would have to agree with Kelly.  Today's culture [not to mention the rankings racket] demands that everything must look perfect from day one.  It's also 2-3 times more expensive to dig the bunkers and move the excavated material once there is turf in place everywhere else.  For what modern architects get paid to design courses, we ought to be able to get the bunkers in the right place right off the bat.

However, it is important to note that this is one of the ways modern design is unfairly compared to classic courses.  A lot of those classic courses evolved over the first several years; they weren't nearly as good when they opened as they are today.  I think some of the best modern courses were better on opening day than any of the classics.

[Mark_Fine]

Everyone makes some good points.  Kelly I didn't know that about von Hagge.  I wonder if he did the same elsewhere?  Do you know?  

I think the position Kelly and Tom take is the one most all architects take today - do what they think is right now and get it done.

Steve,
Flynn made his comments before the depression and like Tom said, this seemed to be a fairly common practice many years ago.  The older courses got better as they evolved.  Look at the early years of Oakmont for example.  

Photos of a old golf course or aerials (if you can find them) on opening day are interesting.  However, I know if we restored some of the Barker holes to what was there on opening day (we have some old photos), we would not capture his true intent.  I've always believed that this is an important point that needs consideration in classic restorations.  

Today architect's don't have the luxury to take a little while "to get it right" like some did in the past.    

[Steve Curry]

Tillie wrote the letter in 25, what I was trying to say is that the bunkering was to be done in 28-29 and that is why most of it didn't get done.

Steve

[Mark_Fine]

Steve,
Ok.  Now I understand what you were saying.  

I think budgets were something that impacted courses more than many of us think.  I remember walking around a Tillinghast course in NJ that we were working on.  Rick Wolffe and Bob Trebus were with me.  If Rick sees this post, I'm sure he will remember.  The course features bold and dramatic Tillie bunkering (except in one corner of the property occupying about three holes).  I had always wondered why the bunkering on these holes was shallow and seemingly half finished.  The bunkering there was original and showed up clearly on old aerials but didn't look like it belonged on the same golf course.  Rick made a statement that made a lot of sense to me.  He said, "They probably were running out of money and the crew did what they could to get bunkers in the ground."  We never could validate this but it made a lot of sense.  Right or wrong those bunkers will be in a style similar to the ones on the other 15 holes.  Is that pure restoration - no it is not.  But then again, we all agreed if Tillie saw those bunkers he would not be pleased.  Sometimes you have to make field decisions if/when it makes sense.  Those were possibly the last holes being completed and they did what they could to get done with the funds they had.  

[Ian Andrew]

At Weston, Willie Park built the course with the idea of doing the bunkers later, and then died leaving behind only a plan for the bunkering. Charles Alison came in and bunkered the course using his own plan.

Stanley Thompson produced some light bunkering when he built Westmount. Upon completion he gave them a plan to add bunkers within the next few years.

I think if you don't build them with the course, there is a large risk they will not be added in the manner which you planned. My two cents.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak & Mark Fine,

Today, selling memberships is a critical component in getting a club up and running, making it viable.

Asking members to join a golf club TODAY, that will be completed 2 to 3 years from today, would appear to be asking more than a leap of faith.

Tough to sell the Master Plan absent bunkering.

Even if a club was successful in soliciting a membership, how would that membership tolerate the interuption to play caused by the construction of a myriad number or bunkers ?

What about the damage to the existing irrigation lines ?

What about the cost of having to reroute the existing irrigation lines ?

It's SO IMPRACTICAL in so many ways.

And, in today's critical environment, requiring instant gratification, I can see criticism being directed toward the architect. The form of the questions might be:
 
Doesn't he know what he's doing ?
Why is he taking so long ?
Is he really competent ?
Will he change his mind again ?

Members and prospective members want a turn-key golf course, not a work in progress.

[Mark_Fine]

Eckstein,
The course is Arcola CC in Paramus, NJ.  It appears it was at least 3-5 years before bunkers were added.  We believe in this situation it was budget related.  In many of the other examples, bunkers are added later because the architect believed that they would end up with a better golf course if they watched how it was played for awhile.  

Pat,
I agree.  I just find it very interesting what was done in the past.  

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I understand everything you said, and I think I had pretty much echoed all of those comments.

HOWEVER, strictly from the perspective of achieving the best possible design and not worrying about cost factors and membership concerns, do you not think that the old courses might have benefitted from years of circumspection and observation before bunkers were placed?

I think one of the reasons for the proliferation of bunkers on modern courses is simply that when in doubt, architects put them in.  And you know what, they aren't cheap to build.  If we left out twenty bunkers in year one and decided only five of them were actually worth putting in after a year of reflection, that would actually be a money-saving proposition.

But of course none of us architects could ever admit that we didn't know all the answers right up front.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
How many architects would privately admitt they got it perfect the first time around?  Maybe some would and do.  My guess is most would like to at least tinker if they could because they are perfectionists.  Usually there is a time schedule to meet, etc.

Got to run, Mother's Day  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I understand everything you said, and I think I had pretty much echoed all of those comments.

HOWEVER, strictly from the perspective of achieving the best possible design and not worrying about cost factors and membership concerns, do you not think that the old courses might have benefitted from years of circumspection and observation before bunkers were placed?

I'd agree, I think having the luxury of circumspection would be of great benefit to the final product.

I would think it would be very awkward and very difficult for any architect to go back to the owner/developer and ask that certain features be modified 2 to 3 years after opening day.
It's not an acceptable practice, although, if I were an owner/developer, and the alterations improved the product, one would think the suggestions would be greeted with open arms.  But, today's culture doesn't permit that.

That's what triggered my thread on the Crystal Ball.[/color]

I think one of the reasons for the proliferation of bunkers on modern courses is simply that when in doubt, architects put them in.  And you know what, they aren't cheap to build.  If we left out twenty bunkers in year one and decided only five of them were actually worth putting in after a year of reflection, that would actually be a money-saving proposition.

But of course none of us architects could ever admit that we didn't know all the answers right up front.

I don't think that's confined to architects, I think that's human nature.

The concept is intriquing, but, I wouldn't imagine too many developers would embrace it.

Fine tuning has been an accepted practice for close to a century, but, it would take an exceptional owner to accept the need for changes in order to improve the golf course subsequent to opening day.

Off the top of my head, The Medalist is the only place I've seen this take place recently, but then again, the owner is the architect.[/color]

[TEPaul]

There seem little question to me that Flynn probably got his idea of bunkering a course after a certain amount of play (if the client allowed that) from his experiences at Merion.

There's some correspondence between Hugh Wilson and Piper and Oakley which discusses how best to build a good course and the luxury of being able to do it over an extended period of time is mentioned.

Obviously this is the way Merion East (Hugh Wilson and Flynn's course) was done. Merion East was not considered to have been finished until app 1932-1934, about twenty years after it was begun. Bunkering was not the only thing---much about the course was changed and improved over that period.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

There's an aerial hanging in Arcola that depicts the golf course long before the GSP and Buitoni Macaroni came along.

The golf course appeard to be spectacular.

The Dutch were frugal, but are you sure that the bunkering was done subsequently ?

[paul cowley]

...I have a hard time imagining the process of determining the bunkering of a course after the fact.....after the course opened did the club chart and record play to get a better idea of how to bunker? and strategize?.....was play allowed to occur unaffected and uninterrupted from hazards for a period of time ....and then the architect comes back and analyzes from how play has occurred and only then decides how to incorporate bunkers for the course based on the information provided and recorded for his analysis?

...really weird science at its best.
 

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I believe that aerial you are talking about is from the 1930's.  Arcola was over 20 years old by then and had already been touched by other architects/committees.  There are some great bunkers depicted in that aerial.  Unfortunately, there are only a handful of holes that remain from the original layout.  Robert Trent Jones made numerous changes to the routing and design as a result of the new highway taking some of the club's property.

Arcola has minutes that discuss the subject of "trapping the grounds of the Club,.... in such a manner as to make Arcola a strictly first class course."  

To answer Eckstein's question; we believe Barker was still around when the bunkers went in (he returned to the U.K. in 1915 and did not come back), but there is no record found as of yet that indicates he was consulted.  

[Tom_Doak]

Paul Cowley:

Haven't you ever read the story about H.C. Leeds at Myopia Hunt Club?  When a good player came to play the course, Leeds would go out with him, and when the good player hit a mediocre drive Leeds would mark the spot, and go back out and dig a bunker later!

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
For what it is worth, I thought you would find this story about Oakmont interesting.  The evolution of the bunkers there is quite fascinating to study.  I should prefice the story by saying that William Fownes believed that, “The bunkering system (at Oakmont) is continually being adapted to meet the requirements of longer hitting and more exacting play to the green.”  No better story epitomized that statement than the one about Sam Snead’s Bunker.  The story goes as follows:

No less a player than Sam Snead found out to what lengths W.C. would go to protect the integrity of his golf course.  The occasion was a one-day Big Four war bond tournament in the summer of 1945, involving Snead, Harold (Jug) McSpadon, Byron Nelson, and Gene Sarazen.  As the story goes, W.C. and Dutch Loeffler had decided that spring to put in a new bunker on the seventh hole (as though the 10 or a dozen there were not enough) in honor of the tournament.  During a practice round, Snead cleared the new bunker and birdied the hole.

Afterward, Loeffler called Fownes at his summer home on Cape Cod and told him what had happened.  W.C. reportedly asked Loeffler if there was any way they could build a new bunker in that landing area over night, to which Loeffler responded, “I thought you’d say that sir, “adding that he had made arrangements to do just that.  Thus is the glow of automobile headlights, a hole was dug, and the new bunker put in place in the rough where Snead’s drive had landed.  

The next morning, in the first of two rounds, Snead came to the seventh, took out his driver and proceeded to put his ball in the same location as before.  When Sam came up the hill and looked for his ball, he was shocked at what he saw.  His ball was in the middle of an bunker that seemed to have appeared as if by magic.  Obviously, a little unstrung by this, he went on to bogey the hole.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I see you just passed on a story for Paul as well.  We'll educate him  

[paul cowley]

Mark and Tom ....yes, I have absorbed the Stories and treasure them in my mystical archival library of the GAME, but....with the practical realities and considerations that confront us in Real Time, I would have a hard time selling, or building by this threads format for bunker design .......why would I [or you] want to?......

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
I don't think anyone here is suggesting everyone starts building courses without bunkers in place for two years.  I just thought it was interesting to point out that some past architect's practiced this concept and evidently believed it helped them design a better golf course.  And some courses just didn't have the funds to put them in to start with.  

[paul cowley]

I understand Mark....I was just trying to relate this threads intent with my own design methodology as in;

When doing the initial routing, I guess I opt to leave out strategies that relate to bunker hazards ........this is because I will be asked to build these later as future funding permits and that the design and placement of these hazards will be based on observations of how the members play these holes.....holes without any bunker strategies to begin with.....

cool concept.....like building a major university without sidewalks and waiting for a few years until walking paths are established and then paving them.....cool man, really cool .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()