next »

[Anthony Gray]

  In a recent thread a poster stated that Raynor messed up the bunkering at NGLA. Did he? I want to know more.

  Also the trough bunkers that are around some of the greens and other places, what was the insiration for those? Where are they found in Scotland? The 17th at North Berwick?

  Anthony

[DMoriarty]

  In a recent thread a poster stated that Raynor messed up the bunkering at NGLA. Did he? I want to know more.

  Also the trough bunkers that are around some of the greens and other places, what was the insiration for those? Where are they found in Scotland? The 17th at North Berwick?

  Anthony

Anthony,

That'd have been me who said that, and my tongue was at least partially planted in my cheek.  

But I do think that most too closely associate Raynor's aesthetic sensibilities and styling with Macdonald, as if they were one and the same.   This is easy to do because Raynor supervised the construction of most of Macdonald's designs.  Macdonald (who was purely an amateur and had a career to attend) spent very little or no time on the sites during construction and apparently Raynor was given free hand with the aesthetics.  

However, if one looks closely at Macdonald's views and at the early history of the few courses where he was more immediately involved in the construction (particularly of NGLA and Mid Ocean) one can see that Macdonald's early aesthetic sensibilities were quite different from Raynor's when it came to golf courses.   Generally, Macdonald preferred to make the course (and the bunkers) look as natural as possible, or at as much as possible like similar features on the links courses he had studied abroad, whereas Raynor was apparently more comfortable with a straight edged, geometric, and industrial look.   This difference may well have been from their own past experiences-- while CBM had studied the links abroad as a young adult and repeatedly thereafter, Raynor was a surveyor by trade, not an avid or accomplished golfer, and I have never read any indication that he ever traveled abroad to study golf courses.  

Take a look at these early photos and depictions of NGLA and Mid Ocean, and perhaps you will get a sense of what I mean.  Not exactly the artistry of C&C bunkers, but compared to what else was ongoing in America, Macdonald's hazards looked remarkably natural, or at least remarkably like the hazards on the links courses across the sea.  They also look quite different than the look we usually associate with his courses, and in my opinion that is in large part a result of his long association with Raynor . . .

[Jim_Kennedy]

......or how about his association with the USGA. There are at least a few areas in those photos where it'd be nearly impossible to make a ruling as to where the edge of the bunkers are.  

[Anthony Gray]

  david,

 Thanks......The bunkers at NGLA do not like like things I have seen in Scotland. Am I alone in this?

  Anthony

[Patrick_Mucci]

In a recent thread a poster stated that Raynor messed up the bunkering at NGLA.


Who made that statement ?
How did Raynor allegedly mess up the bunkering ?

And, with CBM remaining to fine tune the golf course for his remaining years, if there was mistake with the bunkers, don't you think he'd rectify it ?
 
Did he?
I want to know more.


So do I.
What's the basis, in fact, for the statement that Raynor messed up the bunkers ?
Also the trough bunkers that are around some of the greens and other places, what was the insiration for those?
Where are they found in Scotland? The 17th at North Berwick?

  Anthony

[Anthony Gray]

  Pat,

  It was David. He said it was a joke but I did not realize it at that time. Look at his post above.
 
  But the other question is, is the bunkering his own style? What scotish course influenced his bunkering?

  Anthony

 

[DMoriarty]

......or how about his association with the USGA. There are at least a few areas in those photos where it'd be nearly impossible to make a ruling as to where the edge of the bunkers are.  

Jim, somehow I get the feeling that it those days the ruling was likely to be "just hit the damn ball where it lies."

 david,

 Thanks......The bunkers at NGLA do not like like things I have seen in Scotland. Am I alone in this?

  Anthony

Not sure what you are asking, Anthony.  

- Are you suggesting that NGLA's current bunkers don't look like what you have seen in Scotland?  
- Or that the old NGLA bunkers in the photographs above don't look like what you have seen in Scotland?
- Or something else?

I don't know whether or not the old NGLA bunkers in the photo's above look like bunkers one might find in Scotland currently, but to me the sure look like bunkers one might find in Scotland circa 1900 to 1910.   Am I alone in this?  

________________________

In a recent thread a poster stated that Raynor messed up the bunkering at NGLA.


Who made that statement ?
How did Raynor allegedly mess up the bunkering ?

And, with CBM remaining to fine tune the golf course for his remaining years, if there was mistake with the bunkers, don't you think he'd rectify it ?
  
Did he?
I want to know more.


So do I.
What's the basis, in fact, for the statement that Raynor messed up the bunkers ?
Also the trough bunkers that are around some of the greens and other places, what was the insiration for those?
Where are they found in Scotland? The 17th at North Berwick?

  Anthony

Patrick,  You've become a crumpy old man.  Just like me.   If you read the rest next post you will see that I said it, and while I was kidding in part, there is some truth to what I said, and I explained why and provided examples of what the bunkers looked like originally.   I shouldn't bother because you will probably respond to my post above before you read this one.  

Later we should stand in the front yards and shake our fists at people who drive too fast and yell at kids who cut across our lawns.  

[TEPaul]

"But I do think that most too closely associate Raynor's aesthetic sensibilities and styling with Macdonald, as if they were one and the same."


That I can definitely accept but the real reason seems to be that most don't realize that Macdonald did only a dozen golf courses with Seth Raynor. This according to Macdonald himself. Most however seem to think that the numerous courses Raynor did on his own included the help and participation of Macdonald. Not the case at all.


  

"This is easy to do because Raynor supervised the construction of most of Macdonald's designs.  Macdonald (who was purely an amateur and had a career to attend) spent very little or no time on the sites during construction and apparently Raynor was given free hand with the aesthetics."


Macdonald spent very little to no time on site during the construction of the courses he was involved in? Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. I wonder where that idea came from??

Macdonald apparently gave Raynor a free hand with the aesthetics of the dozen courses (including NGLA ) that Raynor worked with Macdonald on?? That sure is news to me. Where on earth did that idea come from other than as whole cloth right out of the person who just said it on here? Where is any FACTUAL basis for that idea and statement??


As for the bunkers of NGLA this is what Macdonald had to say on the subject:

"All the other holes at the National are more or less composite, but some are absolutely original. The bunkering we have been doing in the past twenty years has been done after the most studious thought and painstaking care."


If one is looking for the kind of bunkering aesthetic and look Macdonald was trying to acheive for at NGLA it would probably be a better idea and a more educational result to look at photgraphs on the bunkers of NGLA twenty years into the project as Macdonald mentioned above regarding the development of his NGLA bunkers rather than to look at photographs of his NGLA bunkers in the first year or so after construction.


PS:
Regarding Macdonald's day job (a Wall Street broker) to which he was attending to thereby not having time to be on site during construction of his courses who has any idea how long Macdonald actually worked on Wall Street or worked at all? I must say I have no idea at all about that.

[David Stamm]

NGLA's early bunkering looks very much like the bunkers in Scotland in the early 20th century. Pick up a copy of British Golf Links and it becomes obvious.

[Ed Oden]

My apologies in advance for a minor threadjack, but when did NGLA replace the water tower with the windmill?  And are those overhead power lines?  OMG!

Ed

[Anthony Gray]

NGLA's early bunkering looks very much like the bunkers in Scotland in the early 20th century. Pick up a copy of British Golf Links and it becomes obvious.

  So what happened?

  Anthony

[Bradley Anderson]

I have a theory that the bunker hummocks and edges were very unstable in the beginning because of the difficulties in getting grass to grow on that site. The early pictures of Pine Valley, where much of the same difficulty with growing grass was encountered early on, also look blown out and undefined on the edges.

[David Stamm]

NGLA's early bunkering looks very much like the bunkers in Scotland in the early 20th century. Pick up a copy of British Golf Links and it becomes obvious.

  So what happened?

  Anthony

Probably the same thing that happened at so many other places that lost a look. Lazy maint. practices, ignorant members, under talented architects, etc., etc.

[TEPaul]

"So what happened?"


Anthony:

So what happened with the bunkering at NGLA over time? It's pretty obvious really and frankly not all that much different from much of the bunkering at many of those early courses early on. Basically, they had to grass them down to some extent and such primarily just to get them from not turning into ongoing maintenance nightmares! There is no question in my mind that the look of the bunkers at that very early stage at NGLA (the photographs above) were pretty damn immature and Macdonald certainly knew that or wouldn't take very long to figure it out!


To claim that the look they evolved into over the years when Macdonald was at NGLA was due to some Raynor aesthetic is really off base in my opinion!

[TEPaul]

"I have a theory that the bunker hummocks and edges were very unstable in the beginning because of the difficulties in getting grass to grow on that site. The early pictures of Pine Valley, where much of the same difficulty with growing grass was encountered early on, also look blown out and undefined on the edges."


Bradley:

I think you are right on the money there! And what did PV have to eventually do (in the ensuing 15-20 years) in that vein? They got into a program that was generally referred to as "Holding the course together." It entailed an awful lot of both tree planting and "vegetating up" most all their real unstable sand areas just for stability!

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you want to see what NGLA's bunkering looked like in 1938, there's a terrific aerial of Shinnecock, Southampton and NGLA.

You won't believe how great and how incredibly extensive the bunkering was at SH and NGLA.

Perhaps someone who knows how to post photos can contact me and I'll email it to them for posting.

[Andy Gray]

This may show my ignorance and inexperience, but a few captions for the photos above say the 12th was the alps, 11th sahara etc... Is this to say the course started on 10 when the photos were taken, and the clubhouse was in a different location?

Pat, do you have the aerial to post or a link to it?

Cheers

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

So now you are a CRUMPY old man are you? What is a crumpy old man? Is he a grumpy old man with crumbs or crumps all over hisself?

Look Pat, you asked how in the hell Raynor messed up the bunkers of NGLA. So did Anthony, so did I and maybe some others too.

The one who admitted to saying that told you he was sort of kidding about that (do you see anything remotely funny about that?   ) But he also told you there is still some truth to that!

What truth is there to that Patrick? Look I want you to sick yourself on this ridiculous opnionator who is obviously trying to slide another fast one past us architectural/analyst geniuses just to see if he can get away with it so he can make some other ridiculous point! I want you to find out what iota of truth there is in that statement you CRUMPY old man! If he won't actually answer you which is likely why don't you suggest he write an essay on how Raynor messed up the bunkers of NGLA. I'd suggest the title "The Missing Aesthetic Face (Raynor) of NGLA."

[TEPaul]

"This may show my ignorance and inexperience, but a few captions for the photos above say the 12th was the alps, 11th sahara etc... Is this to say the course started on 10 when the photos were taken, and the clubhouse was in a different location?"



BEEEEP! We got a Winner!!!


PS:
Even if the clubhouse in another location part of the statement may have to go to a quick judicial review.

PPS:
Actually, Andy a bit later Macdonald had another clubhouse over at his massive mansion which was in view of NGLA. He called it the "Hen House" and it was the clubhouse for his flock of dancers and showgirls and other girls who were pretty much into a good time and on call at any time night or day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony,

Initially, # 10 was # 1.

The nines were reversed when the current clubhouse was constructed.

The 1938 aerial is quite spectacular, but, it's "large" by computer standards and may not transport well.

TEPaul,

Actually, I'm pretty mellow at the present time, but, that could change quickly.

David Moriarty,

I did post without having the benefit of seeing your response.

I don't think CBM was the type of man who would delegate without reviewing the work.
His long term involvement would seem to insure that anything not done to his liking would have be rectified quickly.

Like everything in this world, 100 years has a way of altering physical properties, especially when those properties are influenced by Mother Nature, Man's journies over them and Man's attempt to maintain them with equipment and hard labor.

Interestingly enough, the 1938 aerial reveals a much more extensive bunkering of the property/ies than exists today.

One has to wonder how much influence WWII had on eliminating or changing bunkers.

Hopefully, the 1938 aerial will be posted for viewing.

It's quite remarkable and I wouldn't mind seeing a restoration effort from all three clubs, with the goal being the 1938 configuration.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Do you know what that 1938 aerial is or who has it now? We saw a copy of it up in the archives room of Shinnecock about 3-4 years ago. You're right, it's pretty amazing.

[TEPaul]

But I've got to ax you Pat, why do you just automatically suggest that all the bunkers on that 1938 aerial be restored on all three courses? Are you under some impression that the amount of bunkers on a golf course has some direct relationship to architectural quality or something? If you do you must have gotten that odd notion from Tom MacWood because he seems to pretty much automatically suggest the same thing with golf courses that you just did with those three!

And if that really is the way you feel I gotta tell you that you're not just a CRUMPY old man, you are a pretty PENAL crumpy old man who needs desperately to get back to your tutoring schedule with your architectural mentor-----ME!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I have it on a disk and in my documents file.

NGLA has it as well, as do several members.

I was struck by the extensiveness of the bunkering, it's nothing short of spectacular, at Shinnecock and NGLA.

There's an interesting comparison to be made with the 1938 aerial of SH & NGLA and the 1936 aerial of GCGC.

Both aerials reveal far, far, far more extensive bunkering and vast sand expanses.
One has to wonder how vegetation was allowed to smother those areas.

Was it the war and the crimp on budgets and labor ?
Was it the cost to replace the sand that got blown away ?
Was it a deliberate attempt to replace bunkering with grass/brush ?

I don't know.

What I do know is that the 1936 and 1938 aerials seem to depict superior golf courses, versus what exists today.

A restoration to 1936 would be in GCGC's best architectural interest and it would seem that a 1938 restoration would be in SH's & NGLA's best architectural interest.

Time will tell if those clubs continue to let vegetation encroach into their bunkered areas or if they reclaim the currently vegetated bunkers and replenish them with sand.

You know what gets my vote.

[David Stamm]

Tom, if the architect prescribed a certain quantity and type of bunker, shouldn't that be upheld as long as it is relavent and serves a purpose?

I have to disagree, the amount of bunkers most certainly is an architecural quality issue, for good and bad.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, if the architect prescribed a certain quantity and type of bunker, shouldn't that be upheld as long as it is relavent and serves a purpose?"


David:

I think that is a very good question but one that probably needs to be analyzed and answered very carefully on a course by course and even hole by hole basis.


"I have to disagree, the amount of bunkers most certainly is an architecural quality issue, for good and bad."


I would agree with that particularly the last part.

[TEPaul]

"Both aerials reveal far, far, far more extensive bunkering and vast sand expanses.
One has to wonder how vegetation was allowed to smother those areas.

Was it the war and the crimp on budgets and labor ?
Was it the cost to replace the sand that got blown away ?
Was it a deliberate attempt to replace bunkering with grass/brush ?"



Pat:

I think I know the answer to that----eg the vegetating in and the consequent shrinking of bunkering over the course of time on most all golf courses throughout the first half and more of the 20th century.

In my opinion, the fact is it was basically all about unawareness and the inevitable natural inclination of grass surrounds to just vegetate inward massively shrinking the size and sand areas of bunkering.

To even begin to become aware of that kind of thing one pretty much needs to analyze a stagger or aerials over time to really understand what has happened in that vein. It is really hard to do on the ground with an aerial in your hands.

But THESE are the kinds of things so many of us and so many architects and clubs have begun to do once we hit what I call our age of architectural renaissance which includes the increasingly popular fad of restorations the era of which is arguably not more than 20 years old at this point!


The very same thing is true with green sizes, fairway widths, you name it. Things just tend to shrink in for various reasons and one never truly becomes aware of how much it has happened until they start to compare a timeline stagger of aerial photographs. That was apparently not the kind of thing many if any ever did in the old days.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What most forget is that MacDonald outlived Raynor by 13 years, thus, it would be MacDonald's hand that would make the final revisions at NGLA, not Raynor's.

With CBM dying in 1939, that 1938 aerial becomes more relevant as it would seem to be the irrefutable evidence as to how CBM wanted NGLA to be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

While benign neglect certainly accounted for some of the bunker loss/es, I don't accept that theory as a universal.

The first hole at GCGC is a perfect example.

It's hard to imagine anyone with 20/100 eyesight or better could miss the encroachment on the first hole at GCGC.

Those majestic bunker rows or dunes are now a singular grass field, save for the far right side where bunkering remains.

Anyone standing on the 1st tee can differentiate between sand and grass as they attempt to negotiate their tee shot over that area.

In 1936, the bunker fields were majestic, ferocious and visually intimidating as you stood on the tee..
Now, they're gone, lost to the invasion of grass, weeds and other vegetation.

Tee shots not clearing that area have a dramatically different approach/recovery shot today, versus a relatively routine recovery out of the bunkers, back to the fairway in 1936.

I can't imagine the War, and the shortage of gasoline, labor and other commodities NOT having a deleterious impact on these bunkered areas.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

All true about CBM and NGLA but one should consider the tragedy for him towards the end of his days----eg he basically lost control of NGLA in a late power play for control of the club.

CBM was a massively complex man, that included some pretty stark realities, in my opinion, and apparently for up to 20 years or so before his death. I mention that on here from time to time because the evidence of it is just out there if you want to find it and see it. But it seems to me a good many on here want to just avoid it altogether. Some even try to suggest it is running the man down on my part. I completely disagree, I think and always have, that it only makes the man more fascinating and interesting than ever before!

It's the real deal, it's his real history, it's C.B. Macdonald, warts and all, and I, for one, think the entire package is totally fascinating and even really cool. In many ways I believe the complexities and contradictions of his own life and times (like others of the significant ones of his contemporaries) shows the complexities of the art and the game and sport he undeniably loved so much!

[Sean Arble]

NGLA's early bunkering looks very much like the bunkers in Scotland in the early 20th century. Pick up a copy of British Golf Links and it becomes obvious.

  So what happened?

  Anthony

Anthony

Most likely the realities of golf course maintenance.  I know some don't want to believe it, but sand blows around if not contained.  Sand blowing on greens and fairways is not clever in terms of keeping that grass alive.  At some point a compromise must be made or it will seem to many paying the bills that they are just chucking money away with the wind.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

Why do you feel that sand blown on fairways and greens isn't good for the grass ?

Isn't that what top-dressing is all about ?

[Anthony Gray]

Tom, if the architect prescribed a certain quantity and type of bunker, shouldn't that be upheld as long as it is relavent and serves a purpose?

I have to disagree, the amount of bunkers most certainly is an architecural quality issue, for good and bad.

  David
 
  This is exactly the point of the thread. If CBM used scotish bunker styles and it was his intent to reproduce what he saw in Scotland then why do the bunkers today look non-scotish?

  Anthony


 

[Bradley Anderson]

"I have a theory that the bunker hummocks and edges were very unstable in the beginning because of the difficulties in getting grass to grow on that site. The early pictures of Pine Valley, where much of the same difficulty with growing grass was encountered early on, also look blown out and undefined on the edges."


Bradley:

I think you are right on the money there! And what did PV have to eventually do (in the ensuing 15-20 years) in that vein? They got into a program that was generally referred to as "Holding the course together." It entailed an awful lot of both tree planting and "vegetating up" most all their real unstable sand areas just for stability!

I love that really old photo of Pine Valley where you see two water towers side by side - they don't even match aesthetically. They have all the appearance of someone in a panic to get water out there now Now NOW! These men (these uniformed amateur architects) had no idea how much water was required to grow grass on sand. They didn't have a clue. The windmill at NGLA has a water tower inside it. Can you visualize how the contents of that tower could water that whole property? Probably it was replenished by a pump that was just big enough to fill it in a 24 hour period, and the total capacity may not have even been enough to water the greens and tees, much less all the fairways, and bunker banks, and roughs on that HUGE scale.

In addition to beefing up the watering systems, I think they also brought in boxcar loads of manure so that the soil could have enough nutrients to get the grass started.

Funny this comes to my mind just now, but I saw a very old painting at the Detroit art gallery a couple weeks of a field near the Shinecock reservation. If that painting was any indication of what that land was originally, there certainly wasn't the kind of vegetation out there that was providing any substantial organic matter in those soils to help turfgrass plants get up and going. The whole area appears to have been a barren waste land. I mean, hell they let the Indians live there so it couldn't have been good for growing anything.

[Sean Arble]

Sean Arble,

Why do you feel that sand blown on fairways and greens isn't good for the grass ?

Isn't that what top-dressing is all about ?

Pat

Top dressing is not about blowing sand on the grass.  Top dressing is a directed effort to help the turf heal quicker and therefore the grass grow quicker after getting hammered by aeration or perhaps over-seeding.  It is also my understanding that there are more ingredients to dressing than sand.

Let me know when five well known supers are in favor of sand blowing across a course at the whimsy of the weather.

Anthony

"If CBM used scotish bunker styles and it was his intent to reproduce what he saw in Scotland then why do the bunkers today look non-scotish?"

I suspect for the same reason Scottish bunkers look non-Scottish today.  On a windy or rainy site its easier and cheaper to maintain a course if the sand is properly contained.  The first thing to check when asking a question is where does the money trail lead?

Ciao  

[David Stamm]

Tom, if the architect prescribed a certain quantity and type of bunker, shouldn't that be upheld as long as it is relavent and serves a purpose?

I have to disagree, the amount of bunkers most certainly is an architecural quality issue, for good and bad.

  David
 
  This is exactly the point of the thread. If CBM used scotish bunker styles and it was his intent to reproduce what he saw in Scotland then why do the bunkers today look non-scotish?

  Anthony


 

Anthony, alot of the bunkers in Scotland don't look like they did when they were first designed, much less NGLA. If you have British Golf Links, compare Hell Bunker at TOC vs the way it looks now. MUCH different.