The Bunkering at The National

[TEPaul]

Now Bradley, that kind of sardonicism is going to get Moriarty to think you are actually agreeing with him! And he will probably quote it in the next 24 hours as evidence of just that! One just cannot be that subtley sardonic on this website----it tends to go right over the head of most contributors!

My suggestion is that you should at least edit that last post and punctuate it with a "Yeah RIGHT!"  followed by some kind of smiley face.

[TEPaul]

"CBM wrote that in larger bunkers he planted/allowed tufts of grass to grow to stabilize the bunker.   So one should expect the larger bunkers to have tufts of grass going in them.  For example, see the photo of the Sahara above from 1926."


Pine Valley wrote the very same thing for some of their most unstable bunkers and sand areas and Ross wrote the same thing about some of our bunkers (GMGC) in the late 1920s. "Tufting," "turfing," and vegetating (to some extent) unstable sand areas (bunkers) was one of the most common techniques to create stabalization. Frankly, Merion East ended up doing the very same thing (sea-grasses) in some of their bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Here's your original statement.

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.

Here's my question.

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 ?

You then responded:

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.

I then responded as follows:

Top dressing is not about blowing sand on the grass.  
Other than uniformity, what agronomic difference does it make if it's achieved by a spreader or the wind ?[/b]

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.  

No it's not.
It's not about "healing" turf, it's about the "health" of the turf.
Courses that NEVER overseed get top-dressed.[/size]

It is also my understanding that there are more ingredients to dressing than sand.

That depends upon the purpose of the particular application.
In some cases, it's pure sand.[/size]

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

Why do they have to be well known ?
A superintendent's primary concern would seem to be the need and cost to replenish the sand in the bunkers, not the impact on the fairway turf.
Having sand distributed throughout the fairways and greens doesn't seem to be a bad thing. [/size]

And to this you respond ?

BTW Pat, I have asked two supers, neither seemed keen on using nature to top dress their courses.  
Have you had any luck finding supers who do advocate top dressing au naturel?  

First, I NEVER advocated allowing "nature" to systemically top-dress a golf course.
That's your feeble attemp to distort and mistate my position, which you need to do in order to defend your foolish and erroneous notion that sand blown on to the fairways is a bad thing.

At what clubs are the two supers you spoke to ?

There's not a super I know who has a substantive, non-cost problem with sand blowing on the fairways.

So, the question remains, why is it harmful for sand to blow onto the fairways ?

Can you cite five clubs where this is a problem ?

[TEPaul]

"TomP wants to give Garden City credit for inspiring this look but the reality is that there were RR ties used on many of the links courses at this time to stabilize bunkers and ground."


Just another of many examples of misquotations from Moriarty. I never said a thing about Macdonald copying anything from GCGC including the use of board (sleepers). Pat Mucci is the only one I'm aware of on here saying that.

What I ACTUALLY said on here (Post #231 ) is that Macdonald probably copied that look from those old famous holes in the linksland (that he used as templates) that used boards (sleepers) to support and stabilze various massive bunker faces. The example I used on this very thread was the photograph of the boards (sleepers) on the redan bunker of North Berwick's 15th.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Here's your original statement.

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.

Here's my question.

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 ?

You then responded:

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.

I then responded as follows:

Top dressing is not about blowing sand on the grass.  
Other than uniformity, what agronomic difference does it make if it's achieved by a spreader or the wind ?[/b]

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.  

No it's not.
It's not about "healing" turf, it's about the "health" of the turf.
Courses that NEVER overseed get top-dressed.[/size]

It is also my understanding that there are more ingredients to dressing than sand.

That depends upon the purpose of the particular application.
In some cases, it's pure sand.[/size]

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

Why do they have to be well known ?
A superintendent's primary concern would seem to be the need and cost to replenish the sand in the bunkers, not the impact on the fairway turf.
Having sand distributed throughout the fairways and greens doesn't seem to be a bad thing. [/size]

And to this you respond ?

BTW Pat, I have asked two supers, neither seemed keen on using nature to top dress their courses.  
Have you had any luck finding supers who do advocate top dressing au naturel?  

First, I NEVER advocated allowing "nature" to systemically top-dress a golf course.
That's your feeble attemp to distort and mistate my position, which you need to do in order to defend your foolish and erroneous notion that sand blown on to the fairways is a bad thing.

At what clubs are the two supers you spoke to ?

There's not a super I know who has a substantive, non-cost problem with sand blowing on the fairways.

So, the question remains, why is it harmful for sand to blow onto the fairways ?

Can you cite five clubs where this is a problem ?

Ok Pat, whatever you say, but we both know the game you are playing - try playing it with your grand kids, you may amuse them.  Have you ever tried playing golf on sand that was naturally blown about?  I have and putting is tricky, not all that different from trying to putt through snow, but I spose this is a good thing.  I also wonder what happens to that turf if the sand hangs about for a while?  You may think turf doesn't need sunlight, but thank goodness green keepers clear the sand and reinforce the problem area before testing your theory.

Ciao

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Top dressing with pure sand is probably a practice that was done plenty over the years but the thinking these days seems to be that using just pure sand is not a very good idea because it does not pay dividends for turf health and may even create some long-term health problems for turf. Can you imagine why? 

[DMoriarty]

Patrick with respect to the photo labeled the Sahara bunker, I believe that you are not considering the angle at which the photo was taken.
 
-- Next time you play the course, please do me a favor and walk up by the water tower and turn and look back toward the practice green next to the range tees at Shinnecock.   I think that this will approximate the angle at which the photo was taken.  (It would be better if you climbed the windmill, but I'll leave that up to you.)

-- I don't think that the black pole is the green, but rather a directional flag.   It cannot be any more than 180 yards from the tee.

-- We cannot see the short of the bunker in the photo, because of the angle.  The turf short of the bunker is to the right, out of the photo.  
______________________________________


Dave, I would disagree with you with respect to the Sahara bunker.  
The Sahara bunker is different from other bunkers in that it occupies a huge expanse, one without sharply defined boundaries at every border.
The Sahara bunker also occupies a unique portion of the terrain, a fairly steep hill.
In light of the early difficulty with grassing NGLA, I wonder if the Sahara Bunker wasn't the product of a grassing default.
It would seem difficult to grow in and maintain a grass faced "Sahara Bunker" in 1909.

I understand what you are saying, but this is a photo of a portion of the the Sahara bunker from 1926, and the sand is still splashed well up the face.  I don't think it reasonable to believe that the this was a "grassing default" or grow in issue.  This was almost 20 years after they built the bunker!

See bunker below, pictured on the right.
______________________________________________________________________


Dave, I think you have to be careful in interpreting what CBM meant.
How does growing tufts of grass in the interior of the bunker, stabilize the bunker ?

I think CBM planted/allowed the grass because he was concerned with reducing the impact of the wind to keep the sand in the bunkers.   Also, I think he liked the natural look of tufts of turf growing through the sand.
________________________________

We have a 1926 photograph of this bunker posted above (in the dual photo with the Sahara) that shows a sand face, thus answering your question about the intent.  

Dave, it would be impossible to maintain the large bunker on # 2 with a sand face as opposed to a grass face.
As you know, the top of that bunker would sit high, on the crest of the hill, subject to all of the elements, INCLUDING golfers trodding the fairways and extricating themselves from that bunker.  There's NO WAY a sand faced bunker could survive without serious encroachment into the fairway and green, thus, function and maintainance dictate the style

Again Patrick, at least a substantial portion of the Sahara still had a sand face in 1926.   But I was referring to the diagonal bunker on the Alps.   Like the Sahara bunker, The diagonal bunker on the Alps hole still had a sand face in 1926.

The left photo is the diagonal bunker on the Alps hole.  The right photo is a portion of the Sahara bunker:  


By the way, I think the camera angle is similar to the camera angle in the disputed photo, only this angle is a bit more north.   And obviously this is from next to or even inside the bunker while the other bunker was from further back and taken from a bird's eye view.


Dave & Bradley,

I think the mistake you both make is that you're evaluating bunkers from an angle OTHER than the angle that the golfer sees them from.
Sand flashed bunkers are ONLY sand flashed bunkers if that's what the golfer sees.
You're viewing bunkers from the side, not the front, and that impacts your evaluative process.
You have to evaluate the bunkers from the golfer's view, not a particular photographer's view

Many of the photos are taken from the point of view of the players, and the sand faces are definitely visible.  Many were not crazy and wild bunkers like the Sahara, but faces are definitely sand.   Also I believe there may be some bunkers where only part of the face is sand, and that is the face seen by the golfer.   I have a feeling it might have been in part a visibility issue.

It was apparently important in CBM's scheme for his short holes that they sat up abruptly around the surrounding terrain.  
This is a situation where I tend to agree with your explanation.  
He may have been building up here, instead of cutting into, so it makes sense to be that these ties might have been to stabilize the edge.   I believe the timbers were gone by the mid-1920's further indicating that he did not intended the look to be permanent.    
TomP wants to give Garden City credit for inspiring this look but the reality is that there were RR ties used on many of the links courses at this time to stabilize bunkers and ground.

Dave, how can you claim that CBM was going for the "natural" look when he surrounded the 6h green with wooden timbers ?

I don't think CBM was going for any look.
I think he viewed the bunkers primarily in the context of playability, function and maintainance.

Patrick, CBM himself wrote that he was trying to make his hazards look as natural as possible, and he also wrote repeatedly that he was trying to emulate nature.   I take him at is word, but suggest that he was also going for the look found on the links courses.

I do generally agree though that his primary concern was playability and function, and I think this explains why he used the timbers on the Short-- Here I do think he was concerned with structural stability to try and create the abrupt step up. The timbers were temporary - gone by the mid-1920's - so I think it is a mistake to assume that CBM didn't care about a natural look because they were there initially.

[Jim_Kennedy]

So, pardon me if I'm wrong, or if this has been brought up before, but when the "whole world paused" for a time to come up and view NGLA they saw some pretty natural looking bunkers.

This changes the game considerably, not only was CBM responsible for the "National School", we now see that he was also the trendsetter for the "Natural School". It's no wonder that we designate him to be the Father of Golf Course Architecture in America.

[DMoriarty]

So, pardon me if I'm wrong, or if this has been brought up before, but when the "whole world paused" for a time to come up and view NGLA they saw some pretty natural looking bunkers.

This changes the game considerably, not only was CBM responsible for the "National School", we now see that he was also the trendsetter for the "Natural School". It's no wonder that we designate him to be the Father of Golf Course Architecture in America.

That is precisely the way I see it.   Around here the usual advocates for their various dead guys mistakenly think that all CBM did was to force copies of golf holes onto inappropriate land, and create courses with an extremely manufactured look and style.  They also mistakenly contend that there was a counter or alternative school of designers who rejected CBM's approach and instead tried to utilize natural landforms and make their features look natural.  But these guys were following in CBM's footsteps on both accounts, and on many other accounts as well.

Unfortunately these misunderstandings and misrepresentations have been going on around here for so long that it seems to have become the prevailing wisdom.  A pity because that is not the way it happened.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ok Pat, whatever you say, but we both know the game you are playing - try playing it with your grand kids, you may amuse them. 


Sean, don't try to hide your lack of knowledge on this subject by diverting the subject.


Have you ever tried playing golf on sand that was naturally blown about? 

Yes, and other than consistency, what's the difference if it was blown out, sand splashed out or top dressed

I have and putting is tricky, not all that different from trying to putt through snow, but I spose this is a good thing. 

Depending upon the decree of application, the greens tend to speed up, but, when the sand is visible, you can adjust for that.

I also wonder what happens to that turf if the sand hangs about for a while?

I haven't noticed the wind ceasing to blow or courses failing to irrigate.
Nothing bad happens to the turf.
Haven't you ever seen greens, fairways and tees topdressed with sand. 

You may think turf doesn't need sunlight, but thank goodness green keepers clear the sand and reinforce the problem area before testing your theory.

You don't know what your talking about on this issue.
Rather than continue to change feet, I'd suggest that silence rather than making foolish or extreme statements in an attempt to defend your absurd claim might be your best defense.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Top dressing with pure sand is probably a practice that was done plenty over the years but the thinking these days seems to be that using just pure sand is not a very good idea because it does not pay dividends for turf health and may even create some long-term health problems for turf.

In that case I'll provide you with the phone number of some really top notch superintendents who have maintained spectacular greens for years and years, who continue to topdress with sand.
I'm sure they'd like to learn of your theories and personal experiences that will enlighten them with respect to the error of their ways.


Can you imagine why? 

I'm not worried about me imaging "why", I'm really concerned about those supers who have spectacular greens despite continuing to topdress with sand.
I've got to warn them to stop what they've been doing.
When they ask "why" can I give them your phone number ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick with respect to the photo labeled the Sahara bunker, I believe that you are not considering the angle at which the photo was taken.
 
Dave, I have considered the angle, but the topography still doesn't fit.
Your positioning of the green directly west or SSW of the water tower doesn't jive with the surrounding terrain in that photo.
Neither the immediate or distant slopes match what's there.

-- Next time you play the course, please do me a favor and walk up by the water tower and turn and look back toward the practice green next to the range tees at Shinnecock.  
I think that this will approximate the angle at which the photo was taken.  (It would be better if you climbed the windmill, but I'll leave that up to you.)

Dave, I'm always willing to view your perspective, but, I'm a little confused.  
The range tees at Shinnecock are on the south side of the hill that the clubhouse sits on, and are thus impossible to see.
If you look at Shinnecock, you're looking south and there is NO hill near the water tower that blocks the view of Shinnecock from the tower, yet, there's a huge hill immediately behind that green.

In addition, you used the stairs as a directional beacon.
Based on the photo from the tee, that would place the green about 60-80 yards short of the current green.
If so, the surrounding topography, 60-80 yards short of the current green, looks nothing like the topography in the photo.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to visit NGLA before this thread gets too far from the front page.

I'll take a series of photos in several directions from the area next to the windmill.
Hopefully, that will help to clear up the differences of opinion.
I'll also take some photos from the hill short and left of the 3rd green.

-- I don't think that the black pole is the green, but rather a directional flag.  
It cannot be any more than 180 yards from the tee.

I disagree.
If anything, they would use the American Flag pole as the directional.
And, more practically, who would stick a directional flag directly in the area of play.
If it was a directional flag, it would be a few feet from the bunker's edge, not twenty feet into the green/fairway.
With the green 60-80 yards closer, and the tee in the footpad of the 1st green, that would make the hole about 200 yards, at most.

-- We cannot see the short of the bunker in the photo, because of the angle.  
The turf short of the bunker is to the right, out of the photo.  
Dave, look at how Narrow the bunker is in the far right corner of the photo.
Then take a look at the photo from the tee.  That's NOT a narrow bunker at any point.
______________________________________


Dave, I would disagree with you with respect to the Sahara bunker.  
The Sahara bunker is different from other bunkers in that it occupies a huge expanse, one without sharply defined boundaries at every border.
The Sahara bunker also occupies a unique portion of the terrain, a fairly steep hill.
In light of the early difficulty with grassing NGLA, I wonder if the Sahara Bunker wasn't the product of a grassing default.
It would seem difficult to grow in and maintain a grass faced "Sahara Bunker" in 1909.

I understand what you are saying, but this is a photo of a portion of the the Sahara bunker from 1926, and the sand is still splashed well up the face.  I don't think it reasonable to believe that the this was a "grassing default" or grow in issue.  
This was almost 20 years after they built the bunker!

If the dating was correct then I would have to agree that CBM wanted to retain a "wall of sand" look on that particular bunker.

See bunker below, pictured on the right.
______________________________________________________________________


Dave, I think you have to be careful in interpreting what CBM meant.
How does growing tufts of grass in the interior of the bunker, stabilize the bunker ?

I think CBM planted/allowed the grass because he was concerned with reducing the impact of the wind to keep the sand in the bunkers.   Also, I think he liked the natural look of tufts of turf growing through the sand.

I don't know, that's not a lot of grass and it's doubtful that those tufts could stabilize much of anything.
I will admit that they present a semi-natural appearance, but, if that's the case, why didn't ALL of his expansive bunkers contain those tufts ?
________________________________

We have a 1926 photograph of this bunker posted above (in the dual photo with the Sahara) that shows a sand face, thus answering your question about the intent.  

Dave, it would be impossible to maintain the large bunker on # 2 with a sand face as opposed to a grass face.
As you know, the top of that bunker would sit high, on the crest of the hill, subject to all of the elements, INCLUDING golfers trodding the fairways and extricating themselves from that bunker.  There's NO WAY a sand faced bunker could survive without serious encroachment into the fairway and green, thus, function and maintainance dictate the style

Again Patrick, at least a substantial portion of the Sahara still had a sand face in 1926.   But I was referring to the diagonal bunker on the Alps.   Like the Sahara bunker, The diagonal bunker on the Alps hole still had a sand face in 1926.

The "Alps" hole bunker sits in a hollow, sheltered from the breezes, and, the surrounding far topography where the fairway is doesn't drain into that bunker.

As to the "Sahara" bunker you reference, I'm still not convinced that that's the huge bunker on the 2nd hole.

The left photo is the diagonal bunker on the Alps hole.  
The right photo is a portion of the Sahara bunker:  

Dave, what you're forgetting is the nature of the terrain above the horizon line on both bunkers.
At the "alps" hole fairway bunker, the terrain falls off, down to the lowest part of the fairway, thus water erosion is minimal to non-existant.
Depending upon the location of the bunker on the right, the same may apply.
I don't see CBM, with RAYNOR at his side, designing a bunker with a sand flashed face that's fed by runoff water/rain.


By the way, I think the camera angle is similar to the camera angle in the disputed photo, only this angle is a bit more north.  
And obviously this is from next to or even inside the bunker while the other bunker was from further back and taken from a bird's eye view.


Dave & Bradley,

I think the mistake you both make is that you're evaluating bunkers from an angle OTHER than the angle that the golfer sees them from.
Sand flashed bunkers are ONLY sand flashed bunkers if that's what the golfer sees.
You're viewing bunkers from the side, not the front, and that impacts your evaluative process.
You have to evaluate the bunkers from the golfer's view, not a particular photographer's view

Many of the photos are taken from the point of view of the players, and the sand faces are definitely visible.


Which ones ?
 
Many were not crazy and wild bunkers like the Sahara, but faces are definitely sand.  
Also I believe there may be some bunkers where only part of the face is sand, and that is the face seen by the golfer.  
I have a feeling it might have been in part a visibility issue.

It was apparently important in CBM's scheme for his short holes that they sat up abruptly around the surrounding terrain.  
This is a situation where I tend to agree with your explanation.  
He may have been building up here, instead of cutting into, so it makes sense to be that these ties might have been to stabilize the edge.   I believe the timbers were gone by the mid-1920's further indicating that he did not intended the look to be permanent.    
TomP wants to give Garden City credit for inspiring this look but the reality is that there were RR ties used on many of the links courses at this time to stabilize bunkers and ground.

Dave, how can you claim that CBM was going for the "natural" look when he surrounded the 6h green with wooden timbers ?

I don't think CBM was going for any look.
I think he viewed the bunkers primarily in the context of playability, function and maintainance.

Patrick, CBM himself wrote that he was trying to make his hazards look as natural as possible, and he also wrote repeatedly that he was trying to emulate nature.   I take him at is word, but suggest that he was also going for the look found on the links courses.

Dave, I tend to discount some of what CBM wrote.
20-20 hindsight and the desire to enhance one's image sometimes blur reality even though the ink is pretty clear.

I do generally agree though that his primary concern was playability and function, and I think this explains why he used the timbers on the Short-- Here I do think he was concerned with structural stability to try and create the abrupt step up. The timbers were temporary - gone by the mid-1920's - so I think it is a mistake to assume that CBM didn't care about a natural look because they were there initially.

Dave, it's not that hard to create structural stability at the green sites.
CBM did it over and over again at his green sites, starting at # 1, # 7, # 8, # 12, # 13, # 15 and # 18, so I doubt, in view of all the dirt he moved to form the footpads of his greensites, that he wouldn't be able to stabilize the short by creating steep banks vis a vis the use of extensive fill.
I think he imported that look, that feature from GCGC where he, Whigham, Emmett, Travis and others were members

[DMoriarty]

Patrick with respect to the photo labeled the Sahara bunker, I believe that you are not considering the angle at which the photo was taken.
 
Dave, I have considered the angle, but the topography still doesn't fit.
Your positioning of the green directly west or SSW of the water tower doesn't jive with the surrounding terrain in that photo.
Neither the immediate or distant slopes match what's there.

But I don't place the green W or SSW of the water tower.  I place it almost directly South, or just a few degrees W of directly South.   I think the camera is looking WEST (or perhaps a bit N of West) across the fairway.  NOT toward the green.

-- Next time you play the course, please do me a favor and walk up by the water tower and turn and look back toward the practice green next to the range tees at Shinnecock.  
I think that this will approximate the angle at which the photo was taken.  (It would be better if you climbed the windmill, but I'll leave that up to you.)

Dave, I'm always willing to view your perspective, but, I'm a little confused.  
The range tees at Shinnecock are on the south side of the hill that the clubhouse sits on, and are thus impossible to see.
If you look at Shinnecock, you're looking south and there is NO hill near the water tower that blocks the view of Shinnecock from the tower, yet, there's a huge hill immediately behind that green.

My mistake Patrick.  I meant Sebonac but somehow typed Shinnecock.   Look toward the practice green next to the range tees at SEBONAC, basically just a few degrees N of straight West from the water tower.   Sorry about that.  I'd be confused as well.  

I'll take a series of photos in several directions from the area next to the windmill.
Hopefully, that will help to clear up the differences of opinion.
I'll also take some photos from the hill short and left of the 3rd green.

That would be very helpful.  I've looked through my photos and don't have a view that helps explain it.  

-- I don't think that the black pole is the green, but rather a directional flag.  
It cannot be any more than 180 yards from the tee.

I disagree.
If anything, they would use the American Flag pole as the directional.
And, more practically, who would stick a directional flag directly in the area of play.
If it was a directional flag, it would be a few feet from the bunker's edge, not twenty feet into the green/fairway.
With the green 60-80 yards closer, and the tee in the footpad of the 1st green, that would make the hole about 200 yards, at most.

The hole was listed at 215 for the 1910 tournament at which the photos were apparently taken.  

We cannot see the short of the bunker in the photo, because of the angle.  
The turf short of the bunker is to the right, out of the photo.

Dave, look at how Narrow the bunker is in the far right corner of the photo.
Then take a look at the photo from the tee.  That's NOT a narrow bunker at any point.

I don't think it is narrow in the far right corner.  I think the bulk of the bunker is behind the large finger sticking out into the bunker from the right side of the photo (golfer's left.)  And we cannot see short of the bunker at all.   Also, those two photos were most likely taken four years apart.  (The disputed photo appeared in an article from 1910, the second photo from 1914.)
______________________________________


Dave, I would disagree with you with respect to the Sahara bunker.  
The Sahara bunker is different from other bunkers in that it occupies a huge expanse, one without sharply defined boundaries at every border.
The Sahara bunker also occupies a unique portion of the terrain, a fairly steep hill.
In light of the early difficulty with grassing NGLA, I wonder if the Sahara Bunker wasn't the product of a grassing default.
It would seem difficult to grow in and maintain a grass faced "Sahara Bunker" in 1909.

I understand what you are saying, but this is a photo of a portion of the the Sahara bunker from 1926, and the sand is still splashed well up the face.  I don't think it reasonable to believe that the this was a "grassing default" or grow in issue.  
This was almost 20 years after they built the bunker!

If the dating was correct then I would have to agree that CBM wanted to retain a "wall of sand" look on that particular bunker.

I guess it is possible that they used a really old photo from the 1926 article, but the bunker doesn't really look like this in the really old photos.  Plus, one gets the impression from the article that the photos were of the round discussed in the article.
______________________________________________________________________


Dave, I think you have to be careful in interpreting what CBM meant.
How does growing tufts of grass in the interior of the bunker, stabilize the bunker ?

I think CBM planted/allowed the grass because he was concerned with reducing the impact of the wind to keep the sand in the bunkers.   Also, I think he liked the natural look of tufts of turf growing through the sand.

I don't know, that's not a lot of grass and it's doubtful that those tufts could stabilize much of anything.
I will admit that they present a semi-natural appearance, but, if that's the case, why didn't ALL of his expansive bunkers contain those tufts ?

I am just going with what CBM wrote on this one.  
________________________________

We have a 1926 photograph of this bunker posted above (in the dual photo with the Sahara) that shows a sand face, thus answering your question about the intent.  

Many of the photos are taken from the point of view of the players, and the sand faces are definitely visible.


Which ones ?

Will sort them later.


Dave, I tend to discount some of what CBM wrote.
20-20 hindsight and the desire to enhance one's image sometimes blur reality even though the ink is pretty clear.

I think you have been hanging out with your Philly friends too much and they have warped your mind.   Much of what he wrote was very accurate, I don't see any reason not to take him at his word at least where the facts don't contradict him.

Sorry for the screw up with the name.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick with respect to the photo labeled the Sahara bunker, I believe that you are not considering the angle at which the photo was taken.
 
Dave, I have considered the angle, but the topography still doesn't fit.
Your positioning of the green directly west or SSW of the water tower doesn't jive with the surrounding terrain in that photo.
Neither the immediate or distant slopes match what's there.

But I don't place the green W or SSW of the water tower.  I place it almost directly South, or just a few degrees W of directly South.   I think the camera is looking WEST (or perhaps a bit N of West) across the fairway.  NOT toward the green.


Dave, If you place the green south of the water tower, even southwest of the water tower, it proves my point.
The topography south of the water tower, and west of the water tower looks like NOTHING the terrain in the photo.
When I next visit, I'll take pictures that you can post.
-- Next time you play the course, please do me a favor and walk up by the water tower and turn and look back toward the practice green next to the range tees at Shinnecock.  
I think that this will approximate the angle at which the photo was taken.  (It would be better if you climbed the windmill, but I'll leave that up to you.)

Dave, I'm always willing to view your perspective, but, I'm a little confused.  
The range tees at Shinnecock are on the south side of the hill that the clubhouse sits on, and are thus impossible to see.
If you look at Shinnecock, you're looking south and there is NO hill near the water tower that blocks the view of Shinnecock from the tower, yet, there's a huge hill immediately behind that green.

My mistake Patrick.  I meant Sebonac but somehow typed Shinnecock.   Look toward the practice green next to the range tees at SEBONAC, basically just a few degrees N of straight West from the water tower.   Sorry about that.  I'd be confused as well.  

I'll take a series of photos in several directions from the area next to the windmill.
Hopefully, that will help to clear up the differences of opinion.
I'll also take some photos from the hill short and left of the 3rd green.

That would be very helpful.  I've looked through my photos and don't have a view that helps explain it.  

-- I don't think that the black pole is the green, but rather a directional flag.  
It cannot be any more than 180 yards from the tee.

I disagree.
If anything, they would use the American Flag pole as the directional.
And, more practically, who would stick a directional flag directly in the area of play.
If it was a directional flag, it would be a few feet from the bunker's edge, not twenty feet into the green/fairway.
With the green 60-80 yards closer, and the tee in the footpad of the 1st green, that would make the hole about 200 yards, at most.

The hole was listed at 215 for the 1910 tournament at which the photos were apparently taken.  
We cannot see the short of the bunker in the photo, because of the angle.  
The turf short of the bunker is to the right, out of the photo.

If that's the case, then it's impossible for the green to be south or even southwest of the water tower, as you claim.
Would you not agree ?          

Dave, look at how Narrow the bunker is in the far right corner of the photo.
Then take a look at the photo from the tee.  That's NOT a narrow bunker at any point.

I don't think it is narrow in the far right corner.  I think the bulk of the bunker is behind the large finger sticking out into the bunker from the right side of the photo (golfer's left.)  And we cannot see short of the bunker at all.   Also, those two photos were most likely taken four years apart.  (The disputed photo appeared in an article from 1910, the second photo from 1914.)
______________________________________


Dave, I would disagree with you with respect to the Sahara bunker.  
The Sahara bunker is different from other bunkers in that it occupies a huge expanse, one without sharply defined boundaries at every border.
The Sahara bunker also occupies a unique portion of the terrain, a fairly steep hill.
In light of the early difficulty with grassing NGLA, I wonder if the Sahara Bunker wasn't the product of a grassing default.
It would seem difficult to grow in and maintain a grass faced "Sahara Bunker" in 1909.

I understand what you are saying, but this is a photo of a portion of the the Sahara bunker from 1926, and the sand is still splashed well up the face.  I don't think it reasonable to believe that the this was a "grassing default" or grow in issue.  
This was almost 20 years after they built the bunker!

If the dating was correct then I would have to agree that CBM wanted to retain a "wall of sand" look on that particular bunker.

I guess it is possible that they used a really old photo from the 1926 article, but the bunker doesn't really look like this in the really old photos.  Plus, one gets the impression from the article that the photos were of the round discussed in the article.
______________________________________________________________________


Dave, I think you have to be careful in interpreting what CBM meant.
How does growing tufts of grass in the interior of the bunker, stabilize the bunker ?

I think CBM planted/allowed the grass because he was concerned with reducing the impact of the wind to keep the sand in the bunkers.   Also, I think he liked the natural look of tufts of turf growing through the sand.

I don't know, that's not a lot of grass and it's doubtful that those tufts could stabilize much of anything.
I will admit that they present a semi-natural appearance, but, if that's the case, why didn't ALL of his expansive bunkers contain those tufts ?

I am just going with what CBM wrote on this one.  
________________________________

We have a 1926 photograph of this bunker posted above (in the dual photo with the Sahara) that shows a sand face, thus answering your question about the intent.  

Many of the photos are taken from the point of view of the players, and the sand faces are definitely visible.


Which ones ?

Will sort them later.


Dave, I tend to discount some of what CBM wrote.
20-20 hindsight and the desire to enhance one's image sometimes blur reality even though the ink is pretty clear.

I think you have been hanging out with your Philly friends too much and they have warped your mind.   Much of what he wrote was very accurate, I don't see any reason not to take him at his word at least where the facts don't contradict him.

Dave, I'm not one of those that believes CBM when it comes to his recollection regarding the siting of the clubhouse behind the current 9th green.
NGLA didn't even own that property until decades and decades later.
Plus, who would leave a donut hole in a routing where the current clubhouse sits ?
That's spectacular land for a golf hole.
Hence, I tend to read some of these early writings with a degree of enlightened suspicion.

Hopefully, I'll be able to get to NGLA before the snow flies.

Sorry for the screw up with the name.

[DMoriarty]

If that's the case, then it's impossible for the green to be south or even southwest of the water tower, as you claim.
Would you not agree ?        

Why not?  

1.  From google earth of the approx angle of the photo.   The white lines give some idea of the elevation change.  They are distance lines and from straight above they would appear straight and parallel.

2.  The second photo shows the approx angle of the photo in red.  The two white lines and the yellow line are all 215 yards (+/- 1 yd.) 

[TEPaul]

Pat:

From Reply #160, November 2, 2009

     “I think it was taken from up in the windmill basically looking towards the west/northwest (it looks like one can see the old road just below it). I think the hill you see past the flag-pole is looking up at what is now Sebonac GC (perhaps around the 1st hole (over the hill and the Sebonac clubhouse)).
       Some years ago while walking the course I was struck by how much the land rises to the right of the mid-body of #2 up towards Sebonac to the west/northwest."








From Reply #263, November 8, 2009

“I think the camera is looking WEST (or perhaps a bit N of West) across the fairway.  NOT toward the green.......I meant Sebonac but somehow typed Shinnecock.   Look toward the practice green next to the range tees at SEBONAC, basically just a few degrees N of straight West from the water tower. (It would be better if you climbed the windmill, but I'll leave that up to you.)"

[TEPaul]

"I'm sure they'd like to learn of your theories and personal experiences that will enlighten them with respect to the error of their ways.  "


Pat:

You're right, although they are not my theories, I'm quite sure they would if they are topdressing with pure sand (like right out of a bunker  ). You should check out HVGC Scott Anderson's lecture on UTube. Straight sand is pretty neutral and not exactly nutritional. The best practice seems to be to mix it some nutritional dirt ("dirty sand"). That also helps with moisture retention. Perhaps you forgot Macdonald had to dump some thousands of cartloads of topsoil onto the site AFTER the fact.


"I've got to warn them to stop what they've been doing.
When they ask "why" can I give them your phone number?"

I suggest you give them Scott Anderson's phone number or someone like him who has some long term experience with organics.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If that's the case, then it's impossible for the green to be south or even southwest of the water tower, as you claim.
Would you not agree ?        

Why not?  

1.  From google earth of the approx angle of the photo.   The white lines give some idea of the elevation change.  They are distance lines and from straight above they would appear straight and parallel.

Dave, the area surrounding the black flag is pretty flat.
It has Nowhere near the severe elevation changes that appear in your 1926 photo.
In addition, the hill behind the green in the original photo is so much steeper and so much closer to the green
The hill in the first google photo has to be a good 100 yards from that flag.

2.  The second photo shows the approx angle of the photo in red.  The two white lines and the yellow line are all 215 yards (+/- 1 yd.) 

The tee side of the island in the bunker is 100 yards from the center of the green which makes me question your measurement.
In addition, you will note in your google post, that the terrain does not fall off steeply to the left, as it does in your 1926 photo.

You indicate that both photos were taken from the same basic spot.
Do you see any similarity in the terrain, anywhere ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I'm sure they'd like to learn of your theories and personal experiences that will enlighten them with respect to the error of their ways.  "

Pat:

You're right, although they are not my theories, I'm quite sure they would if they are topdressing with pure sand (like right out of a bunker  ).
?

You should check out HVGC Scott Anderson's lecture on UTube.

I don't need to, I play a golf course on a fairly regular basis that has magnificent greens.
Not long ago, I had three guests the day after it was topdressed with SAND.
The greens must have been putting at about 13.

Straight sand is pretty neutral and not exactly nutritional.
The best practice seems to be to mix it some nutritional dirt ("dirty sand").
That also helps with moisture retention.


What you and the other bozo from the UK don't understand is that topdressing isn't a one time, monomorphic, application.

Perhaps you forgot Macdonald had to dump some thousands of cartloads of topsoil onto the site AFTER the fact.

You twit, if you'll read page 187-187 of the book I gave you, it tells you why 10,000 loads of "GOOD SOIL, INCLUDING MANURE" ..were put "ON THE PROPERTY"

"I've got to warn them to stop what they've been doing.
When they ask "why" can I give them your phone number?"

I suggest you give them Scott Anderson's phone number or someone like him who has some long term experience with organics.
So, you're suggesting that the superintendent at this golf course, who has transformed this golf course from a wet, cemetary green like playing field, into a fast, firm golf course, doesn't know what he's doing and needs to get the advice of someone who has never set foot on this golf course.

Is that correct ?

Maybe you and Seany should learn more about site specifics

But, let's get back to my original question:
Other than cost, what harm does sand blowing out of bunkers do to the surrounding turf, and to what degree ?

Before you answer, you might want to consider the volume of sand blown out of bunkers and the square footage and/or acreage of the area where the sand might end up.

I think you'll find that the effect is miniscule and that sand splash applies far more sand to a far more concentrated area.

I think it's time for me to send you another book as your educational process seems to have hit a roadblock when it comes to maintainance.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

My measurements are correct.  Check them if you want.

I do see similarities between the 1910 photo in question and the google earth photo.   Google earth does not show terrain exactly, especially not on this tight a scale so the look will not be perfect, but the rise is definitely in the right place.   I think we are looking at two hills, one close to the 2nd fairway and one further off.  I also think that in the 1910 photo the second fairway might have extended further up the hill.  

I do realize that you obviously know the course much better than I do.  It would make no sense for me to try and convince you further when all I have to go on are the photographs and my recollection.   But I do still think it is the Sahara bunker and will be interested to see what you come up with when you next play NGLA and take a few photos from the tower.  

[Sean_A]

Ok Pat, whatever you say, but we both know the game you are playing - try playing it with your grand kids, you may amuse them. 


Sean, don't try to hide your lack of knowledge on this subject by diverting the subject.


Have you ever tried playing golf on sand that was naturally blown about? 

Yes, and other than consistency, what's the difference if it was blown out, sand splashed out or top dressed

I have and putting is tricky, not all that different from trying to putt through snow, but I spose this is a good thing. 

Depending upon the decree of application, the greens tend to speed up, but, when the sand is visible, you can adjust for that.

I also wonder what happens to that turf if the sand hangs about for a while?

I haven't noticed the wind ceasing to blow or courses failing to irrigate.
Nothing bad happens to the turf.
Haven't you ever seen greens, fairways and tees topdressed with sand. 

You may think turf doesn't need sunlight, but thank goodness green keepers clear the sand and reinforce the problem area before testing your theory.

You don't know what your talking about on this issue.
Rather than continue to change feet, I'd suggest that silence rather than making foolish or extreme statements in an attempt to defend your absurd claim might be your best defense.

Pat

I understand Notre Dame is struggling this year, but does it cause so much stress as to effect your thinking?  Have you ever seen sand, not top dressing applied by green keepers in a regimented and purposeful manner, blowing about on a course.  Some areas may get a foot of the stuff - I bet they don't roll at 13 you dope.  Are you starting to get the picture now?  This isn't tough stuff Pat, but when you want to play games it can drag on needlessly.  Have you found a super yet who wants to allow nature to top dress their course rather than the green keepers?  Jeepers, there is stubborn and  obtuse, then there is Patrick Mucci.  Lord save us.

Ciao

Ciao   

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

How much time have you spent and how many massive multi-colored text posts with directional lines and diagrams or whatever drawn on them via Google Earth etc have you and Moriarty put on this thread debating that photo and that hill in the background?

Why don't you just do what I did a number of years ago when I first saw that photo and that hill in the background, and any sensible person should do -----eg just go out on that hole and look at that damn hill to the right of the mid-body of #2 (as I said about four pages and some days ago)?

It's very much still there Patrick , just the way it was in that early photograph. The only difference is back then there weren't any trees on it so it was so much more noticeable than it is today with so many trees (and some pretty big trees) on it! Are you even aware that a whole lot of trees can very much hide some prominent topography?  ).

The latter (all the trees on it today compared to that early photo) is the reason you probably never noticed it and I frankly never had either until I saw that photograph in that article while at NGLA and for that very reason walked out of the clubhouse one morning and went up there on the top of that fairway and looked at it and then walked up to it.

Just do it Patrick and dispense with all these hair-splitting massive multi-colored posts with all their meaningless rationalizations and directional lines and diagrams and Google Earth and such. Unless of course just continuing to argue is all your interested in on here. Is that all you're interested in on here Patrick? 

[TEPaul]

I suggest you give them Scott Anderson's phone number or someone like him who has some long term experience with organics.


"So, you're suggesting that the superintendent at this golf course, who has transformed this golf course from a wet, cemetary green like playing field, into a fast, firm golf course, doesn't know what he's doing and needs to get the advice of someone who has never set foot on this golf course.
Is that correct ?"


Pat:

What in the world are you talking about? Is it Scott Anderson?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul, the renderings with the lines and such are all mine, not Pat's.   He and I are having a discussion involving facts and factual analysis.  You should try it some time.  I don't believe either one of us has felt the need to say "I told you so" once.   But why do you feel the need to disrupt our conversation with your repetitious  "I told you so" posts?  Quoting yourself from a few days ago?  Telling us over and over again how you noticed the land over there was higher years ago?  Are you that insecure that you can't even allow a conversation without repeatedly announcing that you think you knew it all already?  

As for your your side snide comments on agronomy, I am no expert but it would seem that what one used for top dressing would depend upon what one was trying to accomplish.   Using straight sand on straight sand wouldn't accomplish much except maybe if you were trying to create a beach.   But using straight sand on soil which was mostly thatch, not draining, and already too heavily concentrated with organics would seems like a pretty good idea to me.  

But as I said, I am no expert on agronomy like you apparently think you are, but it seems to me that one would have to understand the soil conditions before one could make broad pronouncements about whether straight sand would be a good idea or not.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, the renderings with the lines and such are all mine, not Pat's.   He and I are having a discussion involving facts and factual analysis.  You should try it some time."


Moriarty:

I realize all those lines and diagrams and Google Earthing and Google Earth measuring and such are yours. That's essentially the same type of thing you did a few years ago with Merion East to constantly argue about the FACTS of that golf course with some of us who've known it like the backs of our hands for decades. My point was back then and it still is that we can just go out there on the actual land and look at it and measure it any which way to Sunday a lot better than you can with your Google Earth tools and diagrams and direction arrows and such on here.   The same holds true with NGLA!

And I know Pat does not get into all those diagrams and directional lines and Google Earthing and measuring off of it and such (Pat pretty much gets his rocks off on here with endless multi-colored text posts that I doubt anyone can understand anyway  . Like me, I don't think Pat knows how to do all that STUFF you put on some of your posts, and my only point here is if he really wants to see what that land to the right of #2 fairway really looks like (that hillside in that early photo) he should probably just go out there and look at it and walk it with that in mind as I did some years ago. I can pretty much guarantee you that it has not really changed.



"You should try it some time."


Believe me, I'm not very interested in having a discussion on here with you with what you call FACTS and FACTUAL ISSUES. If I want to know the FACTS of what the land is like anywhere on NGLA, or Merion East or frankly any other golf course, I'd prefer to pretty much figure it out by just going there and looking at it directly!