News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2010, 08:07:53 AM »
Niall,

Oh yea thats right I forgot that the universe didn't revolve around America in those days.  ;)

But even here there were many instances where the priority was in doing the route of the greens and tees before the bunkers. And the time between the opening of a course and the completion of the bunkering was often considerable. Until I read this article I had attributed that to money, and politics. I had never considered that the advantages to allowing the ground to settle so that the run of the ball on the particular property might be understood before committing to the expense of bunker building. Moreover, I never considered how these factors would make a good golfer's participation in the design so invaluable.

I think these principles were as valid here as they were in Europe.


Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2010, 08:11:25 AM »
Niall,

Was this a British publication that would not have been widely read in America when it was written?

TEPaul

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2010, 10:46:45 AM »
Niall:

In your post #24 you raise a number of issues that I think all need to be carefully considered here if a good understanding is to be had of what was going on throughout those early years in a number of areas to do with both construction and particularly agronomy in the area of seeding (or not).

For instance, I don't think there is much question that some of the earliest INLAND courses abroad----eg most all of them in 1860s-70s-80s and probably well into the 1890s were just using the natural and existing grasses on the sites---- generally meadow grass that had probably been there for years.

Even at Merion East this was true to some extent. Wilson mentioned when he wrote (1916)  his chapter for Piper and Oakley's book, Turf Grass for Golf, that there were a few fairways at Merion that were not even seeded as they felt the existing grass on them was good enough to use for golf. Not to even mention the semi-famous sort of in-house story of Merion known as "Merion Bluegrass." It was just discovered by Wilson et al when they first began to look at the land for the design of the course in early 1911. Wilson would just dig up samples, package them, send them to P&O at the US Dept of Agriculture and then they would discuss what it was and how useful it could be for golf as well as how to best maintain it----and remediate some of the agronomic problems that would crop up When they began to cut it and use it for golf.

Of course Wilson like the others of his time on these kinds of inland clay/loam sites that had generally been one kind of farm or another (either crops or grazing animals), were beginning to buy commercially gotten and packaged seed for golf but back then what to buy and use was very much the inexact science for sure. Some of those early guys such as Macdonald at NGLA and Wilson at Merion, and even Pine Valley began to develop their own sometimes massive experimental plots and seed nurseries. The US Dept of Agriculture had their own at Arlington Virginia but it was originally developed for forage grass experimentation but beginning around the second decade of the 20th century they developed the golf grass experimental plots big-time.

I think one of the first things we need to know (that may be a bit off the subject of Beale's bunker article) is when and where the first comprehensive seeding of golf courses was done. I suspect it was not until the very late 1890s at the earliest and perhaps not on all that many sites even at that time.

Compare to this INLAND reality the fact that linksland (seaside) courses were never originally seeded or planted either. That fact is the sort of second miraculous story (and far less known story) of the natural and God given linksland (seaside) sites-----eg their wholly natural features, sand, sand formations and blowouts and such as well as their naturally existing "swards" (original fairways) were not done at all by man-----those naturally existing "swards" were generally the eons long result of alluvial deposits that were remarkably acidic which through a form of natural selection (agronomic Darwinism) only two types of grasses were able to survive (those two types of grasses in those swards had no real competition).

And what were those pre-existing and naturally existing two types of grasses on those naturally occuring swards (fairways) which were basically the only genuses that could survive and prosper in that acidity (alkalinity) that was apparently that acidic from either the alluvial deposits in those naturally occuring swards and/or the fact that numerous birds both lived in them and more importantly constantly shit in them----eg obviously increasing the acidity or their soil?

You guessed it----festuca and agrostis----eg fescue and bent----two types of grass that both back then and still today are the most perfect grasses on which to play the game of GOLF!

PS;
That kind of seaside (linksland) naturally occuring sward soil and grass makeup, a combination of sandy loam and nutrietional material on top from the alluvial deposits and birds----which ironically pretty much existed in the English heathlands too once they finally discovered it under rhododendra and such was the type of playing surface that was often complementarily described as "springy"-----the type of surface the linksmen and many others back then believed was the ideal surface for golf.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 11:09:17 AM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2010, 11:07:21 AM »
[Mike,

I am not certain this approach has much merit, but I will like to keep an open mind, although the article's arguements were not persuasive. I don't know of any architects today that practice this way, and I am not certain many in the past did as well. In fact if you look at any top course list can you name how many employed this approach in the strictest sense. The reason I say strictest sense is that courses bunkering patterns do evolve over time, but I believe the approach you say most intrigues you starts with little or no bunkering.  Merion may be one answer based upon the thread titles I have seen on here but I avoid those threads because of the typically nasty nature of them.

Kelly,

I understand your reticence to wade into the Merion thread waters, but I believe if you check out the one that's currently on the first page you'll find that 1) there's a lot of really interesting information there, and 2) points of contention are being disagreed agreeably in a spirit of cooperative detente.

Come in, the waters fine!     

TEPaul

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2010, 01:08:01 PM »
Brad:

As you know from just speaking with me I am a real dunce on the dynamics and results of soil science in the context of the affects of greater alkalinity vs greater acidity (of course taking into consideration various grass types---ex bent). Nevertheless, while trying to understand what side of this issue Beale was on and which side the likes of Piper and Oakley were on, it still sort of looks to me like Beale may've been somewhat contradicting himself with his observations on that polo field he mentioned and the way he explained what-all was done to that polo field or else which side of the equation it's soil was naturally on.

What do you think?

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2010, 01:53:41 PM »
Niall,

Was this a British publication that would not have been widely read in America when it was written?

Bradley

I'm guessing it was reasonably widely available in the US as Max Behr had a number of letters published which were sent from his home (?) in Pasadena. What I was wondering was whether there was a seperate US version or a version adapted to the US market. Or indeed was Golf Illustrated a US publication to start with (i don't think so) and this was the UK version.

Even it wasn't published in the US I'm sure that the ideas contained within it would have been circulating there as well. Indeed I saw one article on NGLA from the previous year which had photos and text supplied by John Sutherland of Dornoch who met CBM for a tour of NGLA while Sutherland was doing a tour of US. I'm sure the two of them would have ben exchanging ideas quite freely.

Niall

TEPaul

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2010, 02:21:20 PM »
"I'm guessing it was reasonably widely available in the US as Max Behr had a number of letters published which were sent from his home (?) in Pasadena. What I was wondering was whether there was a seperate US version or a version adapted to the US market. Or indeed was Golf Illustrated a US publication to start with (i don't think so) and this was the UK version."


Niall:

I'm almost certain that the British Golf Illustrated and the US Golf Illustrated were totally different magazine. It seems to me that since that article of yours from Beale was in 1909 it was probably the British one, even though I think the US one was publishing that early (I think just).

Max Behr, however, came from another magazine over to Golf Illustrated to be its editor in the beginning of 1914. Behr may've even owned the company that ran it and I don't believe Behr had gone to California that early. I think he was still in NY/NJ at that time.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2010, 02:28:51 PM »
Tom P

The article is definitely from the UK Golf Illustrated. I photocopied the articles straight out of one of the volume of Golf Illustrated's which are held in the Mitchell Library, Glasgow. And it was in this version that Behr had his letters published.

Also from my previous post I referred to an article on NGLA which I seem to recall Tommy Mac posted as well although I could be wrong. Tom might be able to tell us where he got the article from, if indeed it is the same article and if he got it from a US version or the UK version.

Niall

TEPaul

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2010, 02:43:17 PM »
Niall:

I believe I'm wrong about the US version of Golf Illustrated. I think I said it may've existed in 1909 (or maybe it did in some earlier iteration). Matter of fact, that article on golf turf by Reginald Beale that Mike Cirba posted yesterday (Post #229 on the Merion thread) is actually the very first issue of that magazine. Its entire name was Golf Illustrated and Outdoor America and Behr was its first editor. The April 1914 edition that Beale's article is in is actually No. 1, Vol. 1 of Golf Illustrated and Outdoor America.


Later:
You know what, Niall, and on another item----as you may know I'm a pretty big fan of Max but he definitely was a weird man in some ways. I was just looking at that first issue (April, 1914) of his of Golf Illustrated and Outdoor America and I was fairly shocked at his price and pricing structure enumerated in that issue---his very first issue. That damn magazine costs .35 cents an issue and $4.00 for an annual subscripton. Even though I think that is kind of outrageously high I decided to go for it anyway and I called the number listed in that magazine in New York that's Golf Illustrated and Outdoor America Magazine's headquarters and the recording says that number---Murray Hill 3850, is either disconnected or out of service for some reason. Whatta-ya think that's all about? Do you suppose Max forgot to pay the phone bill?

But what I really think is dumb on Max's part is his annual vs single issue pricing structure. Buy the magazine for a whole year and it looks like you save a whopping .20 cents over the single issue price of .35 cents. WHOOPDEEDOO! What can I get for that---like a cup and a half of coffee in 1914? Big damn deal.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 04:02:40 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2010, 05:02:06 PM »
Niall and Bradley:

In an attempt to determine if Beale indicated anything in his 1909 article on bunkers that resembles the upswept (sand faced) bunker formation of Merion East, all I can see is the drawings of Fig 23 and 24 (Raised Bunkers) but I cannot figure out if the top line above "D" represents sand or the cavity before sand is put in. I think it would have to repesent the sand, therefore the cavity of the upswept face is probably not similar to Merion's upswept faces.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2010, 08:17:00 PM »
Who is under the impression the first upswept bunkers were introduced at Merion? Didn't the heathland courses along with Alwoodley and Moortown have upswept bunkers? Didn't the NGLA have upswept bunkers?

Mike Cirba

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2010, 08:26:30 PM »
Tom MacWood,

The Merion question was in relation to inland, clay based soil sites.

Do you know of any?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2010, 08:31:45 PM »
Tom MacWood,

The Merion question was in relation to inland, clay based soil sites.

Do you know of any?

Clay based soil sites....are you serious?

Mike Cirba

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2010, 08:37:58 PM »
Sure Tom...I guess the thinking is that most of the earliest inland courses had flat sand bottomed bunkers with grass faces.

What inland course built on clay is the first you know with sand swept faces?

No one is asserting that Merion was the first yet we can't think of an obvious predecessor either.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2010, 10:01:28 PM »
What were the best clay based courses in 1911?

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #40 on: January 30, 2010, 07:45:52 AM »
Niall and Bradley:

In an attempt to determine if Beale indicated anything in his 1909 article on bunkers that resembles the upswept (sand faced) bunker formation of Merion East, all I can see is the drawings of Fig 23 and 24 (Raised Bunkers) but I cannot figure out if the top line above "D" represents sand or the cavity before sand is put in. I think it would have to repesent the sand, therefore the cavity of the upswept face is probably not similar to Merion's upswept faces.

Tom

Do you have any photos of the Merion look that you are referring to that you could post ?

Clearly Beales bunkers didn't purely have sand on the bottom only but how much they resembled Merions bunkers it is hard for me to say. Ironically I don't have the articles in front of me and for some reason I can't see them on my computer so I'm talking from memory. From what I remember the important thing was that the sand wasn't level along the bottom, meeting the face of the bunker in a perpindicular fashion. There was usually (always ?) sand splayed up the face of the bunker to encourage the ball to roll back towards the middle of the bunker. So whether Beales bunkers were like Merions or not, is maybe down to the styling but the principles of construction would be the same, no ?

As an aside I think Willie Park said something similiar in his 1896 book when talking on bunkers, but as before I don't have it front of me.

Two things I took out of the Beale articles were that they referred to all sites, not just inland or links, and secondly that what he was imparting was the way he had been building/designing (?) bunkers for years rather than something that he had just thought up. 

Niall

TEPaul

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #41 on: January 30, 2010, 09:10:48 AM »
Niall:

In your last post you touch on a number of the things I would like to investigate, understand better and hopefully dicusss on here RE: whether or not and to what degree the bunkers of Merion were constructed differently from bunkers that came before them on clay/loam inland sites.

It is hard for me to tell with the two drawings of Beale's (Fig 23 & 24) because which line in those two drawings determines the earthen cavity is unclear.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to post photos of the early Merion bunkers but eventually perhaps I can get someone to help me do that (I do have early Merion bunker photos on my computer).

The potentially unique aspect of Merion's bunker floors is many of them were constructed in distinctly "dished" shapes where the earthen cavity or floor created a long upswept angle to essentially the bunker tops (there was very little grass rollover or verticality). This obviously conforms to what Wilson was talking about in that paragraph above when he mentioned they should be "easy" as some but not all of the bunkers in the linksland (sandy/loam soil) were. I know those Merion East bunkers were constructed that way because I saw their original earthen floors when they were undergoing their last bunker project.

There are many, many bunkers like Merion East's that I have seen over the years and particularly around here but my point is Merion's may've been the first to create shapes like that on inland clay/loam soils.

Ron Prichard seems to have felt this as he mentioned it to me over a decade ago. He said he suspects the Merion bunker type and style may have been the prototype for what he describes that the generic American bunker style.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 09:15:54 AM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2010, 09:46:06 AM »
Niall
Here is an early picture of Merion-East. As you can see originally the course did not feature sand flashed bunkers, they were added later. Of the two Merion courses I believe I'm correct in saying the West course was the first (at Merion) to feature flashed bunkers, and that course opened May 1914.

Both courses were built on clay loam, though the West may have had a little more sand in its loam than the East. In one of his letters Wilson said they'd found a deposit of sand at the site.


TEPaul

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2010, 12:25:32 PM »
Niall:

I would have to say on further study of Beale's article above that the only bunker that seems to somewhat replicate the type and style of bunkering used by Merion would be the one he indicates in Fig. 20. He does preface figs. 20 & 21 with the description that that style is for bunkers on land that does not drain as well (apparently his way of describing the basic clay/loam inland soil makeup) but that they are build above ground which I'm quite sure the high sand flashed faced bunkers of Merion's were not or certainly not entirely.

I think it is also very instructive to keep considering what-ALL Wilson said in that unpublished paragraph of his posted above on bunkers. He actually covers a good deal of thinking in that paragraph, even getting into a Rules connection as a result of certain penal bunker playability. That might have something to do with the fact that one of the Merion members on Wilson's original design committee was considered to be one of the real Rules experts extant----eg Richard Francis, the surveyor/engineer who probably did the drawing and production of Merion's design plans in the beginning before Flynn took over that capacity by around the mid-teens.

TEPaul

Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2010, 12:36:08 PM »
"Of the two Merion courses I believe I'm correct in saying the West course was the first (at Merion) to feature flashed bunkers, and that course opened May 1914."

Merion West was the first of the two Merion courses to feature flashed sand bunkers? Hmmm. Interesting guess but what is the evidence that Merion West had any bunkers when it opened in May 1914, much less upswept sand flashed bunkers? It may have had but we've never found the evidence to assume that in 1914 or even the first few years. Some say some of the most interesting bunkers over there were done by Richie Valentine; not Joe Valentine but his son who took over in the 1960s.

We do have a 1937 aerial of Merion West that shows the course with about 20 bunkers total which would be less than half of what it had later and now.

Unfortunately there seem to be precioius few photos of either course before around the middle teens. Those photos by Tillinghast for his course review(s) in 1913 are rare examples. In that photo of the 9th above that has been posted on here many times, I suspect may not be alpinization or some experimental imitation of Mid-Surrey mounding at all; it may be just sand and material put there in preparation to build the bunkering that would surround that green.

« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 05:07:59 PM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #45 on: January 30, 2010, 08:24:20 PM »
Niall,

Was this a British publication that would not have been widely read in America when it was written?

I don't know if I'd say British Golf Illustrated was widely read in American, but certainly the true devotees would have subscribed to it. There was a local doctor here in Columbus, a fine senior amateur golfer, who subscribed and his collection still exists. But the widespread dissemination of Beale's article likely came from another source. The American affiliate of Carters sent 'Carters' Practical Greenkeeping' to clubs free of charge, and Beale's bunker tutorial was part of that publication.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #46 on: January 30, 2010, 09:21:15 PM »
Tom Paul,

Beales diagram on figure 23 and 24 indicate that he built bunkers with sand on slopes, but perhaps not as high up the slope as Merion. These diagrams are more instructional than they are stylistic, so we don't know how high the sand was flashed. We can't say that the figure 20 bunker is Merion-like because there are sod vetting layers built in to shore up the face - that would a heck of a lot of sod to build up something as high the Merion sandflashing.

But while I would not be too quick to discount anything that Ron says, I have to say that I have seen so many pictures of upswept sand bunkers on the heathland courses that pre-date Merion. And those heathland courses were not sandy links type soils. I am pretty sure that MacKenzie was building bunkers with very high sand flashing before Merion. And Fowler too.




Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #47 on: January 30, 2010, 10:06:23 PM »
If you are looking for early sand flashed bunkers a good place to start is Horace Hutchinson's book Golf Greens and Green-keeping (1906), with contributions from Hutchinson, Colt, Fowler, Fergusson, Hilton, Hutchison, Braid, Gilbert Beale, Reginald's brother, among others. The book is worth looking at just for the photographs, many of which are of impressive flashed bunkers, both natural and man-made. Hutchinson's influence on the formative years of golf architecture, both in the UK and US, has been under-appreciated.  
For those that would like it as an e-book, you can download a copy here:
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL7029660M/Golf_greens_and_green-keeping

.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2010, 08:28:21 AM »
Tom MacWood,
The Merion question was in relation to inland, clay based soil sites.
Do you know of any?
Clay based soil sites....are you serious?
[/quote
This is a serious inquiry because whereas in other instances where we see flashed sand on sandy sites, the builder is only exposing what is already there, but the Merion bunkers were built to hold sand on an upslope. So if you could visualize it what we have here is a sand holding cavity, shaped with clay, that is built with a good portion of the cavity on an incline. How much of that was happening here in the states before Merion? I am aware of Old Elm's 8th hole fairway bunker. Any others?


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Beale and Bunkering - 1909
« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2010, 09:07:08 AM »
Flashed bunkers were common place in Britain and America, seaside and inland. Why is it so significant when the first flashed bunker appeared on a clay loam site? Isn't the more important question when did the first flashed bunker appear on an inland course?

At that time what were the best courses built on clay loam in America and Britain?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 09:30:39 AM by Tom MacWood »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back