[Michael J. Moss]

In the quest for a more traditional and natural appearance for bunkers that currently look too modern, what type of sand (color or shade, name, source) would be appropriate for a vintage golf course in the Northeast from 1918. A bright "Florida" white look is something I believe we want to avoid.

My recollection of Gil Hanse’s work at Apawamis was his decision to use sand that I’d describe as “dirty blond.” It looked pretty cool. Also, in light of all the discussion of Merion’s bunkers (I got to play there this summer for the first time - wow!), how would you describe the sand they opted for?

Ideas?

[Brad Klein]

Don't start with color; start with playability and maintainability. Have your superintendent work with an agronomist/USGA Green Section advisor in determining technical specifications as to hardness, porosity, shape, particle size distribution. Then, when you've located 3-4 samples from reliable sand suppliers, create an adjacent set of playable bunkers with the respective sands and let your golf pro/golf committeee/membership select from those. But don't give them the choice of aesthetics without first determining the appropriate materials.  

[Scott Witter]

Michael:

Brad is right...performance and playability for most clubs should be first on their minds.  In most cases, you can find (though good performing sand isn't cheap) sands with similar performance characteristics as well as varying color.

Maintenence can/will have a big impact on how the bunkers perform as some sands will tend to crust up and require more attention after rainfall and others will be quite angular and will need to be fluffed on occasion and still others will need 'custom' care to offer the playing characteristics normally desired by the members.

Performance in the way of permeability, ability to infiltrate water quickly is essential and obviously the members will want the sand to resist the dreded 'fried egg lie' so having the sand tested is also key.  There are many very good labs/independent consultants who do this testing work and to insure that someones butt isn't strung up later in the process, I would highly recommend that testing be accomplished.

If you want, I live and practice here in the northeast (Lockport, NY) and would happy to assist with names and phone #s of testing labs as well as sources for sand as noted...just send me an IM, or look up my email my clicking my name on the post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Don't forget about your long term needs and the supply source, future availability.

What type of sand does your superintendent topdress with ?

As Brad said, playability should be uppermost on the totem pole.

Most sands will dull over time, but, I'd avoid bright whites.

I'd suggest visiting nearby golf courses to see how their sand plays, especially if it's been acquired in the last 5 years.

[Brad Klein]

Pat, I didn't say that. I said "playability and maintainability."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad,

Picky, picky, picky.

It would be hard to imagine a sand that played well in the northeast that was difficult to maintain.

It's also hard to imagine a member owned club introducing a new sand that's dramatically different from what they've been playing for the past few decades.

If nearby clubs have redone their bunkers within the last 5 or so years I'm sure the superintendents discuss the pros and cons of the new sand with their peers, and as such, they create a data base, an experience and learning curve for future projects.

The biggest problem I've seen with respect to maintainance is for those clubs that decided to employ liners.   Invariably, the problems associated with that element seem to magnify over time, especially on bunkers with steeper banks and sand-pros.

[Brad Klein]

Pat, when the bunker is poorly built and there's lousy drainage design that yields runoffs into bunkers, no sand is maintainable in the Northeast or anywhere else.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, when the bunker is poorly built and there's lousy drainage design that yields runoffs into bunkers, no sand is maintainable in the Northeast or anywhere else.

Brad,

In that case it doesnt matter what sand you choose  

[Scott Witter]

Pat:

I think you may be taking a narrow and perhaps an inexperienced view of bunker maintenance.  I have watched no less than three very prominant clubs in the Rochester market redo their bunkers (all using the same sand, Signature from Best sand in Ohio), (one project was mine) in the last five years and each superintendent took a different approach to maintenence and each struggled their entire first year with considerable frustration from the members.  It simply isn't as easy as you might suggest and maintenance has a huge impact on how new and old bunkers will play.

"If nearby clubs have redone their bunkers within the last 5 or so years I'm sure the superintendents discuss the pros and cons of the new sand with their peers, and as such, they create a data base, an experience and learning curve for future projects." You would think...and in an ideal world (maybe it does occur in the Philly area) this would be great, but it too doesn't always work that way.  Some supers are old school and don't tell them how to do their work and others are a newer breed and are open to many suggestions and the old guard doesn't always want suggestions especially from the young bucks.

"It's also hard to imagine a member owned club introducing a new sand that's dramatically different from what they've been playing for the past few decades."  Each one of the clubs I noted and also two others ALL changed completely with their project to a totally different (much better I might add) sand with very different (much better also) playing conditions than they had for the past 15 years.

[Jim Thompson]

In the quest for a more traditional and natural appearance for bunkers that currently look too modern, what type of sand (color or shade, name, source) would be appropriate for a vintage golf course in the Northeast from 1918.

Ideas?

Michael,

Contact every pit within fifty miles and ask for sample of various grades of washed sand.  You can even tell them what degree of angle you would prefer.  Also ask them to vary the number of washings per grade in their samples.  You'll end up with a local / native source that best matches your location and a cheaper source.

Cheers!

JT

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott Witter,

In your response, paragraph I conflicts with Paragraph III.

Anyone who views the success or failure of bunker projects in the sole context of the first year's experience is being short sighted.

Unfortunately, most members want instant gratification and perfect results.

In the three examples you cited, what maintainance problem did each of the three golf courses experience ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I think you misread Scotts post - all clubs changed sand, but all used the same new sand, from the aptly named Best Sand Company near Cleveland, OH.  BTW, from my experience, that is a consistent sand meeting all playability and maintenance parameters you would want. The freight can be a killer, though.

I agree that the first year is always the toughest and would like to hear more details from Scott.  Although technically sand should never need time to compact, in reality, it does seem looser in the first few years, leading to fried egg lies.  I suspect that is the problem, although a few here would disagree, saying it goes all down hill when the sand firms up!

Members do want instant results.  Soothing words that it will be better next year seldom relieve their concerns that they just spent close to a million bucks and still have bunkers that are "less than perfect." For that kind of money, I think they expect instant results.

[Scott Witter]

Jeff:

You are correct...and I am way too busy this afternoon to debate (if that is possible) with Mr. Mucci

Pat:

The Signature sand is very good and meets all of the USGA performance specs (if you feel that is important, and most members do).  It normally carries a 3.1 to 3.3 penetrometer rating which is one of the highest for resistance to fried egg lies and it is very angular.  It is a very consistent sand and I believe Nicklaus put it into the bunkers at Murfield about 2 years ago.

You have to understand that I don't really care what sand a club chooses, but they do look to me for guidance in this matter and I normally help to facilitate a source(s) for them.  I really think that Jim Thompson's approach is the best and it typically prodices a product that fits the eye much better and is a whole lot cheaper

Signature also compacts considerably, but it maintains its infiltration rate very well.  Because of the angularity, it locks together and can become quite hard.  Two of the clubs (their supers) left the sand alone and did very little to it...not really knowing how to deal with it.  Remember, you have members saying they want it fluffy, others saying they want it firm, others saying the ball must stay in the middle of the bunker...and so on.  I can tell you from direct experience, that Signature can tighten up real hard, so hard in fact that a ball hit, or thrown into it will barely even make a mark.  This is clearly too hard, but with just the right depth and technique of HAND raking, it makes for one of the best performing sands I have seen.

During the first year, any sand does move and a lot more than most realize, until it reaches its insitu state of compaction and then it is ready to be managed to achieve the best performance characteristics desired.  This is again one of the strong points with Signature, it can be managed in a variety of ways to better suit a particular membership.

"Although technically sand should never need time to compact," Can't agree with you here Jeff...for any earthen material in golf construction will compact, especially a man-made/produced product like bunker and with so many variations of roundness/angularity.

Pat: However, and as you say, members want and demand perfect conditions and instant gratification (which BTW is absolutely ridiculus) the super, the architect and the contractor are under the gun as soon as the project is done...no matter what the members have been told along the way!

Leaving the sand alone also produces anerobic bacteria just beneath the surface of the sand and this leads to slower drainage performance and an ugly green slime.

I have a club now that is stating to their super that the bunkers must be sandy/fluffy to a depth of 1/4" to 1/2" inch or else the members will "sink" too much and possibly miss-hit an improper shot.  Can you believe this crap!

Hey, I gotta get back to the boards.

[Michael J. Moss]

Thanks gentlemen. Greatly appreciated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have watched no less than three very prominant clubs in the Rochester market redo their bunkers (all using the same sand, Signature from Best sand in Ohio), (one project was mine) in the last five years

and each superintendent took a different approach to maintenence and each struggled their entire first year with considerable frustration from the members.  

It simply isn't as easy as you might suggest and maintenance has a huge impact on how new and old bunkers will play.

Scott,

You're said that the sand was the same,
that each of the three superintendents embarked on differerent maintainance protocols,
and that all three supreintendents had problems.

Wouldn't that indicate that none of them got it right ?
That all three methods were flawed ?

Don't view this as a debate ...... yet  

I'm curious as to how the removal of one type of sand, and its replacement by another type of sand can cause problems.
It seems counterintuitive.
Unless, the bunkers were all rebuilt.
If that's the case, then the three problems you cite aren't so isolated, as a number of clubs seem to encounter the same difficulty, which leads me to conclude that the bunker construction is faulty.

The next question is why is it faulty, what about it causes clubs to experience ongoing problems ?

With respect to the three clubs you reference,
What was so different in their approaches ?
What caused all of them to have problems ?

Was it the sand, or was it the container, the construction and mold of the rebuilt bunker ?  [/color]

Each one of the clubs I noted and also two others ALL changed completely with their project to a totally different (much better I might add) sand with very different (much better also) playing conditions than they had for the past 15 years.

Part of my confusion is that you state that all three superintendents used the same sand, that they employed three different maintainance methods,  and that they all had problems, yet, you state that the sand and the playing conditions are much better.  
How can that be ?

Were these project simply sand replacement or were the bunkers reconstructed ?

Thanks[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I"ve seen some supers use pneumatic tampers while others prefer to let Mother Nature do their bidding.

Whether it's gravity and/or Mother Nature, I've noticed a "settling" of the sand, with time, on a number of golf courses that either resanded their bunkers, or rebuilt and resanded their bunkers.

I would imagine, that on courses built in the early part of the 20th century, that bunker issues were resolved over time, and that with newer bunkers, not enough time has elapsed for the same process or fine tuning to take place.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott & Jeff, and et. al.,

If you were involved in a bunker project at a club that had USGA greens with a sand choker layer, would you recommend the same type of sand for topdressing and the greenside bunkers as exists within the choker layer ?

If not, why not ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I never have. There might be some logic to making sure the bunker sand is equal to, or a bit coarser than the topmix sand, to avoid layering from sand splashes.

However, the choker layer, as a coarse sand that bridges between gravel and topmix might be coarse enough to damage mowers, and might not have been selected for qualities that make a good bunker sand.

[Scott Witter]

Pat:

"Wouldn't that indicate that none of them got it right ?
That all three methods were flawed ?"

Maybe, although I don't consider leaving the sand alone (basically not doing much of anything until it has settled) to be a flawed method, I call it being smart until such time the super can confer with the architect, or other supers who have experienced the same sand.

"I'm curious as to how the removal of one type of sand, and its replacement by another type of sand can cause problems.
It seems counterintuitive.
Unless, the bunkers were all rebuilt.
If that's the case, then the three problems you cite aren't so isolated, as a number of clubs seem to encounter the same difficulty, which leads me to conclude that the bunker construction is faulty."

I have no idea who you really are (your backgroud that is with respect to golf design, construction or maintenence for that matter) but in your statement above, you are starting to sound a bit like some of the members I have to deal with.

The bunkers were all redesigned and rebuilt on the 3 courses in question...not sure that will satisfy you however.  How in the world do you conclude the construction of the bunkers would/could be faulty based on the superintendent having some problems achieving the correct playing characteristics?  Curious, do you think it is possible that the super simply didn't have any experience with the sand type chosen by the club or that possibility he wanted to leave it alone for a while, so as not to start in the wrong direction, or, knowing his membership, he thought it wise to take a wait and see approach and work it out slowly with his green committee or the architect?

"The next question is why is it faulty, what about it causes clubs to experience ongoing problems ?"

I think the mere fact that the sand they had was so old and poor to begin with and now the new sand is so much better and different (performance specs & characteristics) the supers had a method to 'deal' with the old sand for so many years and the new sand requires a different technique that they are/were presently unfamiliar with.

"With respect to the three clubs you reference,
What was so different in their approaches ?
What caused all of them to have problems ?

Was it the sand, or was it the container, the construction and mold of the rebuilt bunker ?"

Pat...you know what, there is so much that goes on behind the scenes (even with a simple bunker reconstruction project) that there aren't enough hours in the day for me to explain it to you in writing.  Besides, based on what I have experienced in reading this site and the nature/understanding of your questions, I can't take the time...I have enough of a challenge explaining these matters to my clients/owners...you see, they are the ones writing my checks

Pat, I am not upset...I just need to move on

P.S. thanks for using green this time, it is my favorite color

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

"Wouldn't that indicate that none of them got it right ?
That all three methods were flawed ?"

Maybe, although I don't consider leaving the sand alone (basically not doing much of anything until it has settled) to be a flawed method,

But, if the super had maintainance problems, as you indicated, then leaving it alone wasn't the best method for solving the problems he encountered.[/color]

I call it being smart until such time the super can confer with the architect, or other supers who have experienced the same sand.

I would have thought that that would have been a process to undertake before deciding on the sand[/color]

"I'm curious as to how the removal of one type of sand, and its replacement by another type of sand can cause problems.
It seems counterintuitive.

Unless, the bunkers were all rebuilt.
If that's the case, then the three problems you cite aren't so isolated, as a number of clubs seem to encounter the same difficulty, which leads me to conclude that the bunker construction is faulty."

I have no idea who you really are (your backgroud that is with respect to golf design, construction or maintenence for that matter) but in your statement above, you are starting to sound a bit like some of the members I have to deal with.


Ahh, do you mean those guys who have to pay the bills ?

I've always gravitated toward physicians and surgeons who had no problem with, and could answer, pointed questions.

If the same sand is used in three seperate but nearby sites, and three seperate maintainance protocols are employed, and all encounter maintainance problems, it would seem logical to conclude that it's not the sand that's the problem.

As to your question with respect to what I do, I do not teach logic, but, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.[/color]

The bunkers were all redesigned and rebuilt on the 3 courses in question...not sure that will satisfy you however.  

It does[/color]

How in the world do you conclude the construction of the bunkers would/could be faulty based on the superintendent having some problems achieving the correct playing characteristics?  

When 3 seperate supers use the same sand at three different sites and apply three seperate maintainance protocols and all three have maintainance problems, it's logical to conclude that it isn't the sand.

It also seems logical that all three clubs/supers would have done their homework PRIOR to selecting the sand, hence, it's even more logical that the problems lay within the bunker construction rather than the bunker filler.[/color]

Curious, do you think it is possible that the super simply didn't have any experience with the sand type chosen by the club


That was known before, during and after each club made their choice of sand.  And, at most clubs, the super is intimately invovled in that decision.

If all three supers didn't have any experience with the sand, upon what informed basis did they select the sand ?[/color]

or that possibility he wanted to leave it alone for a while, so as not to start in the wrong direction, or, knowing his membership, he thought it wise to take a wait and see approach and work it out slowly with his green committee or the architect?

That's certainly possible at one of the sites, but, you said that all three of the supers had maintainance problems despite employing different maintainance practices.

How do you explain the problems at the other two sites ?[/color]

"The next question is why is it faulty, what about it causes clubs to experience ongoing problems ?"

I think the mere fact that the sand they had was so old and poor to begin with and now the new sand is so much better and different (performance specs & characteristics) the supers had a method to 'deal' with the old sand for so many years and the new sand requires a different technique that they are/were presently unfamiliar with.

There's no question that a "honeymoon" or "shake down cruise" is helpful.

But, what puzzles me is, if they were all so unfamiliar with the new sand and its maintainance requirements, why did they select it in the first place, and when they made their selection, how much in the way of "due diligence" did they perform ?[/color]

"With respect to the three clubs you reference,
What was so different in their approaches ?
What caused all of them to have problems ?

Was it the sand, or was it the container, the construction and mold of the rebuilt bunker ?"

Pat...you know what, there is so much that goes on behind the scenes (even with a simple bunker reconstruction project) that there aren't enough hours in the day for me to explain it to you in writing.  

I understand, but, you cited an example where three supers selected the same sand in the same area and applied three seperate maintainance protocols and yet, all three experienced problems.   Since this thread was about selecting sand, my curiosity was aroused, and my alarm bells went off when you cited an unusual situation.
Wanting to satisfy my curiosity, my medium for learning, I asked what I felf were prudent questions.

Based on the answers to date, It doesn't seem like the sand was the problem.[/color]

Besides, based on what I have experienced in reading this site and the nature/understanding of your questions, I can't take the time...

Are the questions inappropriate ?[/color]

I have enough of a challenge explaining these matters to my clients/owners...you see, they are the ones writing my checks

I can understand that, I too have a business that requires my time and efforts.[/color]

Pat, I am not upset...I just need to move on
I'm not upset either, just curious with respect to what seems like an unusual situation.[/color]

P.S. thanks for using green this time, it is my favorite color


I tried blue for a while, but, it was more difficult to read.[/color]

[Scott Witter]

Pat:
 I tried to walk away, to give it up, but every time I think I'm out...they PULL ME BACK IN!!

Pat, I am not going to read back through everything I said, but it appears that I may have confused matters...I NEVER THOUGHT OR MEANT THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE SAND...THE SAND IS INCREDIBLE, JACK NICKLAUS USES IT MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER AND IT COST $64 PER TON TO HAVE IT BROUGHT TO ROCHESTER.

IT ISN'T THE SAND!!

"But, if the super had maintainance problems, as you indicated, then leaving it alone wasn't the best method for solving the problems he encountered." AGREED.

 "I would have thought that that would have been a process to undertake before deciding on the sand" AGREED AGAIN AND IT WAS, but remember my comment about behind the scenes..it does get get complicated at times.

"If the same sand is used in three seperate but nearby sites, and three seperate maintainance protocols are employed, and all encounter maintainance problems, it would seem logical to conclude that it's not the sand that's the problem."  THAT IS RIGHT.

"As to your question with respect to what I do, I do not teach logic, but, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."  GLAD TO SEE YOU ARE KEEPING YOUR SENSE OF HUMOR.

"It also seems logical that all three clubs/supers would have done their homework PRIOR to selecting the sand"  THEY DID WITH CONSIDERABLE DUE DILLIGENCE, BUT YOU ARE SPEAKING OF A PERFECT WORLD....DO I NEED TO CONTINUE?

"If all three supers didn't have any experience with the sand, upon what informed basis did they select the sand ?"  THEY DIDN'T, THE POWERS TO BE AT THE CLUBS DID SO...WELL ATLEAST AT 2 OF THEM, THE SUPERS WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE EQUATION...STARTING TO SEE THE PICTURE NOW?

"Wanting to satisfy my curiosity, my medium for learning, I asked what I felf were prudent questions." i AM PLEASED YOU ARE CURIOUS AND WANT TO LEARN, BUT THIS ISN'T THE BEST WAY...GO GET IN THE DIRT

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think whoever picks the sand should have to take care of it.

[Forrest Richardson]

Consult with your golf course architect.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Pat,

I never have. There might be some logic to making sure the bunker sand is equal to, or a bit coarser than the topmix sand, to avoid layering from sand splashes.

However, the choker layer, as a coarse sand that bridges between gravel and topmix might be coarse enough to damage mowers, and might not have been selected for qualities that make a good bunker sand.

In an ideal situation I would not advise the same sand was used for the bunkers as the one used for the construction and subsequent top dressing. Main reason being the shape of the grain. Sand for Greens construction should be rounded or sub rounded, so as to be less able to compact. bunker sand should ideally be an angular particle in order to bed together. Its not always practical of course sometimes the right sand just isn't there. I have thought about using a choker layer of coarse grit (max 2mm part size) at 30mm within the bunker base, the sand might perhaps sit more uniformly. wash outs might be a more difficult problem, I guess I need a pioneering greenkeeper somewhere to try one out and report.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott Witter,

Thanks for the clarification.

I think we're on the same page on this issue.

As to getting into the dirt,  I used to snort "Angel Dirt", but, all it did was give me the urge to kick a choir boy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()