[Mike McGuire]

Our club has received a restoration plan for our Langford nine - constructed in 1930. The plan calls for sand in the green side bunkers per the original drawings. A lot of members think putting in the sand is a bad idea.

I am hoping some debate here will help people on both sides come to some understanding of what is the right thing to do. I will post images and answer questions as requested. Thanks for your help on this!

[Dale Jackson]

I  may misunderstand but what are you asking?  Sand types? 

[Dan Moore]

Dale,  though designed to have sand the bunkers at West Bend were built without sand and have always been grass bunkers.  All of Langford's plans I have seen were designed to have sand but on some courses the sand was never added and on some others the bunkers have been allowed to grass over.  The question is whether to add sand to what have always been grass bunkers. 

[mark chalfant]

Mike,

I think the most impotant consideration involves Authentic Shaping, not the absence or presence of sand. Are archival photos available ?  In other words, will the bunker faces at West Bend continue to resemble those at Harrison Hills, Culver and vintage photos from Wakonda !

Or instead some rolling face templates evident on generic modern day Renovations carried out in the upper Midwest and Pennsylvania ?   Less is more.

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

Are you just looking at greenside bunkering? Also, how long have the greenside bunkers at #s 5, 6, 8 and 9 been there?

Most importantly, does the renovation consider the preferred routing for #6?

Good luck with this.

[Phil McDade]

Mike,

I think the most impotant consideration involves Authentic Shaping, not the absence or presence of sand. Are archival photos available ?  In other words, will the bunker faces at West Bend resemble those at Harrison Hills, Culver and vintage photos from Wakonda !

Or instead some rolling face templates evident on generic modern day Renovations carried out in the upper Midwest and Pennsylvania ?   Less is more.

Mark:

West Bend's front nine may be more Lawsonia-like than Lawsonia -- the bunkering at WB (sans sand) is very bit as dramatic in terms of bunker faces, high lips, and size as you'd find at Langford's Lawsonia.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I agree that the essence of a Langford course is the shaping, and many of his sand bunkers have been converted to grass and still have good playability and a great feel.  His bunker banks are typicall 1.5 to 1 (steep!) with variations up to 2 to 1 and with a rolling top edge to vary the depth.  I have measured several of those at Wakonda and suggest you find a LM course close and measure the depth, slope, and spacing between highs and lows to replicate that feel if rebuilding, while leaving the slopes alone if just adding sand.

[Tim Liddy]

I would contact Ron Whitten of Golf Digest. He has a great LIbrary of Langford's drawings, etc. He and Jeff are also good friends and I would think Jeff would be ideal to help you on this project.

[Dan Moore]

The original Langford bunker forms are still in place at West Bend.  They are wonderful. The club has received a restoration plan from their arhitect recommending sand be placed in the bunkers. Mike seeks debate on the prois and cons of adding sand or not.  The main pro in my view is that having sand is what Langford intended. I also think it looks better. What are some other arguments in favor or against having sand?   

[Mike Nuzzo]

Why do they think it is a bad idea?
How many think it is a bad idea?
When do they vote on the plan?
How much room is there to increase your maint budget?
Cheers

[Mike McGuire]

Mike:

Are you just looking at greenside bunkering? Also, how long have the greenside bunkers at #s 5, 6, 8 and 9 been there?

Most importantly, does the renovation consider the preferred routing for #6?

Good luck with this.

The restoration plan shows putting sand in all the bunkers.  And yes #6 fairway would shift left as it used to be. What a cool par five this will be.

[Mike McGuire]

Why do they think it is a bad idea?

Plays fine now.
Dangerous for workers to mow
Increased maintenance costs
penalizes the high handicapper
always been this way

How many think it is a bad idea?

A surprising number, even good players

When do they vote on the plan?

this could be a thread on its own. We have a plan. The work would be done slowly over a 5-7 year period. At what point should it be a vote. Dollar level?

How much room is there to increase your maint budget?

We currently 28 sand bunkers on the course. Increasing this by 4-5 a year can be absorbed in the budget without any problem

[Phil_the_Author]

I would think that the answer lay in finding out why if Langford designed them with sand in mind that it wasn't put in. Has anyone attempted to go through the early minutes and paperwork? There may be explanations in there. Considering the date of the course design, building and opening, could the decision have simply been one of money rather than architectural?

If that was the case I would think putting sand in them, now that the money is available, would be the proper thing to do...

[Mike McGuire]

I would contact Ron Whitten of Golf Digest. He has a great LIbrary of Langford's drawings, etc. He and Jeff are also good friends and I would think Jeff would be ideal to help you on this project.

If anyone can introduce me to Mr. Whitten send me an IM. We are near Erin Hills and I would invite him over.

[Phil McDade]

I would think that the answer lay in finding out why if Langford designed them with sand in mind that it wasn't put in. Has anyone attempted to go through the early minutes and paperwork? There may be explanations in there. Considering the date of the course design, building and opening, could the decision have simply been one of money rather than architectural?

If that was the case I would think putting sand in them, now that the money is available, would be the proper thing to do...

Philip:

Good question. I've long (well, for a few years now) had this theory that some Langford courses were only partially built, or built with some things left out (like sand in bunkers?), because they were so expensive to build (and maintain) in the first place. Culver Academies in Indiana had plans for 27 holes; only nine were built. Same w/ West Bend -- there were plans for 18 holes originally, Langford and Moreau built only nine, with the second nine completed decades later and not as Langford designed. Spring Valley in southern Wisconsin is a completely bunkerless Langford 18-hole course that had plans for sand bunkers.

Langford courses were, for their time, expensive to build; Lawsonia was built for $250,000 in the middle of the Depression in the middle of rural Wisconsin -- a fairly sizable sum. They are highly engineered courses, with considerable dirt moved for his greensites and lots of elaborate sculpting for his bunkers. They are quite artful, but I imagine also quite expensive, to this day, to maintain (relative to other course w/out 10-foot greenside drop-offs and large, wide bunkers w/out 6-foot high walls).

[Bradley Anderson]

From a playability standpoint my vote would go to adding sand.

From a visual standpoint, I think that the sand brings out the full scale and enormity of those bunkers, so that you get a better sense of what you actually have out there.

If capital is a factor in that decision, I think it would be safe to assume that the sand could be expensed out over a longer time than most other bunkers, because they aren't going to experience as many washouts or silt contamination. However, it would be wrong to assume that the sand will have no contamination - silt can still get in there just from what rain pulls off the grass faces, but the decay is not going to be as fast as other styles.

From an operating standpoint they need to be raked regularly, and edged three or four times a year. Certainly the mowing costs would be greater than just mowing them as grass bunkers, because of the extra care that would have be taken on the slopes. And some hand mowing might need to scheduled.

[Mike McGuire]

I would think that the answer lay in finding out why if Langford designed them with sand in mind that it wasn't put in. Has anyone attempted to go through the early minutes and paperwork? There may be explanations in there. Considering the date of the course design, building and opening, could the decision have simply been one of money rather than architectural?

If that was the case I would think putting sand in them, now that the money is available, would be the proper thing to do...

We have the minutes back to the first meeting and I have read them. At one point sand was added to some bunkers because the members did not know how to hit bunkers shots so they were at a disadvantage when they traveled.

Right now there is no sand on holes 1-4 and just 1 very small green side bunker on #5

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I don't know which course you are discussing, but the answer to this question is mystery to me too. The Culver Academy nine has sand-less bunkers too, and I've been told they never had sand, which makes think Langford may have occasionally built those bold bunkers without sand intentionally.

[Kye Goalby]

Tom,

I grew up on a Langford course built in 1927 with no sand in most of the steep bunkers.  I have a theory on why it, and some other Langford courses from a similar time ( late 20's),  don't, or did not, have sand initially.

I assume, like ours, most of his courses  built at that time did not have irrigation, especially in the small towns they seem to be in.  If that is true, and the bunker faces  were not sodded (again unlikely) then trying to grow-in the faces of those steep Langford bunkers would take  quite some time.  I doubt you would want to waste money and install sand in the bunkers until there was a solid stand of grass on the faces or else they would quickly turn into contaminated messes.  

If my theory has any validity, and the idea was to wait until the faces grew in to install sand, could it simply be that by the time the grass was established the economic conditions of The Depression prohibited the sand installation?  And then, by the time WW2 was over, it just did not happen as players were used to the course as it was or money was being dedicated to other things.... like  adding a row of fairway irriigation and lining each hole with trees!

I am curious what the rest of you think about this idea?

[David Smolensky]

Mike:
I have not played WB in 3 years but recall very deep grass bunkers on some holes.  Would placing sand in them make it unplayable for the mid/high handicap players……..My guess is it would and they are likely in the majority on the ability scale.  They also pay the same dues as the more proficient players. 
Given that, I have played Westmoor and Ozaukee (twice) this year.   Some dramatic bunkering as well.  I don’t hear complaints by their members regarding sand bunkers, perhaps the difference is that the members at these clubs never knew anything but sand bunkers.  Is the thought of change the real issue?  Sorry I can’t point you squarely on the right path. 
I recall a change I made at Kenosha CC which involved letting some areas of the course go uncut, creating waste areas which the GNG Committee consider out of play for most golfers.  As the grass grew so did the discontent (ref. paragraph one above).  As a result we cut most of it down, but about 5-6 acres remain and we save money as a result.  I tend to agree with your architects reco but the real point is that unless you put sand in the bunkers you will never truly know if the members will accept the change.  MEMBERS DON’T KNOW WHAT MEMBERS DON’T KNOW.
Regards
Smo
“World’s Fastest Golfer”

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

I grew up on a Langford course built in 1927 with no sand in most of the steep bunkers.  I have a theory on why it, and some other Langford courses from a similar time ( late 20's)  don't,  or did not, have sand initially.

I assume, like ours, most of his courses  built at that time did not have irrigation, especially in the small towns they seem to be in.  If that is true, and the bunker faces  were not sodded (again unlikely) then trying to grow-in the faces of those steep Langford bunkers would take  quite some time.  I doubt you would want to waste money and install sand in the bunkers until there was a solid stand of grass on the faces or else they would quickly turn into contaminated messes.  

If my theory has any validity and the idea was to wait until the faces grew in to install sand, could it simply be that by the time the grass was established the economic conditions of the Depression prohibited the sand installation?  And then by the time WW2 was over it just did not happen as players were used to the course as it was or money was being dedicated to other things.... like  adding a row of fairway irriigation and lining each hole with trees!

I am curious what the rest of you think about this idea?

I think that is a valid theory.

[Phil McDade]

Here are some photos of West Bend's Langford front nine, courtesy of RJ Daley, who took them, and Mike McGuire, who opened his course to the GCA crowd for the fall '07 Wisconsin Langford tour, with some comparisons to Lawsonia bunkering and mounding:

#1 -- a terrific opener, uphill all of the way to a fortess-like green (par 4, 420, 405, 304 --yardages from tips, blues, and whites). In the second of the two photos you can see right-center a typical Langford mound that (presumably) was planned as a bunker? I don't know if there are greenside bunkers here not filled in; I'm not sure this hole needs any greenside bunkers, IMHO, as the steep greenside falloffs provide plenty of trouble.





Sand-filled fairway bunker at Lawsonia's par 5 11th:



The approach at #2 (par 4, 406, 395, 342); I'd focus on tree removal here first, esp. the ones on the left. But also a good candidate for some greenside bunkering. In defense of the non-native pine trees on the right, they do provide some protection for the wayward approach from the 2nd fairway for golfers on the tee of #3, which runs parallel to and in the opposite direction of #3. The backside falloff on this green is something to behold -- a larger drop-off, by my estimation, than the boxcar par 3 7th at Lawsonia.



Here's what greenside bunkering might look like -- this is Lawsonia's short par 4 8th (Lawsonia photos courtesy of Dan Moore's definitive Lawsonia thread):



WEst Bend #3 (par 5, 520, 510, 438) -- a slightly bending par 5; here's a classic Langford mound/grassy bunker that cuts in on the right side of the fairway, if I recall, at about 300 yards?



Similar mounding confronts the golfer at Lawsonia's short par 5 5th hole; Lawsonia as well has several mound-type bunkers that are not filled with sand.



Two looks at the 3rd green at WB; the green is bi-sected by a left-to-right fault line that might be the steepest in the Langford canon -- it's larger than the fault line on the green of the par 3 12th at Lawsonia. I'd certainly think this is a candidate for some greenside bunkering:





For comparison, here's the greenside bunkering at Lawsonia's 17th, a similar-looking green complex:



Two looks at the par 3 4th hole at West Bend (217, 201, 154) that to me is reminiscent of both Lawsonia's 10th (a long par 3 of well over 200 yards with an enormous green) and its 17th, a par 4 of merit built on undistinguished land. Here the play is over dead-flat land to a tilted and very large green, nearly 9,000 square feet, with some elaborate mounding that needs to be carried. This is a solid, tough hole that I think would be made all the better with some sand bunkering.





#6 is a par 5 (557, 551, 403) over rambling land featuring kettles and moraines that are prominent in this area of Wisconsin (West Bend is quite close to Erin Hills, which uses natural glacial features as a central component of the course). This is one of Mike's pet projects; the original hole design, if I recall correctly, suggests a line of play left of where the fairway is cut, but which would require some extensive tree removal. Note several (relatively) newly planted trees left and right of the fairway here.



The 6th green, another candidate for greenside bunkering.



Right greenside bunkering at Lawsonia's par 3 14th, similar to the 6th at WB in that the green is nestled among trees.



#7, my favorite hole on the front nine at West Bend, and one Mike says is the members' favorite as well. A terrific short-medium par 4 (361, 349, 322) that doglegs left to a fairway with few level lies and an approach to a real fortress of a green. Cut entirely out of native hardwood oak and maple forests; one wonders how Langford even found this hole. Here's the tee shot into the afternoon sun, with two classic Langford gull-wing bunkers confronting the player off the tee.



Here's sand-filled gull-wing fairway bunkers at Lawsonia (first photo of the par 5 9th, taken from the 7th tee with 8th green in foreground; second photo of the par 4 17th):





Past the gull-wing bunkers at West Bend's 7th, to the dramatically uphill green. Don't know if this hole has greenside bunkering plans; I'd certainly put sand in those gull-wing fairway bunkers, ala the 9th or 17th at Lawsonia.



WB #8, a terrific little par 3 (159, 138, 130) played entirely in the woods, with sand bunkering already in place:



WB #9, a par 5/4 (depending on the tees one uses; 445, 471, 410), with magnificant en echelon grass bunkers confronting the play on the rolling fairway of this downhill hole:



Note the parallels to the en echelon bunkers at Lawsonia's 13th:

[JC Urbina]

Mike

If I didn't know any better I would have thought those pictures were taken from a course Tom and I had a chance to play back in the early 90s called Harrison Hills, a 9 hole course that was turned into 18 by Tim Liddy.  If you like BOLD shapes, He was the guy.

  Looks like a great place to play.  I believe Kye is right, it's about timing and budgets.

P.G. A. West stadium course has some of the same bold features.  # 16 (San Andreas Fault) has that Bold look as well as a few other holes.  I think Pete had seen a few Langford golf courses before he built The Stadium Course.

[Mike McGuire]

Phil

Thanks for posting the pictures. Our board voted to install sand on #3 left and right. The plan also calls for one large sand bunker that raps around the back. It was thought doing the left and right at this time would be inexpensive to do and give the members a chance to see what restortion would look and play like. The green surface was expanded last year replacing a lot of bluegrass on top of the pad with bent, so this is a next logical step in restoring one of the coolest greens around. Every architect that comes by is enamored by this green.

When the decision to install sand was made public a firestorm started. We may work on the existing green side bunkers on #9 instead.

[RJ_Daley]

I can't imagine if any of the WB members really looked and considered Phil's comparative analysis, and imagined the potential benefit to the playing quality and look that even half the sand in bunker situations offer, that there could be much question, let alone a firestorm.  If it were my call, and if it is just about easing into the concept and minimising the cost impact and do only a few at a time, I'd stick with the plans on #3, and would add the en-eschlon ones on 18, and those begging for sand on 7.  Then, let the members see just how good the changes could be and move on to more, even if it is only one or two a year.  

On a side observation, it seems to me that the maintenance on the green side Bs on 8 and 9 are cut up higher into the mound face than are typically L&M originals.  I don't think it is a big deal, and with a little flashing, maybe it give the player standing away from the approach, a better sense of the scope of the green side Bs and steepness to the putting surface.  But, I just think on a technical level, those are cut and flashed a little much for a true L&M intent.

Just a fine job Phil...  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()