[Patrick_Mucci]

Question - when CBM/SR/CB designed & built the majority of their courses, was the sand wedge (as we now know it post-Gene Sarazen) in common use?

David,

That's a great point.

The sand wedge didn't surface until 1932, which meant that the bunkers before the advent of the Sand Wedge in 1932 were even more difficult to cope with.

[Jon Wiggett]

2  They're easier to maintain
3  They don't get the wash outs

Oh Patrick, how little you understand about maintenance!!!

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I still don't understand your crusade ... perhaps that is why I have failed to merit a multi-coloured reply.

My thinking boils down to this -- I think that a variety of contoured bunker lies may make it EASIER to get out of a bunker, but HARDER to get reliably up and down out of one.  And I think that is really the goal in both instances.  We don't need 15-handicaps taking three in a bunker, we just want the bunkers to lead more often to bogeys by good players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

When have you ever in your lifetime maintained a bunker (of any size, shape or style) on a regular basis?

For several years when I was Project and Green Chairman.
That was just one of my areas of responsibility.

Raking your footprints doesn't count.

I can assure you that my involvement entailed far more that raking my footprints.

Hopefully Mr. Von Hagge asked you the same question when you made your comment.

Bob and I had a great relationship, we still do.
We engaged in extended dialogue on that particular bunker and all of the other bunkers as well.

My positions were straight forward, we weren't going to create features that couldn't be maintained, and we weren't going to create features that were well beyond the ability of the membership to cope with.

In addition to nixing the undulating bunker floor, a floor with in excess of 3 feet of elevations changes, the sides and backs of the bunker floors were softened to avoid steep downhill/sidehill lies.

If you go to courses by country and view the review on Boca Rio you'll see the results.  The result speaks for itself.
 

[RJ_Daley]

It just goes to show ya, context in terms of timelines of when various things and events happened do weigh heavily on GCA considerations.  

Imagine what some of those skanker sand shots must have been like back in the day before Sarazen's sand wedge!  

For some of you historians and archivists out there; does much film exist demonstrating sand blasts by some of the players prior to 1932?  We see stuff like the famous Vardon and and Hagen swings.  They are at Far Hills archives.  But, has anyone seen much film on ancient sand blasts?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you just wanted to make the bunkers as difficult as possible, you would build the greenside bunkers so there was a bit of downslope going toward the green.  I believe Jack Nicklaus had that at Muirfield Village for a couple of years back in the 1980's, because I remember some of the pros complaining about it.

Pat, I always felt like a contoured bunker would provide for different lies and stances and lead to more difficult recovery play, over all flat bunkers.  Of course, if the flat bunkers are ten feet deep and the contoured bunkers are three feet deep, that's a different story.

Tom Doak,

Perhaps our definition of an undulating bunker floor is clouding the issue.

I'm referencing a bunker floor (absent the sand) that has elevation changes within it, not a bunker floor that merely rises as one nears the perimeter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am not at all fond of flat-bottomed bunkers if the ground allows undulating floors.

Wayno, the ground is of almost no consequence, it's the backhoe that determines the floor of the bunker, not the base grade

I don't argue that grass faces are bad, but I like the look and psychological effect of higher sand faces.  

Eye candy does have tangential values

However, flat floors are too predictable and are anathema to me as regards golf.  

Nothing is more predictable than a bunker floor that rises toward the green.
It presents a much easier extraction, with the possible exception of a very long bunker shot from a steep face.

It doesn't matter that the floors can be far below the surface of the green.  New wedges nullify that difficulty.  

Nonsense.
Nothing nullifies the effect of blindness and the daunting task of getting out of a deep bunker.

When the courses were first built that utilized the unnatural look of flat floors, it had to result in very penal recoveries, perhaps even too penal (I'm especially thinking of some of the greenside bunkering at Yale).  The systematic lack of variety in stance and lie is wrong in my estimation.  


One must context your response above in terms of the frequency that one finds themselves in a bunker.

I rarely hit into 18 bunkers in a given round.
I rarely hit into 9 bunkers in a given round
I rarely hit into 6 bunkers in a given round.
On some rounds I may not be in any bunkers, or, in just a few.
So how would you achieve variety in bunker lie and stance if the golfer rarely visits them ?

And, how can you context your statement, with a modicum of credibility when few if any of bunker extractions are replicated in terms of the bunker configuration, bunker depth, green surrounds, putting surface and distance to the hole ?

It would be OK if it existed on some bunkers, but an improper design feature when over used.  And it was over used by Raynor and Banks.


I strongly disagree.

You're saying that you would have flashed bunkers at Westhampton ?

How unnatural would that be ?

I thought you didn't like features that clashed with the natural surroundings ?

I prefer closer to 3:1 ratio of uneven lies to flat lies.


Let me guess, is that what Flynn did ?

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, what Pat is asking... don't your guys (Hepner and Urbina) basically use the construction techinique of properly building the cuppy bunker sub areas that do work for drainage and offer said variety of lies within the same bunker?  As I noted, North Shore by Hepner is such, and Valley Club of Montecito by Urbina has them as well.  Given various types of climate and soil conditions at various restore or remodel jobs, is this not a techinique that is something of a trademark when the style and climate and soil allows?

[wsmorrison]

Wayno, the ground is of almost no consequence, it's the backhoe that determines the floor of the bunker, not the base grade

Oh, but it does when there is a lot of rock.  Much of the bunkering at Cascades is shallow.  It is because of the amount of rock under the thin layer of soil.  In this case, and others around the country on similarly difficult ground, dynamite determines the floor more so than a backhoe.

Nothing is more predictable than a bunker floor that rises toward the green.
It presents a much easier extraction, with the possible exception of a very long bunker shot from a steep face.

You only focus on the upslope towards the green.  What about an undulating floor offering a variety of stances and lies, including sideslopes and downslopes?  The types of lies you get in more dynamic bunker topography, especially those that go with the slopes rather than are carved out of with their flat bunkers, look a lot better and offer many more varieties of stance and recovery testing.  You cannot deny this as much as you like to focus on the one simpler shot. 

Flynn's bunkers behind greens (which often sloped back to front) were purposefully shallow, but the floors were not laser level flat.  These sorts of bunkers do not allow an upslope to make it easier to recover to the green.  Concomitantly, they did not have the unfair downslope on the back side of the bunkers hindering recoveries for the bold player.

One must context your response above in terms of the frequency that one finds themselves in a bunker.

I rarely hit into 18 bunkers in a given round.
I rarely hit into 9 bunkers in a given round
I rarely hit into 6 bunkers in a given round.
On some rounds I may not be in any bunkers, or, in just a few.
So how would you achieve variety in bunker lie and stance if the golfer rarely visits them ?

And, how can you context your statement, with a modicum of credibility when few if any of bunker extractions are replicated in terms of the bunker configuration, bunker depth, green surrounds, putting surface and distance to the hole ?

This makes absolutely no sense.  By the way, if you are rarely in bunkers, they rarely come into play and they are poorly placed and obsolete due to improvements in clubs and balls.  You must be playing too many Macdonald and Raynor courses.

You're saying that you would have flashed bunkers at Westhampton ?

Not necessarily.  I wouldn't have laser leveled flat bunker floors.  I'd have some undulations and a lot less geometric look.  It is a seaside site and I wouldn't use a t-square and ruler to lay out my bunker edges.  Those unnatural shapes clash a lot.  By the way, sand flashed high on raised bunkers have a look that resembles breaking waves on the ocean.  In that regard, it is very harmonious with the surroundings.

Let me guess, is that what Flynn did ?

I don't know.  I was telling Rich what I like.  Stop using the Flynnophile BS as a source of my opinions and a deflection of considering Raynor and Banks.  Let them stand on their own and quit using Flynn as a crutch to defend their work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno, the ground is of almost no consequence, it's the backhoe that determines the floor of the bunker, not the base grade

Oh, but it does when there is a lot of rock.  Much of the bunkering at Cascades is shallow.  It is because of the amount of rock under the thin layer of soil.  In this case, and others around the country on similarly difficult ground, dynamite determines the floor more so than a backhoe.

No it doesn't, COST determines the depth of bunkers in many cases, not the method of design, but the cost to construct.

Nothing is more predictable than a bunker floor that rises toward the green.
It presents a much easier extraction, with the possible exception of a very long bunker shot from a steep face.

You only focus on the upslope towards the green.  What about an undulating floor offering a variety of stances and lies, including sideslopes and downslopes? 

That's a false assumption on your part.

Bunkers that have their faces sloping upward toward the green don't inherently have sidehill and/or downhill lies.

The downhill and sidehill lies you're refering to only exist in saucer or bowl shaped bunkers.

The types of lies you get in more dynamic bunker topography, especially those that go with the slopes rather than are carved out of with their flat bunkers, look a lot better and offer many more varieties of stance and recovery testing. 

Don't be absurd, no bunkers go with the sloping topography.
If they did, they'd wash out every time it rained.
Gravity and water seeking its own level insure that outcome every time.

You need to examine bunker construction, especially drainage, before you make statements like that.

You cannot deny this as much as you like to focus on the one simpler shot. 


Of course I can deny it, and do deny it.
See my explanation above.

Flynn's bunkers behind greens (which often sloped back to front) were purposefully shallow, but the floors were not laser level flat. 

I didn't realize that the "Golden Age" guys had laser leveling available.

These sorts of bunkers do not allow an upslope to make it easier to recover to the green. 

You just said that they did.
You said that they sloped back to front, which means they rose toward the green.

Concomitantly, they did not have the unfair downslope on the back side of the bunkers hindering recoveries for the bold player.

Which means they sloped up toward the green, making recovery easier.

One must context your response above in terms of the frequency that one finds themselves in a bunker.

I rarely hit into 18 bunkers in a given round.
I rarely hit into 9 bunkers in a given round
I rarely hit into 6 bunkers in a given round.
On some rounds I may not be in any bunkers, or, in just a few.
So how would you achieve variety in bunker lie and stance if the golfer rarely visits them ?

And, how can you context your statement, with a modicum of credibility when few if any of bunker extractions are replicated in terms of the bunker configuration, bunker depth, green surrounds, putting surface and distance to the hole ?

This makes absolutely no sense. 

It doesn't have to make sense, it's a fact.

By the way, if you are rarely in bunkers, they rarely come into play and they are poorly placed and obsolete due to improvements in clubs and balls.  You must be playing too many Macdonald and Raynor courses.

Like Tiger at TOC I guess.
Perhaps TOC is obsolete with poorly placed bunkers
He went 72 holes and never hit into any one of them.

You're saying that you would have flashed bunkers at Westhampton ?

Not necessarily.  I wouldn't have laser leveled flat bunker floors. 

Laser's weren't available to those fellows, and that's an extreme term that allows you to inproperly classify the bunkers at Westhampton.

I'd have some undulations and a lot less geometric look. 


Which bunkers at Westhampton have a geometric look ?

How would you accomplish the creation of undulations in the face of wind, rain and gravity ?

It is a seaside site and I wouldn't use a t-square and ruler to lay out my bunker edges.  Those unnatural shapes clash a lot. 


Which particular bunkers are you refering to ?

By the way, sand flashed high on raised bunkers have a look that resembles breaking waves on the ocean. 

In that regard, it is very harmonious with the surroundings.

You must be confusing Maidstone with Westhampton.
Westhampton is NOT on the ocean.

Let me guess, is that what Flynn did ?

I don't know.  I was telling Rich what I like.  Stop using the Flynnophile BS as a source of my opinions and a deflection of considering Raynor and Banks. 

Let them stand on their own and quit using Flynn as a crutch to defend their work.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO DIVERTED AND REFOCUSED THIS THREAD ON MACDONALD, RAYNOR AND BANKS.

I created this thread and it had NOTHING to do with MacDonald, Raynor and Banks, it had to do with making courses/bunkers easier to play, thus diluting the strategic effect of bunkering.

You're so hung up on Flynn that you have to use every opportunity to denegrate MacDonald, Raynor and Banks.

I repeat, this thread had NOTHING to do with any of them and was focused on the modern day architect and the practice of catering to the lowest common denominator.

[Bradley Anderson]

A lot of the golden age bunkers are suprisingly deep when you excavate the years and years of sand build-up. So I guess those old guys intended them to be penal.

[wsmorrison]

The types of lies you get in more dynamic bunker topography, especially those that go with the slopes rather than are carved out of with their flat bunkers, look a lot better and offer many more varieties of stance and recovery testing.

Don't be absurd, no bunkers go with the sloping topography.
If they did, they'd wash out every time it rained.
Gravity and water seeking its own level insure that outcome every time.

You need to examine bunker construction, especially drainage, before you make statements like that.

No, Pat.  It is you that needs to examine bunker construction.  You hang around too many flat bunker courses.  It is possible to have bunkers that follows the topography.  I play on two of them all the time.  The fact is, there are many more.  You need to reevaluate your position.  Maybe the following photos will help you.  The famous left fairway bunker on Merion's 18th is a great example.




























These sorts of bunkers do not allow an upslope to make it easier to recover to the green.

You just said that they did.
You said that they sloped back to front, which means they rose toward the green.

No, I said the greens sloped back to front.  The bunkers at the rear of the green were shallow but not flat.  They don't have much of an upslope towards the green and they have undulating floors.  You must've gone to the Tom MacWood school of reading comprehension.

Like Tiger at TOC I guess.
Perhaps TOC is obsolete with poorly placed bunkers
He went 72 holes and never hit into any one of them.

Sorry, you are not Tiger Woods. 

How would you accomplish the creation of undulations in the face of wind, rain and gravity ?

Study the bunkering at Shinnecock Hills, Indian Creek, Atlantic City CC, and a host of other courses and then ask me that question.

I created this thread and it had NOTHING to do with MacDonald, Raynor and Banks, it had to do with making courses/bunkers easier to play, thus diluting the strategic effect of bunkering.

I find that strange given that Raynor and Banks had the flattest bunker floors in the history of golf architecture.

[Bradley Anderson]

Wayne,

Are MacDonald's bunker floors are consistently as flat as Raynor's? I don't know for certain because I haven't played a MacDonald course, but my sense is from lookingat them in the photos that MacDonald utilzed exisiting grades more than Raynor.

And even Raynor seems to have flashed some sand up on fairway bunkers.

[wsmorrison]

Bradley,

Macdonald's bunkers were far less systematic, geometric and flat compared to Raynor and Banks.  I'm not saying that every one of Raynor and Banks bunkers were of a like style, but an overwhelming number were.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The types of lies you get in more dynamic bunker topography, especially those that go with the slopes rather than are carved out of with their flat bunkers, look a lot better and offer many more varieties of stance and recovery testing.

Don't be absurd, no bunkers go with the sloping topography.
If they did, they'd wash out every time it rained.
Gravity and water seeking its own level insure that outcome every time.

You need to examine bunker construction, especially drainage, before you make statements like that.

No, Pat.  It is you that needs to examine bunker construction.  You hang around too many flat bunker courses.  It is possible to have bunkers that follows the topography.  I play on two of them all the time.  The fact is, there are many more.  You need to reevaluate your position.  Maybe the following photos will help you.  The famous left fairway bunker on Merion's 18th is a great example.

I'm familiar with that bunker although I've managed to avoid it during play.

That's a nice picture.  Could you show us a picture after a serious rain storm.
Ditto the rest.
They need TLC to present their appearance and look their Sunday best.
They are maintainance intensive.



























These sorts of bunkers do not allow an upslope to make it easier to recover to the green.


Of course they do, just look at them.
Any bunker with an upslope toward the green provides an easier extrication.

You just said that they did.
You said that they sloped back to front, which means they rose toward the green.

No, I said the greens sloped back to front. 


That's exactly what I just said, you're contradicting yourself.

The bunkers at the rear of the green were shallow but not flat.  They don't have much of an upslope towards the green  But, they do have an upslope toward the green. and they have undulating floors. 
No they don't, they have a sloped floor, not an undulating floor. You must've gone to the Tom MacWood school of reading comprehension. and you must have gone to the TEPaul school of illiteracy.  Please, look up the definition of the word "undulating" or "undulate",  you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.

Like Tiger at TOC I guess.
Perhaps TOC is obsolete with poorly placed bunkers
He went 72 holes and never hit into any one of them.

Sorry, you are not Tiger Woods. 

That's true, I don't have those natural beautiful teeth and smile that he has.
But, I probably hit more fairways per round than he does.
Hence, I'm rarely in fairway bunkers and infrequently in greenside bunkers.

Ask TEPaul, he'll vouch for me on course management.

If only he could fix my putting.

How would you accomplish the creation of undulations in the face of wind, rain and gravity ?

Study the bunkering at Shinnecock Hills, Indian Creek, Atlantic City CC, and a host of other courses and then ask me that question


I have, and NONE of them have undulating bunkers.
They might have sloped bunkers, but, they don't have undulating bunkers.
Now could you answer my question ?

I created this thread and it had NOTHING to do with MacDonald, Raynor and Banks, it had to do with making courses/bunkers easier to play, thus diluting the strategic effect of bunkering.

I find that strange given that Raynor and Banks had the flattest bunker floors in the history of golf architecture.


You may find it strange because you're so fixated on denying and denegrating CBM-SR-CB.

But, the fact is, it's a thread about accomodation, ala Archie Struthers thread.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

You need to expand on your thoughts regarding extricating the ball from a sloped floored bunker verses a flat sand bunker.

I think you may have touched on something important here.

I once read a quote from MacKenzie that seemed to indicate that the reason why he favored flashed sand bunkering was not so much for playability but more from a maintenance stand point and the practicality of mowing a grass faced bunker with the equipment that they had in those days verses the relative ease of raking the sand, as needed, on a flashed sand bunker.

So is it possible that flat sand verses flashed sand isn't so much of a play issue as it is a maintenance issue? You seem to think that the flat sand may actually be more penal than flashed sand. I think Pete Dye would agree with you, and who causes more punishment than he does to golfers?

[wsmorrison]

Pat,  you said:

Don't be absurd, no bunkers go with the sloping topography.
If they did, they'd wash out every time it rained.
Gravity and water seeking its own level insure that outcome every time.

You are wrong and the photos prove it.  Now that you are proved wrong, you say the bunkers cannot function after a heavy rain. 

Could you show us a picture after a serious rain storm.

You are wrong about that as well.  You want me to post pictures after a heavy rain, better yet, why don't you come down here and stand in a serious rain storm with me and we can witness it for ourselves.  I've done it, but you need convincing.  I'll be happy to oblige.  If you don't want to get all wet, why don't you speak to various superintendents that might now.  Or perhaps an architect you know who designed two of the bunkers you see in the photos.

One of the advantages of the fescue surrounds at Merion is that it slows the water flowing into the bunkers thus reducing the erosion effects of heavy rains.  The bunkers have excellent drainage, except one and that appears to be a reconstruction mistake.

[wsmorrison]

Bradley,

What Pat fails to take into account are the demands on golfers other than the highest class.  Undulations in bunker floors create uneven stances.  Although he thinks I don't know what undulation means, I certainly do.  Even bunkers with upslopes and dowslopes offer most golfers trouble, more so than flat bunkers.  Most golfers have trouble playing off of slopes.  Of course the better players have an easier time with upslopes since the slope helps them.  But most golfers are uncomfortable on a slope.  On upslopes the sand depth varies greatly and the average golfer often digs into the sand, especially when the sand is soft and deep.  Another factor when the sand is of such a consistency is that balls get plugged under those conditions.  On downslopes, most golfers cannot get the ball in the air quick enough to recover from a bunker and they often hit the shot thin.

I also know that some architects undulated the floors of bunkers and sandy waste areas.  This creates a much more demanding setup than flat bunkers resulting in various side hill lies.  Flat bunkers typically have a consistent depth of sand in them.  It is easy to consider how the ball will react to a shot out of such predictable circumstances.  The only difficulty flat bunkers provide is based on the depth of the bunkers relative to the recovery surface (fairway or green). 

[Dan Herrmann]

Amen, Wayne.  Give me a downhill bunker shot to a green 5-10 feet above me, and I'm toast.  Especially if I'm near the back lip.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What Pat fails to take into account are the demands on golfers other than the highest class.  Undulations in bunker floors create uneven stances. 

Wayno,

Could you explain to us how a bunker can retain undulations after a Sand Pro rakes it ?

Could you explain to us how a bunker can retain undulations after a crew of minimum wage workers rake it ?

Could you explain to us how a bunker can retain undulations when these practices are carried out daily ?

Any undulations HAVE to be eliminated unless the grounds crew has been given architectural license.



 Although he thinks I don't know what undulation means, I certainly do.  Even bunkers with upslopes and dowslopes offer most golfers trouble, more so than flat bunkers.  Most golfers have trouble playing off of slopes.  Of course the better players have an easier time with upslopes since the slope helps them.  But most golfers are uncomfortable on a slope.  On upslopes the sand depth varies greatly and the average golfer often digs into the sand, especially when the sand is soft and deep.  Another factor when the sand is of such a consistency is that balls get plugged under those conditions.  On downslopes, most golfers cannot get the ball in the air quick enough to recover from a bunker and they often hit the shot thin.

Wayno, HINT, slopes don't equal undulations.
Please refer to a dictionary, any dictionary.
Then perhaps, you'll finally understand this thread.

I also know that some architects undulated the floors of bunkers and sandy waste areas.  This creates a much more demanding setup than flat bunkers resulting in various side hill lies.  Flat bunkers typically have a consistent depth of sand in them.  It is easy to consider how the ball will react to a shot out of such predictable circumstances.  The only difficulty flat bunkers provide is based on the depth of the bunkers relative to the recovery surface (fairway or green).

Please get to the nearest bookstore and purchase a dictionary.
 

[wsmorrison]

Could you explain to us how a bunker can retain undulations after a Sand Pro rakes it ?

Not all courses use a Sand Pro.  The two courses I play on do not.

Could you explain to us how a bunker can retain undulations after a crew of minimum wage workers rake it ?

Simple.  Proper training and management.  Just because they don't have high wages (they are not minimum wages) doesn't mean they don't take pride in their work.  I think you insulted a large group that doesn't merit it.

Could you explain to us how a bunker can retain undulations when these practices are carried out daily ?

No.  Can you explain the existence of undulations being retained?  They are there to be seen.

Any undulations HAVE to be eliminated unless the grounds crew has been given architectural license.

That does not appear to be the case.

Wayno, HINT, slopes don't equal undulations.

I clearly drew the distinction.  You clearly didn't understand.

Please go to the bookstore and pick up a book on reading comprehension 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()