12th hole fairway bunkers at St. Georges (Toronto)

[ian]

I have given you six photos in an effort to explain the sheer scale of these bunkers. The bunker with the person in it is 16 feet deep. That bunker is 150 yards from the green. I included the back side photo to give you perspective on how deep they were built. Finally the last photo is how they were built.

This is from the front tees looking at the pair of very deep bunkers, approximately 12 feet followed by 16 feet.


The two bunkers closer up


This shows Jim Sara in the bunker and helps provide the scale


This is a side view to show the mounds and there dominance over the bunker, and the challenge you face in advancing the ball


This view is from behind, this shows the extra six feet that were added to make the last bunker so deep


Finally, this is how the mounds were built


Where am I going you ask. There was conciderable effort to make these so extremely penal. Was it done for psychological reasons or just sheer difficulty? Was he adding character or showing a sence of humour?

Does this quote offer an explaination for them?

"Nature must always be the architect's model. The golf course should fit the terrain. The lines of the bunkers or greens must not be sharp or harsh, but easy and rolling. Every now and then I get a mean streak and like to fool the boys a little. But, I never hide any danger. It's all out there for the golfer to see and study."

They are two of my favourites, and I would never change a thing about there character; but I found myself standing in them today saying what inspired him to make these so bold and so deep in an already great setting. Your thoughts?

[henrye]

Perhaps it is a point of focus to take away from the ugly houses lining the fairway.  Once the trees get their leaves, the houses are really only noticeable from the green, but the one house in the distance is always there.  To create a similar shield he might have also used a tree.  If I remember correctly, the next few holes have the creek playing through them and are much more visually appealing.

[ian]

The houses were built in the early 60's. The golf course was there 30 years before. Where the houses are currently there used to be the 9 hole short course owned by the club. When the course was built the entire property was surrounded by farm fields. The course was built to sell houses near by, but not the ones that you can see.

[T_MacWood]

"But, I never hide any danger. It's all out there for the golfer to see and study."

In my mind that was one of Thompson's greatest strengths. His boldness and his eye for aesthetics - and no hesitation to show off those strengths. In fact I suspect the sand was flashed a bit more on those bunkers at one time.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

I'm sort of an advocate to trying different things in architecture and have no problem with bunkers like that being as deep as they are and as penal as they may play.

However, I do think an architect should use the surrounding natural property to give him a guide as to the size and scale of the man-made architectural features he creates.

The easiest way to check that type of thing, in my opinion, is to walk past those bunker and look back at how their outgoing end ties into the surrounding topography. If they sort of pop out of the ground from that vantage and don't tie in well and look clearly out of scale with their surroundings I think they really do leave something to be desired despite their interesting and challenging playability.

When good aesthetic architects talk about the importance of letting the natural land be their medium for interepretation they didn't mean that lightly--it's pretty fundamental really.

[T_MacWood]

"The lines of the bunkers or greens must not be sharp or harsh, but easy and rolling."

I've read this quote from Thompson before and it has always been a little confusing. One of the reasons I believe his bunkers are so aesthetically pleasing and look very natural is because they have a sharp angular quality - they are not easy and rolling. Perhaps the transition from sharp and angular is easy and rolling, but what seperates him from many is the sharp and angular. It can be seen in the monding behind the bunker closest to the photographer (and with many of his great courses). And in the the construction of the mounding in the old B&W photo. In my mind nature is not easy and rolling, but combination of soft, sharp, rolling and angular.

[henrye]

Thanks Ian.  I guess I should have figured that out, given that you have the under construction photo.  Without the bunkers, I think the hole is less interesting.  Truly, I believe he could have placed a tree in the same area and created a similar effect.  He clearly did not want a straight away uphill par 4 and I think he accomplished something more interesting.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Tom,
Agreed, that quote felt like a misfit, but undoubtedly he was playing with the golfers mind, somehow!

Ian,
These bunkers do a lot to make this short par four, but how about the approach as well? This has to be one of Thompson's great mid-range par fours.

Thanks for the great photos; they do give a great sense of the bunkers. Having been in them and seeing them here will put me off for the rest of the day.

[ian]

Tom,

Here is the bunkers from one of the old aerials


Ben,

The approach after the bunkers for perspective


Its easy to inturpret the quote to mean many different things. The reason I posted it was for the section that said " Every now and then I get a mean streak and like to fool the boys a little"

I find it funny how we have all picked at different parts of the same quote.