[Michael Whitaker]

There is a great article in the most recent USGA Green Section Record about bunkers, their maintenance cost, player expectations, etc:

http://www.usga.org/turf/green_section_record/2009/may_jun/bunker_affordability.pdf
 
I've got a friend who is a member of one of SC's best "classic" courses. He's on his club's greens committee and just won't ease up the superintendent about their bunkers. "They're inconsistent, poorly designed, poor playability (whatever that means)."

What do you have to say about this article? Should bunkers be returned to "hazzard" status or maintained as universally consistent challenges throughout the course?

[Rich Goodale]

One thing this tells me Mike is that the bunkers on that course cited in the article are far too big, or the labourers are far too slow.   200 man hours/week comes out to 15-25 minutes preparation per bunker per day.  That is mind boggling, at least to me.

[Forrest Richardson]

I am not sure I would call it a "great article" — seems to me the shock value of the headline is a bit of malpractice. In a world where people have little time to absorb the written word my guess is that this USGA piece will be misunderstood...and it could lead to greenkeepers and clubs making hasty decisions, just as they did in the last great depression.

Mark Fine and I, without any exception, conclude that hazards (bunkers being a major category) are absolute essentials to the game. The issue becomes at what cost? at what quantity? at what level of crispness? at what protocol? etc...

I am a firm believer that many courses suffer from salt and pepper bunkers — that seasoning approach where they are sprinkler everywhere with little regard to making holes truly stand apart. What we need is more cayenne pepper — bunkers with teeth that add spice, but in a focused and pinpointed method. I do not think the article focused on that, which is a shame.

[Trey Stiles]

Well said Forrest : "  [i]absolute essentials to the game. The issue becomes at what cost? at what quantity? at what level of crispness? at what protocol? etc...

I am a firm believer that many courses suffer from salt and pepper bunkers — that seasoning approach where they are sprinkler everywhere with little regard to making holes truly stand apart. What we need is more cayenne pepper — bunkers with teeth that add spice, but in a focused and pinpointed method. "[/i]

I like the cayenne pepper approach vs. the salt and pepper approach.

The article reminds me of a course we had a few years back , I was tearing my hair out because inexperienced owners bought into hand raking 120 bunkers , all in the same direction , in a climate with 60" of rain per year , on $ 40.00 Greens Fees ... At the end of the day , it was just a matter of saying , " Ladies and Gents , we're spending more on bunkers than greens , please make your cash call check payable to XXXX " .... After that conversation , they were saying , " Let's call the architect in and have him convert some of these bunkers to grass."

[Forrest Richardson]

The only good news about letting sand convert to grass is that, most always, we can find the old bunkers, including some subtle details. When we brought back a few of the old and original sand bunkers at The Arizona Biltmore Adobe it was a relatively easy task, even though fill had been dumped in the cavities.

[Michael Whitaker]

Forrest - I'm not sure we read the same article! I found the article's call for more "naturally" maintained bunkers to be spot on. This era of belt tightening just offers another reason to sell the concept.

The article states: The golfers’ incessant cries that the bunkers are inconsistent has been answered with bunkers in which every lie is exactly the same. No longer must the player make a decision about the type of bunker shot he must execute based on varying sand depth, sand moisture, or the makeup of the sand itself. Balls seldom remain on steep slopes and instead roll to the flat bunker floor. Fried-egg lies are considered unfair and a sign of poor maintenance.

This article struck me because I have a friend who fits the exact mold of the golfer described in the article. He feels bunkers should be consistent and constantly complains about the "poor level of maintenance" of the bunkers on his course.

Do you not feel that bunkers are often so well maintained that they no longer fit the "hazard" designation given them in the rules of golf?

The author informs us that during "a telephone survey of 12 superintendents from top courses in the country, the superintendents at these courses revealed a painful fact — they are spending more of their available resources to care for their bunkers than they are for their greens." Taking this information at face value, wouldn't a return to less maintained bunkers with a resulting reduction in maintenance costs be a good thing?

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, it was the same article. My primary beef is with the headline. I think it misleads the reader, and gives a "quick read" that bunkers are somehow to blame for escalating costs. Certainly they can be one issue, especially at the clubs where bunker maintenance costs are very high due to perfection-oriented goals.

Yes...I suppose too crisp and too maintained can leads to a "Gee, I'd rather be in there than that uneven lie with unknown grass height..." attitude.

Thanks, Michael, for pointing out some of the underlying tone and suggestion of the piece. Maybe the headline needed to be "Returning Bunkers to Reality...and Affordability"

[Phil_the_Author]

Forrest,

You stated, "and it could lead to greenkeepers and clubs making hasty decisions, just as they did in the last great depression..."

I was wondering if you could elaborate. Before you begin thinking, Phil... Tilly removal of bunkers... challenge to that, although it partly is in reference to that, this isn't a situation of Tilly knew best, but rather one of what you see in hindsight that you feel wasn't observed at the time...

[Melvyn Morrow]

There is nothing wrong with bunkers, sand traps or hazards – period.

The problem is that golf has been made to look easy since WW2, to attract more people to the game. Now we have the constant moans about this or that because it is causing some a little problem – i.e. these bunkers are a bloody hazard when playing golf and therefore should be removed. So lets use the excuse re cost to have them removed.

Golf is all things to all men & women but it is never mean to be easy, but a challenge. 

The problem is that with all the assistance golfers can get today they have become pampered and quite frankly lazy and will moan at the most ridiculous things.

IF these opinions had been open to general debate in the 60’s or 70’s those making these comments may well have been ridiculed for the negativity of their argument – times are not just are a-changing, they have, BUT not to the benefit of Golf or to the golfers.

I will say that bunkers have been used rather freely of late and the location of some must be called into question, but that is really down to the skill and quality of game of each golfer. I will not go back to my deep bunker craving but correctly selected fairway bunkers are important. As for cost that is down to the club concerned, although I will say one thing – if these clubs have cart paths then they have no right to moan about the cost of maintaining bunkers – if nothing else the hire fees should be used to maintain the course - first and foremost. 

Life is simple, but it’s us humans that make it complicated – just a question of priority – starting with course first (which includes all hazards).

These problems of yours are as easy as chewing a bumblebee – in this case its all down to Preparation, Preparation, Preparation in my most humble opinion. Although some moaning already look as if they are chewing the bumblebee without any preparation, yet I am not surprised as it takes all sorts.

Melvyn

[Michael Whitaker]

Yes, it was the same article. My primary beef is with the headline. I think it misleads the reader, and gives a "quick read" that bunkers are somehow to blame for escalating costs. Certainly they can be one issue, especially at the clubs where bunker maintenance costs are very high due to perfection-oriented goals.

Yes...I suppose too crisp and too maintained can leads to a "Gee, I'd rather be in there than that uneven lie with unknown grass height..." attitude.

Thanks, Michael, for pointing out some of the underlying tone and suggestion of the piece. Maybe the headline needed to be "Returning Bunkers to Reality...and Affordability"

Forrest - I agree that the title is a bit misleading... but, the text of the article makes a good point:  many players have come to expect bunkers to be maintained at such high standards that, at some clubs, the cost of doing so has surpassed the cost of maintaining the greens! The author is pointing out that returning bunkers to the status of true hazards would achieve two results... return to a root intention of the game and a considerable cost savings to the club.

[Michael Whitaker]

Melvyn - I understand that you have issues with bunker depth and cart paths, but the question I would like to see discussed is whether or not courses spend too much time and money on bunker maintenance in an effort to create a sense of consistency or fairness.

Do you have an opinion on this question? I'm not sure the topic applies in the UK, but perhaps an inordinate about of effort and funds are spent there as well.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

I do not think we have a similar issue but then many of our courses (well the ones I like) are more on the natural side than the super manicured courses I have seen in other countries. Perhaps this is the issue, is a course for playing golf or do the members want this super finished (unrealistic in my opinion) course, if so then there is no question, the club must dig deep into its pockets.

Bunkers are there as hazards and if not working then should be modified or removed. To delete them just because of cost seems to raise other questions – commitment of the club concerned to give its Members/visitors the challenge that golf should offer the golfer.

The decision is not our but the clubs/course and if they fail to take notice of golfers requirements, the players may well move on (if that is possible) to those that course that can generate that thrill.

My like or dislike re carts etc was not clouding my opinion, I was just stating that if money is there for these items then it CAN be generated for the bunkers. Having said that bunkers are not necessary, but hazards are and should be well located to function correctly – this is more my concern. Quantity can also be an issue but some course thrive on them, yet others don’t have any.

I expect in the final analysis, its down to location, owners, type of course and its players. However, the more important word is hazards, as for the course alone, it may not achieve that quality of challenge that keeps attracting the golfer to play it again and again.

Melvyn

[Willie_Dow]

Bunker design is much of the problem.  Not enough attention to egress or ingress.  What has happened to our cape designs ?  The deeper the bunker the greater need for access to the ball, without having to walk through the entire path without a ladder or steps.

[Kyle Harris]

Bunker maintenance and playability are not necessarily the same thing.

One must remember that bunkers MUST be maintained in order to preserve their shape, contouring and general appearance regardless of playability requirements.

While I do not believe in the right of a golfer to have a "perfect bunker lie" (whatever that means), Sand Pros and raking are necessary evils to keep the shape of the bunker, especially some of more carefully crafted ones.

[Stephen Britton]

Good thread.

Melvyn is correct it’s down to location, owners, type of course and its players.

The situation at my club is we have a Fazio design course with fairly step flash face bunkers that wash as soon as it rains around 2", we have 97 bunkers on the course and 8 practice bunkers, we edge and push mow around bunkers once a week and we hand rake bunkers Wed - Sun. Obviously this kind of maintenance puts a huge strain on my payroll, although there are some high end clubs within close proximity to our club that hand rake everyday, have perfect edges etc etc.. So, obviously my members want similar conditions to our surrounding clubs    unfortunately my payroll doesn't match the surrounding clubs payrolls. I would love to edge bunkers maybe once a month and have them look like Merion's bunker edges, maybe cut back on raking and try to push the "hazard concept" but that’s a tough sell.

My question is:

Do Architects have a rough idea what the course's operating budget is going to be before they design bunkers and stipulate how they want the bunkers to be prepared on a day to day basis?

I know in my case it’s obvious the design crew had no idea what the operating budget was going to be...

[Forrest Richardson]

My only elaboration on depression cycles is that a lot of bunkers get abandoned because courses simply do away with crews and have too few to do the work at hand. Whether this is world-wide I cannot say. I have seen it in the west, time and time again when it gets related to us why  bunkers were filled-in, allowed to grass over or trees allowed to take over the space.

Stephen — I have often preached that the cost of a golf course is not the magic number paid by the developer for the land, the design, the construction and the grow-in — but rather the year-after-year cost to take care of whatever it is that gets built.

Most golf architects, I believe, do get a good picture of the expected and desired maintenance cost. We certainly ask the question, and we try to make sure our clients have a solid pro forma to guide their investment. I do think, however, that many courses created in the past 30 years have failed miserably to create accurate forecasts — and we are seeing the fallout from that trend as costs simply outpace revenue in tough times.

[Michael Whitaker]

I have changed the title of this thread to better reflect the true topic of discussion.

My focus on this discussion was the maintenance of bunkers... not the number of them, their placement on the course, etc, etc.

It seems there has been an escalating competition between top courses to maintain bunkers to exceptionally high standards, which as Stephen points out, creates pressure on surrounding clubs to match suit. The "quality" of Bunker maintenance has obviously become a status symbol that members can brag about to their peers... or, complain about to their superintendent if it does not meet the member's expectation of what is acceptable. The resulting effect is maintenance budgets have been driven through the roof.

As I mentioned before, I have a friend who constantly complains about the bunker maintenance practices at his course. He feels every bunker on the course should be maintained to exact standards. His primary areas of focus are uniform sand depth and regular grooming to facilitate what he considers to be consistently "fair" conditions.

When I have suggested that bunkers are supposed to be "hazards" and should not necessarily be so rewarding, he scoffs and replies that courses of exceptional quality should be set up to exceptional standards.

I'm not suggesting that bunkers go unraked or not be groomed on a regular basis (however, some would argue that this is the ideal) but, doesn't a course with bunkers that are "perfect" and exactly the same (bunker, to bunker, to bunker) reduce the severity of the "hazard" concept and artificially reward the golfer with lower scores?

[Michael Whitaker]

Delete

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

With no disrespect intended to your friend, but I feel he is living in a utopian world of golf. Perhaps some want and wish for this type of course, yet I feel it reflects more on a computer generated game – say more in line with the Star Trek Holodeck than a real golf course.


Perhaps a short history of the game would be of some assistance and an explanation of the definition of hazards, concentrating on bunkers on the original links courses.

This attitude is precisely what worries me, golf is not uniform, its not about manicured courses, it is about a game that should be challenging and yes IMHO hazards should be there to confront, catch and penalise the over confident whilst at the same time test the skills and courage of the proficient golfer.

I feel sorry for those who feel as your friend does, because he actually missing out on what - IMHO golf is all about. He may never fully understand or enjoy the courses that the rest of us feel are fun and challenging. However in this day and age you can pays your money and take your choice – but again quoting Star Trek it’s not golf Michael as we know it, but I hope your friend lives long and prospers (he will need to – if only to afford playing on courses that are that well groomed).

Melvyn 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Good thread.

Melvyn is correct it’s down to location, owners, type of course and its players.

The situation at my club is we have a Fazio design course with fairly step flash face bunkers that wash as soon as it rains around 2", we have 97 bunkers on the course and 8 practice bunkers, we edge and push mow around bunkers once a week and we hand rake bunkers Wed - Sun. Obviously this kind of maintenance puts a huge strain on my payroll, although there are some high end clubs within close proximity to our club that hand rake everyday, have perfect edges etc etc.. So, obviously my members want similar conditions to our surrounding clubs    unfortunately my payroll doesn't match the surrounding clubs payrolls. I would love to edge bunkers maybe once a month and have them look like Merion's bunker edges, maybe cut back on raking and try to push the "hazard concept" but that’s a tough sell.

My question is:

Do Architects have a rough idea what the course's operating budget is going to be before they design bunkers and stipulate how they want the bunkers to be prepared on a day to day basis?

I know in my case it’s obvious the design crew had no idea what the operating budget was going to be...

|Steve- I design to a clients maintenance budget, I try and understand what can be afforded from the start, in the UK many golf courses have a crew of 5, I am not sure in the UK bunker maintenance is crazy expensive, the best sands are tho $50 per tonne to some locations.
I quite like the idea of just leaving bunkers to do there own thing, let them be hazards, perhaps even take away the rakes. I also quite like the idea of greens without bunkers, my latest course has 7 greens that dont have any at all. People don't seem to notice, a grass hollow is pretty much equal as a hazard to one filled with sand.

[Stephen Britton]

Stephen — I have often preached that the cost of a golf course is not the magic number paid by the developer for the land, the design, the construction and the grow-in — but rather the year-after-year cost to take care of whatever it is that gets built.

Most golf architects, I believe, do get a good picture of the expected and desired maintenance cost. We certainly ask the question, and we try to make sure our clients have a solid pro forma to guide their investment. I do think, however, that many courses created in the past 30 years have failed miserably to create accurate forecasts — and we are seeing the fallout from that trend as costs simply outpace revenue in tough times.

Forrest,

I agree.

That was my next question, maybe these days maintenance budgets are taken into consideration (and I figured most would),  although I think through the 80's, 90's and even as recently as 2006 maintenance budgets weren't a huge factor due to the booming economy and golf course communities popping up all over the map.

I must have a dozen friends that are Superintendents on courses (mostly the gated community style) that were designed/built in the 90's (mostly by the same big three Architects) that have around 100 bunkers on their courses. They are spending huge amounts of time and payroll dollars on a budget that was too low to begin with just to keep them at a standard were "most" people won't complain although not really at a standard most would desire...

[Chris Tritabaugh]

One Superintendent's Perspective:

At our course we have drastically reduced the man hour spent on bunkers. We hand rake 2 or 3 times/week and touch up or rake foot prints 2 or 3 times/week. We don't edge our bunkers and only mow around them every couple of weeks if at all. After all of this the man hours spent on maintaining bunkers is still great than any one task we do on a weekly basis.

The problem with bunkers came when they started to be come the "showpiece" of a golf course. White flashed up sand rather than the scruffy looking hazards are days gone by. Courses with "showpiece" bunkers are not going to be able to do much to save on bunker maintenance. But classic courses in which the bunkers once were scruffy looking hazards can certainly head back in that direction. Restored bunkers should be designed for low maintenance. Fescue on the faces and surrounds areas instead of bluegrass or other high maintenance grasses. Fescue does not need water, fertilizer and requires minimal to no mowing. Not to mention that unmowed fescue around a bunker makes it just as much a show piece as flashed up white sand. As seen in this example from Ron Prichard and Superintendent Jeff Johnson's excellent work at The Minikahda Club in Minneapolis.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bunkers – what would we do without them – basing my comments on links golf – of course.

Costs should not come into the equation when referring to a links course, however I do understand that away from the sea all manners of hazards are available to the architect/designer with a touch of theatre in his/her blood.

Hazards which I believe we all accept as perhaps the king of traps (discarding lakes as more or less newcomer – plus the fact I don’t like lakes as hazards), need to be maintained as naturally as possible. Super groomed traps are IMHO just not golf. These should be consigned to the front of Chocolate Boxes with pretty country cottages. But then again that just my opinion.

Much has been spoken about bunkers and cost to maintain, so have already sent some copies of 4 photos on the Road Hole bunker starting  from 1924 spanning the years to 2000, I attach the set to show  the evolution of this particular bunker – for those that may be interested. Clearly, cost and maintenance has been carried out over the years to the current riveted walled bunker we have today.    

1924 Road Hole Bunker

1954 Road Hole Bunker

1967 Road Hole Bunker

2000 Road Hole Bunker


I like the current finished article, although I do not have a problem with any of the previous.

Any thoughts on the evolution of this bunker?

Melvyn

PS. I was re looking at the 1924 photo and believe that it may have once had a riveted face wall and what we see in the picture is the eroded remains?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker,

Bob Randquist, the Superintendent at Boca Rio wrote a great white paper on Bunkers and bunker maintainance.

I thought it was posted on "In My Opinion", but, it's not.

I believe that Bob presented it at a GCSAA conference.

If your super doesn't have, or can't get a copy, let me know and I'll try to find my copy and email it to you.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Ok... I have a question... While on a recent tour of some of the ancients over in Scotland (just got back last night), one of the questions I asked the caddies at a few of the courses with the sod wall bunkers was... How often do they have to replace the walls of the bunkers. The Old Course - every 5 years. Carnoustie - every 2 years....

So my question: Does it make more sense to spend the money on man hours mowing around them by hand and making them look all pretty or is it cheaper to just replace them ever couple of years?

I cant imagine the money Carnoustie spends on bunkers replacing them all every 2 years, its got to be $$$, but at the same time, the caddy also said that there are only 10 members of the grounds crew. I worked on the grounds crew of a top flight club in NY, and one of my main jobs was raking bunkers. Normally it would be 2 of us on the job, and would spend about 75% of our day just on bunkers. Not only does the club have to pay 2 workers for 8 hours (it would take about 6am-2pm), but you have to pay for the gas in the blowers to get all the leaves out, as well as in the cart. Plus there are the extra rakes, because we wouldn't use the rakes in the bunkers for most of the holes. And of course we were also instructed in to pull out all the weeds that were coming through the lining by hand on every single bunker!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()