[Tom MacWood]

Christoph

It's a great course.  The Shell match really shows it up too.  The hazards were awesome.

The redesign work of adding a "nose" to a bunker and then copying and pasting throughout the hole is awful.  The 4th is the worst.

That was my first reaction too. What is with the tongue theme for many of the new bunkers.

Christoph
Great pictures, both new and old. Thanks.

[Christoph Meister]

Brian

Once again a conversation about bunkering is hung up on appearances when we all know these things are a matter of personal preference and a more important aspect is their placement.  

People go on about roughing up bunkers, but there is a time and place for it.  In the example below, these are some of the most dreadful looking things and not only because of the spinach but because the course looks to have a "clean look" so why dirty bunkers?  
 

Sean - just one remark: The historic photo from Berlin was just ment to give examples of the bunkers - it was a private golf course owned by a single person with crossing fairways. This is the reason you do not see any rough or rough bids on the photo - there are only fairways (and bunkers) to be seen on the photo. Of course you couldn't know that and I just wanted to show examples of what bunkers looked like...as you say at the end of the day it's a matter of personal preferences and of course the placement of a bunker is a more important matter....

C.

[Sean_A]

Brian

Once again a conversation about bunkering is hung up on appearances when we all know these things are a matter of personal preference and a more important aspect is their placement.  

People go on about roughing up bunkers, but there is a time and place for it.  In the example below, these are some of the most dreadful looking things and not only because of the spinach but because the course looks to have a "clean look" so why dirty bunkers?  
 

Sean - just one remark: The historic photo from Berlin was just ment to give examples of the bunkers - it was a private golf course owned by a single person with crossing fairways. This is the reason you do not see any rough or rough bids on the photo - there are only fairways (and bunkers) to be seen on the photo. Of course you couldn't know that and I just wanted to show examples of what bunkers looked like...as you say at the end of the day it's a matter of personal preferences and of course the placement of a bunker is a more important matter....

C.

C

I knew they weren't Colt bunkers if you know what I mean.  The pic was just an example to illustrate my point even if it is a bit extreme!

Ciao

Sean

[Christoph Meister]

After having read your opinions I would like to add something which might not be visible that well  on the posted “before” and “afterwards” photos because the pictures are only showing parts of the relative golf hole.

I still remember what the course looked like before Krause's renovation, therefore and also out of fairness I have to say that the course with the renovated bunkers looks much neater and tidier than before... That probably also was the impression Emil Weber’s parents had playing the course recently after renovation...this might not come through the photos...

In this context but also with respect to the positioning of the new bunkers my (amateur) opinion is that David Krause did a good job renovating the bunkers the way he did and hence improving the general appearance of Hamburg-Falkenstein golf course very much.

When it comes to the look of the bunkers that seems to be very much a question of taste also, as one can see from your remarks and as Sean Arnold's post is suggesting. Personally I also find these noses too big...

I know that David Krause studied aerial photos taken in the 1930s and that he thoroughly looked what the course looked like then. I don’t think it was his approach to recreate (=restore) the look of the bunkers exactly the same way they appeared in the 1930’s.
 
As a golf historian I would obviously love to see  the bunkers almost exactly look like the originals from the 1930’s, but I fear this was not David Krause’s approach nor the assignment given to him by the Hamburg Golf Club Green committee officials..

Having said that I would like to show you some bunkers I saw while playing at Chantilly lately…I know that Chantilly is not a Colt Course, but it is an inland course of a similar standing than Hamburg Falkenstein. On some of the old holes of Chantilly’s Vineuil course there are still some bunkers with rough edges to be found which I very much liked looking at:

[Paul_Turner]

Really it's not so long ago that these courses were maintained in a much more rugged state.  They were maintained in much the same way until relatively recently.  Now there seems to be a glut of redo work that is spoiling the courses and making them all look and play similarly.

[Paul_Turner]

My first thought, before having read the other opinions, was that Colt's bunkers often looked a lot rougher and Falkenstein definitely is a course that should celebrate its roughness. It's not Augusta National and never will be.

So where are the noses and the smooth edges coming from? Certainly Krause has rubbed it in, but looking at the 2007 before pictures, I think that this style was already there, only deteriorated a bit. So who introduced that style? Was it Bernhard von Limburger? Here is a picture of the bunkering style he used at his last course GC Main-Taunus in 1979:

So, these were my thoughts before reading the other opinions. After reading them I must say that I hate the noses even more, although Limmy's moderate version in the picture above is pretty attractive. But not for Falkenstein, the style should be more natural on that heathland course.

Ulrich

Ulrich:

After having watched the 1965 Shell world of Golf movie Schmaderer against Hebert at Falkenstein one can see that the bunkers at Falkenstein still had rough “eyebrow”-like bunker edges and some of the bunkers still looked really wild at that time. The course was redesigned by von Limburger between 1962 and 1966 – in several steps.  Sometimes after 1965 someone has changed the bunkers creating sharp edges and eliminating most of the wildness. It might well be that as you, Ulrich, guess it was  von Limburger, but I cannot confirm this at the moment and have to do further researches in this direction.

From reading in the Hamburger GC 1960s Club magazine yesterday I have been learning that von Limburger closed more than 30 (Colt) bunkers, not only because the trees around the course had grown making Falkenstein already more difficult difficult to play during the last 30 years and not because he disliked over bunkered course, but in order to safe maintenance costs. Was it for economic reasons that the look of the bunkers at Falkenstein was changed after 1965? I simply cannot believe that one of the wealthiest clubs in Germany was worrying about bunker maintenance costs….but then..Who knows saving money might make a club wealthy…?

C.

Christoph

This is probably just due to Von Limburger's taste.  Were his solo courses lightly bunkered?

The Shell match is good example of how the course was maintained in much the same manner 30+ years after it opened.

[Christoph Meister]

Christoph

This is probably just due to Von Limburger's taste.  Were his solo courses lightly bunkered?

The Shell match is good example of how the course was maintained in much the same manner 30+ years after it opened.

[/quote]

Paul,

here I have an exemple for you - enclosed you'll find a picture what tee No.1 looked like 1931, then you'll find a drawing by von Limburger showing that there were 6 bunkers (4 fairway and 2 green bunkers) before his 1965 renovation and only two bunkers afterwards - a typical exemple of how von Limburger would work during renovations closing bunkers and trying to use fewer bunkers by better positioning them. With increasing length off the tee scratch golfers in the 1960s were allready trying to reach green no.1 with one shot - bad strokes trying to short cut the hole would end up in the bunker on the left side whereas long tee shots played in the middle of the fairway would end up in the green bunkers.

For the averag to high handicapper golfer the green bunker came into play for there second shot - but they still had a fair chance to avoid the bunker by entering the green through the left side....one could say that the two bunkers used by von Limburger were more effective than the 6 bunkers we had before...of course that was then not the original bunkering anymore...

Also you find a picture from 2006 and another one showing what the hole looks like now in summer 2009.

C.

[Christoph Meister]

I recently played two Colt courses in Northern Ireland (Valley Course at Royal Portrush & Royal Belfast Golf Club) and the only "Colt"-nose I could find was on Green No.8 at RBGC...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()