Harry Vardon on Hazards

[Mark Bourgeois]

I just read that Harry Vardon believed hazards (bunkers in particular) should be the last features to be placed on a new layout and the course should be played in a variety of conditions before their final positions decided.

Knowing virtually nothing about how courses actually get designed and built, is this ever done, and have the results been better because of it?

Some examples of this would be helpful -- did Ross do something similar with his greens on Pinehurst #2; i.e., didn't he watch how players played the holes when they had sand greens and then design his grass greens accordingly?

I can see why many would not want to take this approach (time, money), but it seems to make a lot of sense.  Especially given green committee tendencies to make changes using a similar -- if reverse! -- logic.

Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

That was a fairly common thought in the old days, that the bunkers could wait until later.  A lot of the old Aussies believed the same thing, so when Dr. MacKenzie arrived in Australia, Kingston Heath had no bunkers at all and he was hired to suggest them.

I don't really know that waiting until later would produce different results.  So much of how bunkers are placed is based on certain conventions that I doubt "observation" would overcome those prejudices.  

The bottom line is that it's way more expensive to do bunker work when you're surrounded by grass (and irrigation pipe) than when you are working in the dirt, and you can waste the excess dirt in the surrounding area instead of carting it away.  That's why, today, architects are paid the big bucks to take their best shot at the bunkering before the course has been played.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mark,
To reiterate and emphasize what Tom said...
Digging a bunker afterwards generates a lot of dirt.
Each bunker usually ties into the drainage network.
Quick couplers to establish some hard to grow areas / slopes.
You can gurantee that the irrigation lateral lines would be in the way.  If you've gotten the new Sebonack book, you'll see an irrigation plan that has the laterals crooked every which way to avoid the bunkers.

When I finished the plan for my current project, I had a lot of bunkers.  After spending many days or even weeks after the finish shaping on an individual hole is when the decision to place a bunker comes easiest.  My goal is to have as few as possible, and play strategically the same, and look good.

Plus they are way more fun to build than shaping fairways.

Cheers

[George_Bahto]

Mark:  

Back in the 1920s it seems many owners/founders, just because they were wealthy, often wanted some involvement in the design of their course(s).

Aside from design input on holes, one of their favorite “ideas” was to help in the placement of sand hazards.

The - I’ll-Bunker-It-Where-You Hit-It - theory, if you will.

Otto Kahn (so very wealth) did not want placement most of the bunkers on the course (OHEKA) until he (Kahn) would see where most of his guests would hit their balls and then place bunkers in those spots rather than using proven strategic bunkering.

T Suffern Tailer up in Newport (Ocean Links) was heavily involved in his (no-membership) course.

I believe the great John Low used this theory on some of the hazard placement at Blind Brook.

[RSLivingston_III]

When I researched the 1914 opening of the Highlands (Grand Rapids MI), The newspaper article said that after Bendelow did it they opened it for play before the bunkers were placed.
It collaborates the Vardon statement.
The interesting thing in this case was that the routing was so bad they immediately shut the course down and called in Ross to redo it.

[Tom_Doak]

Ralph:

If you go back to the early part of the century, there was another reason they didn't want to put too many bunkers in too soon, that they weren't so forthright about -- they were trying to save money!

Adding sand bunkers was a relatively expensive step, back in the days when there were no irrigation systems, no cart paths, etc.  By "waiting to observe play" they were also conveniently waiting until they had a little money to play with.

[RSLivingston_III]

Ralph:

If you go back to the early part of the century, there was another reason they didn't want to put too many bunkers in too soon, that they weren't so forthright about -- they were trying to save money!

Adding sand bunkers was a relatively expensive step, back in the days when there were no irrigation systems, no cart paths, etc.  By "waiting to observe play" they were also conveniently waiting until they had a little money to play with.

Knowing how cheap GR is, and probably was, this would make sense too. I still find it amazing they decided to spend the money to bring in Ross.
Old newspaper articles are so much fun.