News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2006, 11:34:14 AM »


And why we did small sod-wall bunkers at the Renaissance Club in Scotland.


Tom,

Probably one of many the great decisions in your career...

Brian

Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2006, 11:36:18 AM »
I visited Wykagyl not too long ago, and some of the new bunker work there has islands with irrigation on them. I didn't ask, but I assume part of the reason there is to keep the sand uniformly moist.

I didn't ask on purpose..if I wwould have recieved the "uniformly moist" type of answer, I would have said something offensive.  ;D

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2006, 04:16:53 PM »
Yes Ian and J ;)e....I was a bit sarcastic, probably brought on by no sleep on a redeye from the West Coast, only to find that my 8:30 AM connection from Hartsfeld was cancelled until late morning and then having to pay ten bucks for internet access and then first viewing the Pronghorn thread and thinking this looks pretty good and then flipping to your thread and thinking oh no.... its not the style first, but substance...while thinking what I would do from what I could see of the site ....while contrasting that with what others of late have done with theirs.... and then comparing that with others from the past who have developed  bunker styles over their careers that have met with approval and nobody suggesting any style changes there..... :)
« Last Edit: October 28, 2006, 08:00:14 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Ryan Farrow

Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2006, 08:21:06 PM »
Geez, Ian, I'm inclined to mildly disagree.

The ragged edge look is now 5-10 years old, and perhaps that look is getting a little tired for the educated architect.

But let's look at the finished product from the standpoint of the typical member of one of these courses.  He plays 80-90% of his golf at his home club, and doesn't study architecture on the Internet.  This is a very attractive style of bunkering, one that is back in vogue.  At Pronghorn, you now have two outstanding courses with distinctly different looks.  The Pronghorn member is probably very happy with his two beautiful and different courses.

Tom Fazio used this style at Forest Creek - North as well.  The primary difference between Pronghorn and the recent Doak/C&C courses I've seen is the area of sand bunkers employed.  Fazio uses huge areas of sand, many out of play for typical shots, for visual interest and beauty.  That's going to cost a ton of money to maintain.




I think you bring up a good point. Although this look may be a  tired look  in the golf club atlas world the bottom line is the typical golfer has yet to see this style of bunkering. Hell, the closest thing I have came to playing this style was Talking stick which was rather tame and a bit different in its own right.

I think the general public could use some more of this style before other architects like Ian decide they don't want to be a part of this Fad? Movement?

I think it is very encouraging that you are looking for a new direction but I can't help but notice the reaction and some of the comments on Tobiano. It seems that there was a lot of criticism on a unique bunker style where an architect was trying to do something different.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2006, 09:02:31 PM »
Ryan:

I thought that the Tobiano comments were along the lines that the architect was imitating the "look" of MacKenzie bunkers (or the shape anyway), but that the placement of the bunkers was not very interesting in nature.  Of course, a lot of the holes appeared to be hanging close to the edge of unplayable terrain, so he would probably also have been criticized for making the holes too difficult if the bunkers WERE more in play.  Sometimes you just can't win on here.

I know what Ian is saying, though -- he'd like to see more architects trying to do their own thing, instead of imitating what has been popular lately on Golf Club Atlas.  I would not expect any less from Ian, but I can't say the same for some of the others.

Don_Mahaffey

Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #30 on: October 28, 2006, 10:03:53 PM »
Ian,
 Mimicing the randomness of nature should never go out of style.

The problem I have with the hairy bunker trend is the attempt to look rugged and natural when the rest of the course is detailed as much as possible.
Perfectly uniformed fwys with razor edged definition doesn't blend with the rugged look, IMO. Nothing wrong in my book with the detailed look, or with the rugged look, but don't put both in the same picture.

Ian Andrew

Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2006, 10:16:00 PM »
May be I can put this another way, the use of railroad ties by Pete Dye was groundbreaking at the time. It made everyone take notice of Pete's originality and the stunning contrast he offered to what was popular at the time. It became popular and was misused by so many others attempting to duplicate his style.

I like the rugged bunker style a lot, but it will get watered down too. It shouldn't be used everywhere, but it already has been.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2006, 10:23:56 PM by Ian Andrew »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2006, 10:44:42 PM »
Ian,

I think what really is at risk here is not just a bunch of new courses attempting to create the raw-edged bunkers and doing pale imitations, but more a digression from site-specific originality and integration of design features with each individual, unique locale.

Ideally, I think bunkering should reflect what is uniquely native to each site.  For instance, although I haven't been there, I conceptually like the idea of Nicklaus' Old Works in Montana, where the "sand" is actually black dark silt from the mining works the site is built upon.   Similarly, the bunkers at Hurdzan/Fry's Sand Barrens course in NJ is largely just turf ripped away and dug into the orangy, sandy natural undersoils.  Unfortunately, they have imported more traditional bunker sand for the greenside ones, leaving it looking aesthetically inconsistent.

Of course, not every site has such natural advantages, but in the case of courses with dense clays, or poor drainage, creative architects such as William Fownes instead went for multiitudes of shallow (until recent changes) but imaginatively diverse bunkering schemes, such as church pews, trenches, tabled rows, and other interesting concepts that gave the course a singular character.

It seems the fundamental issue facing today's architects in bunker design is that the same style bunker that might look great on a rugged coastline doesn't necessarily translate as well to a desert or parkland or rural site.   It seems to me that the ideal way to avoid such repetition and incongruity with site aesthetics is simply to listen to what they land is saying at each site, and then try to imaginatively integrate man-made features in a way that makes sense from a visual and playability standpoint.

The irony is that over time some of the architects who practiced site-specific bunker variation during their careers, like Donald Ross, have been tagged with a stereotypical style these many years later.   So, perhaps we're all just doomed to be labelled with whatever image is perceived as our best work.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2006, 08:19:25 AM »
Sean:

The problem is that nearly all golf architects practicing today are attention-seekers.  And when was the last time a course with relatively few bunkers was highly praised here (or by any of the magazines)?  It's not that no one ever builds such a course, it's that no one pays attention to them.  The courses being imitated are the ones which are grabbing people's attention.

Dave Bourgeois

Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2006, 08:20:15 AM »
When looking at the Pronghorn pics. I was certainly impressed with the visuals.  It is really quite stunning.  However, the thought did cross my mind that the hairy bunker type is the the railroad tie of today.

I don't have nearly the experience of most on here, but Mike Cirba's post seems to make the most sense to me.  I hope that architects do use what is best for the site, and that these rugged bunkers do not become just another marketing tag line.  

As a side note I looked over a bunch of high end newer private course websites last night.  I could not believe the number of quotes that talked about "letting the land dictate the course".  I don't know if its true or not for these, but I guess it sells memberships.


Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2006, 08:29:19 AM »
An architect saying "the land dictated the course," is a cliche just like, "this is the best site I've ever worked on." It is a remark that makes clients comfortable.
Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

ForkaB

Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #36 on: October 30, 2006, 04:12:55 AM »
Sean

It's very interesting for Tom to admit, in effect--they wan't eye candy so we give them eye candy.  Ironically, on your Kington thread you make the valid point that grass covered humps and hollows are much more interesting hazards than bunkers, not only because recovery from them requires much more skill and imigination.  But......

....they apparently don't sell housing lots or memberships, so in come the loaders with the tons of sand..... :'(

Are architects building courses for people interested in golf or interested in pretty pictures outside their verandas.  I think I know the answer.

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #37 on: October 30, 2006, 04:18:01 AM »

Are architects building courses for people interested in golf or interested in pretty pictures outside their verandas.  I think I know the answer.
Rich,

Are both just as important on real estate projects?

Brian
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

ForkaB

Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2006, 05:02:26 AM »
They are both important, of course, but in what proportions?  That has to depend on the beliefs and the ambitions of the developer, does it not?

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2006, 05:51:11 AM »
Paul,

I never know if your being sarcastic or serious. I like Proghorn and thought it fit, but I thought it looked just like Coore and Crenshaw bunkers to me. Too close for comfort.

Ian,

I would go on a 93% chance Paul is sarcastic......not just this time, but any time you have doubt!... ;D

(statistically backed up by proofing Paul's previous posts, of course!)

Joe


Ian and Joe....having just re read this, I feel a little clarification is in order.

I am rarely sarcastic.....not my style.

I am always serious....but I tend to express this in different forms, such as;


Playful serious.
Irreverent serious.
Obscure serious.
and even at times...Humorous serious.

I try to avoid Heart Attack serious.

....but back to the serious issues of this thread.

I don't care how anyone tends to decorate their bunker strategies, as long as these strategic features are good to begin with....and I don't care whether they do it over and over again during the course of their careers and with very little evolutionary change.

The fact that if C&C don't ever build a squarish grassed face bunker doesn't bother me any more than the fact that Raynor et al never practiced bunker chunking techniques during the course of their careers.

And if Tom Doak still wants to experiment with different ways of dressing up his bunker strategies, well that's great too.....as long as the fashion doesn't fluff his overall strategies [which in his case I'm sure they won't].

I find it very interesting to observe what others do when they imitate or expand on different bunker styles....and I am probably one of those who will always tinker with and try to adapt a different style with a different site....but that's just me..... and where the Hell is TomP lately, as this would be a good time for him to impart some advice on his Big World Theory.

I sure wouldn't want to be the gatekeeper for different trends of style.......I wouldn't want to take any work away from the critics.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2006, 09:28:37 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2006, 06:11:14 AM »
Playfully Irreverant Paul,

Thank you for the clarification, which will fully take place when I reread your post a few hours from now.  ;D

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #41 on: October 30, 2006, 06:31:56 AM »
They are both important, of course, but in what proportions?  That has to depend on the beliefs and the ambitions of the developer, does it not?
Exactly!  It is not the architect that decides in the end.  He or she can have a huge impression on a developer but in the end money talks... ;D

The worst is when I am talking to a developer that does not play golf yet still has an opinion on what he or she wants on the golf course. Then...it gets fun.,, :o
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #42 on: October 30, 2006, 07:01:39 AM »
Brian:

Blaming the trend toward excessive bunkering on creating some additional real estate value would be a stretch, in my opinion.  It certainly has little to do with the majority of my courses or with the majority of Coore and Crenshaw's, and off the top of my head, the courses which have been dissected on here for excess bunkering (Purgatory in Indiana, Old Memorial in Florida) are not, to my knowledge, real estate projects.

And I don't think it really has much to do with owners, either, except indirectly they want to see their course in all the magazines.  Of the last ten courses we built, only a couple of our clients expressed the desire to have more bunkers than what we were building on our own ... though, on some projects, we were already building a lot of them.

Rich, I didn't say I personally build a lot of bunkers that are unnecessary, I tried to explain that not all visual purposes can be attributed to eye candy.  But there is a lot of eye candy going on in this business right now, no doubt about it.  Of course, there's a lot of eye candy going on in a lot of other businesses today, too.

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #43 on: October 30, 2006, 07:33:41 AM »
Tom,

I don't think I explained myself correctly or clear enough.  I was just biting to Rich's question. I was not implying anything about any of your courses or C&C's courses more at what is being built now after people have jumped on the band wagon.  Do you really think that scraggly bunkering is just the architect's choice with no influence from a client that has seen the style from another course?  

I think you sometimes forget where you are at the moment.  You can decide (to a certain extent) which and what style of course you want to design these days.  But even on courses like Sebonack you still had to behave under the 'developer's umbrella' (18th hole being a good example).

Now if the two greatest golf course architects in the world at the moment still have to give in to a developer what do think is happening on the 2nd or 3rd division of design?

I think you have to stop talking as if you are a 'normal' architect because you are not anymore.  You are in the Premier division now and I am sorry to say that us others down in the 2nd division (not that I am not loving it) do have to negotiate with our clients a lot more than you have to these days.

Real estate is just one example of a style of project, there are many others where the client has an influence.  

Over bunkering has always been here and so has eye candy design visuals and I believe a lot of it is developer/client influence or an architect has a total lack of imagination to come with anything new....but...there really is nothing new in design anymore....it is all just being repeated...scraggly bunkering has been around forever just that it is trendier now so architects or developers want it.

So I don't agree with you that developers are not influencing architect decisions. They are, they have and always will.

Brian
« Last Edit: October 30, 2006, 07:41:15 AM by Brian Phillips »
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #44 on: October 30, 2006, 08:19:37 AM »
Brian....it works both ways, as a few of us are good at influencing developers decisions too.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #45 on: October 30, 2006, 09:18:52 AM »
Ian, you started this thread out stating that you thought Erin Hills, Sutton Bay, and Pronghorn are imitations of the original concept that more or less began at Sand Hills.  

I don't agree.  I've only seen EH and Pronghorn in photos, but Sutton Bay is not a sand hills style bunkering.  The lip edges of Sutton Bay are predominantly shaped and rounded with blue grass.  Some of the outward edges are native grasses.  But the in play bunkers are more shaped and rounded as compared to sand hills which are more coarsely dug out of native sand, with straighter cuts down into the sand. Sutton does not have that sort of sand that the bunker can be cut straight into the ground.  I think there is a big difference.

As for C&C, they have had their bunkermeisters do varying styles.  Cuscowilla is certainly no sand hills.  I've heard some people say the bunkers at Cusco are too steep and deep with too much roll over etc., causing serious maintenance problems.  But, they are an artistic work of great beauty, IMHO.

One bunker style that no one has mentioned, although it is also part of a maintenance regime is the Australian look.  The steep and sharp cut bunkers with tongues and bays.  Generally they are cut straight down into the ground with flatter slightly cuppy bottoms.  

The thing about Doak and the bunkerhill boys, is that they demonstrate through their remodelling that they are capable of crafting great bunkers in any style.  Whether it was remodelling and restoring Thomas's bunkers by bunkerhill at Riviera, or the remo-resto at Valley Club or North Shore by Doak's gang, they can do some elegant and stylish work as well.

Jim Thompson and Bruce Mathews did not go for the hairy lip style, and adopted more of a Raynor-Langford ish style.  

As for eye candy, I think that to be attractive in the photos, it is sort of pleasing to see the native grasses (particularly in seasons of fall where grasses take on various hues of color) that make them desirable and photogenic.  The elegant capes and bays with curled over lips and visable whitecaps of sand flashed up and green rolled down are very eye candy compatable too.  The smart archie figures out which fits where and is talented at multiple styles.  

The better question in my mind is which archies/constructors are versatile to do many styles well and get the drainage right too.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2006, 09:19:22 AM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #46 on: October 30, 2006, 09:31:58 AM »
Can anyone list a list of "bunkering styles". I will start:

1. Blow out bunkers aka Sand Hills
2. MacRaynor flat bottomed geometric, National, Yale ....
3. Please fill in............

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #47 on: October 30, 2006, 09:46:35 AM »
RB Harris - gapping oval to round sand pits  ;) ;D

Thomas, tongues and bays, rolled over lips.

Fazio, Pennsylvania upholsted arms and backs  ::) ;) ;D

Ross, flashed sand scoops

MacKenzie, free form blending with contour lines multiple chambers from subtly cupped out sub soil subsections.

Langford - Moreau, diagonal gull wings sculpted out of grassed ridges or man made turfed mounds with flatish sand running at base of mounds.

Raynor, aligator eye mounds, with flattish sand at base.

Old Tom, and the keepers of the green, stacked sod around scooped out pits.


No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

wsmorrison

Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #48 on: October 30, 2006, 09:59:04 AM »
Wilson/Flynn:  high visibility bunkers, especially into hillsides, sand flashed, undulating sandy waste areas, raised toplines to hide landing areas and foreshorten distance, fewer bunkers in dynamic topography, greater use of bunkers in featureless areas

Fownes:  church pews and a tremendous number of bunkers

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Imitation and the internet
« Reply #49 on: October 30, 2006, 12:23:32 PM »
Brian....it works both ways, as a few of us are good at influencing developers decisions too.
Paul,

Totally agree.

Brian
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back