[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

As usual not certain what your point is apart from trying to stir the issue, but lets see if I can answer them.

Hi Melvyn,

Where and when did sheep learn the art of revetment to sure-up their windbreaks?
I do not know but I am certain that you have all the answers

Let's be honest: 99% of bunkers are "fake". I can understand why the people behind Castle Stuart and some of those who have played it and enjoyed the course are a bit perplexed as to the strength and tone of the criticism re: the sleepers.
First, bunkers started off as natural and are now constructed, does that make them fake just bunkers. I did say ‘As for faking the bunkers with parts of sleepers’  you seem to have taken a different view upon my statement. So you have spoken to all locals and to every Man Women and Child and they all agree and are a bit perplexed etc., etc. Funny really as I find that most enjoy the course yet believe that some small parts are not a good reflect of an old Scottish golf course. Their example relate to uneven tops of sleepers and parts of sleepers laying around the edge of some bunkers trying to age the bunker – this if my memory severs me correctly was raised with photos on a  discussed months ago just after the course opened.

Did your opinion change, either for the better or the worse, when you saw Castle Stuart in person as opposed to your initial feelings from simply seeing pictures?
I do not see that my position has changed either way but for your information I was up in Scotland based at Lossiemouth only a week or so ago. 

David

As to your question…

Melvyn -
Just how many "local golfers" have you spoken with who have played Castle Stuart?
I have spoken with a dozen or more and they all love the place! 
DT

I never thought of counting, but then I had no intention posting a comment on GCA.com either. I do not think I have ever said that Castle Stuart was not a good course or that people disliked it. I did mention and continue to bring it up in conversation that I do not like fake aging or sleepers not bedded in correctly. I would direct you to my comments to Scott. As for speaking to locals and the numbers who played the course in the last couple of weeks, well at a rough guess when I was up there would be in excess of a couple of dozen a day. It was a minor comment but still mentioned which I find is the interesting point.

Tim
I have no problems with sleepers on a golf course either, but  bits of sleepers  approx. 6”, 12” 15 0r 20” long to make the odd bunker look old, come on Tim that’s just is cheap (tasteless) dressing and serves no purpose IMHO.

Melvyn

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

at the moment there are still many areas that still look new. In a few years these should also have grown in fully and the course will be difficult to date.

Jon

[Bill_McBride]

I haven't seen Castle Stuart yet but think sleepers supporting bunkers are appropriate when wind would otherwise scour the sand out of the bunker on a regular basis.

Here's a great looking sleepered bunker at the Links at Las Palomas, on the par 3 #4 that takes you out of the flat land up into the sand dunes.

I wish this course by Forrest Richardson was a bit less off the beaten path - it's south of Phoenix on the Mexican coast of the Sea of Cortez - because it is a whole lot of fun to play!



I think that sleepers, even if new, will look weathered pretty quickly in that environment.

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom, its a corkscrew!



Here is another use of sleepers on our project, same course:


And yet another, which we incorporated with the native lava rock, on site. The local villagers used rock walls to delineate their properties, we used that same kind of style on our other courses. For this course, we then combined the rock walls with the sleepers we were using for the bunkers, and created rugged looking rock and sleeper retaining walls, on purpose, to make them look they were breaking down and constructed poorly.

So bring on the heat!


 

[DMoriarty]

Wow.  That looks like an upside down, smashed cupcake.

________________________________________________

I have only played one of the two courses so don't have much to say by way of comparison, but I have read something in this thread and in past threads that really bugs me:   Some seem to be complaining that Castle Stewart used OLD used sleepers as opposed to new sleepers . . .  Huh?

We are talking about your standard creosote soaked RR ties, aren't we?    If so then I cannot imagine why one would ever use anything but OLD sleepers for appropriate projects.  OLD RR ties long been the "duct tape" of many a landscape related problem or issue, for the obvious reason that they have generally always been CHEAPER.

When did this practice start?    I don't know for sure, but I'll bet it goes back to whenever a RR first had to tear out any section of track and/or replace any sleepers.

Assuming the availability of cheaper used sleepers, why would anyone ever use a new RR tie in a bunker?   I'm no cultural expert, but using something new when something old would have done  the job doesn't sound Scottish to me.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Hi David

The age of the sleepers are not the issue, never have been, The issue is dressing a bunker with small section of sleepers to age a site or in this case a few bunkers by conveying the idea, I presume that the wood has rotted down over time. See photo below as example



Clearly this bunker never needed sleepers to retain the soil/sand and is there to give the impression of age. There is no need for this and by dressing up the bunker for age is IMHO an insult to the intelligence of all golfers.

This may be acceptable to you but I feel here in Scotland its not. Also another point using the latest construction photos submitted by Ryan shows all the sleeper tops in a level or straight neat run. Even the rock wall shows the sleepers sticking out a uniform distance, yet the sleepers at Castle Stuart are not straight or level and have been left at random heights. This would not have happened in the early days when  sleepers were used, it would have been seen as poor workmanship.

Melvyn

[Gary Slatter]

I agree with you 100% Melvyn.   

I do not dislike CS,  I just dislike the use of sleepers, or pieces of wood on courses, with no purpose other than "aging" or reproducing classics.   

All of my friends from St Andrews and Lossiemouth who have played CS enjoy it and like the American course experience. 
They think it's easier than KB, as it was intended to be. My American friends are 50/50 on CS.  My Canadian friend loved it.

I like the look at Forrest's Mexican course and it looks like the wood is serving a purpose.  It will be interesting to see how long it lasts in that climate.   

[Anthony Gray]

  All theses features give you something. They open the eye. Many are not even in play or serve a direct purpose.That is not wrong. They add to the golfing experience.

  Anthony

[Melvyn Morrow]

Anthony

Do you mean like haemorrhoids when riding a cart - they I suspect may open ones eyes but they do not add to my enjoyment or experience of a good game of golf. Although I suspect some on this site would certainly enjoy the experience.

Melvyn

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony

Do you mean like haemorrhoids when riding a cart - they I suspect may open ones eyes but they do not add to my enjoyment or experience of a good game of golf. Although I suspect some on this site would certainly enjoy the experience.

Melvyn

  Nice analogy my friend. Sleepers are only a pain in the ... when your ball is up next to them.


 Anthony

[Ryan Farrow]

Anthony,

Melvyn just don't like it because an American designed it...... thats what it all comes down to. If you have read previous posts on this subject you can quickly get to the bottom of it.

Melvyn has a Utopian dream of golf courses only built on "pure links land". Anything else is substandard.

It still kills me, absolutely kills me that the focus (on this discussion board) is only about the "look" of Castle Stuart nobody has dare to challenge the meat an bones of the golf course.

[Jon Wiggett]

It still kills me, absolutely kills me that the focus (on this discussion board) is only about the "look" of Castle Stuart nobody has dare to challenge the meat an bones of the golf course.

Ryan,

is there anything to challenge on the meat and bones of the course. All the people I have spoken to whi have played it have been very impressed (and some were very conservative ones). I have walked the course several times this year and it looks fantastic. I will play it later in the summer but first I will have to hone my game a little.

As I have stated before, I think the course needs a few more years under its belt to mature. If we are talking about things looking unusual 11 and 12 at Renaissance have rolling links type fairways that are tree lined. It looked unusual to me but I guess it stops being so when you get used to it.

I also the attitude of expecting a course to only have pleasing qualities and features or else you shouldn't/can't like or praise it. Was it Dr Mac. that said something to the effect of 'all good courses should be controversial when they first open'.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ryan

Misreading my comments. Here we go again after 1300 post I would have expected something better. So you firmly believe I am anti American, well let it all out my son, spit out your bile and dislike for the opinions of others.

You are full of verbal diarrhoea. I do not hate or dislike someone because he/she comes from a different country. My proof well if my great grandfather had not drowned at Mobile we would I expect by now be all Americans and living near Darien Georgia. This was my Family home in the late 1880-1900 2nd Street Darien and its still there known as The Hunter House. 


 
Just in case you do not believe me then I also attach a photo of his gravestone in St Andrews.



The only thing you get to the bottom of my friend is your total intolerance to the views and opinions of others. I may go as far as to question if you have any raciest  intolerance to excuse your crap or its it just aimed at me because you disagree.

I do not have an Utopian Dream of Golf, it’s the way many of us play the game over here.  Some families have played it in this manner for centuries. In fact we are the ones keep faith with the Game of Golf by Walking and not using distance aids. If your game or your resolve is that weak why the hell do you play golf in the first place, in fact if you can’t understand how to play it correctly how the F#*K can you design a course. You keep to you convenience courses, your quick Drive Through Or the course built around new housing developments that requires a quarter to a mile between Greens & Tees.

As for ‘pure links land’ where the Hell did you get that from. Ask Tom Doak even he will tell you that I believe its worth spending more time and selecting “Land Fit for Purpose”. Your words not mine ‘Anything else is substandard’ – if I did not know better I would say that you are sowing false allegations, of trying to persuade others of untruths and making untrue statements. So that goes to show just how open minded you are and how you are happy to convert the truth to suit your purpose.

You go on to say “It still kills me, absolutely kills me that the focus (on this discussion board) is only about the "look" of Castle Stuart nobody has dare to challenge the meat an bones of the golf course.” Yet you ignore what I mentioned about playing the course; ‘Let the course stand on its playability and how it blends into the local landscape’. But then that not very radical so you can’t get any mileage out of that.

Yes, a lot on GCA.com do not like or agree with what I say but after all as you mentioned its meant to be a discussion group. May I suggest that in the future please comment on my writing not what you think I have written, you may find that will serve you better.

Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan:

Your post was not very clear ... are you saying Castle Stuart is a great course or are you saying nobody will challenge it because it's a sacred cow?  If it is the latter, why are you not challenging it directly? -- unless you haven't seen it, in which case I don't understand how you could be dismissing others for not challenging it.

I also find it interesting that you did not discuss the "meat and bones" of the course in China for which you posted pictures ... all of your comments were about the aesthetics of it, and how you made some of the walls look "broken down and constructed poorly".  In that context, it's odd to criticize Melvyn for doing the same.

[Tom Dunne]

I think this short video is worth a look, even if it's about the Prairie Club and not Castle Stuart.

http://punchbowlgolf.com/2009/04/kyle-franz/

Check out the crater at Royal Portrush at the 39 second mark. That is a pretty rugged looking bunker, and while it's not quite "crenellated", as Melvyn (accurately) describes a couple of the photos from CS, neither is it a perfectly level horizontal line. That photo appeared in Horace Hutchinson's book (1895), and Portrush was a pretty new course at that time.

So is the issue that sleepers were used in the first place at Castle Stuart, or that the crenellation does not accurately reflect the technique in which sleepers were deployed?

The same book also features a famous photo of Hell Bunker at the Old Course, in which the right half of the bunker is revetted while the left half is not. This look appears at Castle Stuart as well.

It seems to me that a significant amount of imagination and sincere interest in the game's past went into the bunkers at Castle Stuart. In Kye Goalby's feature interview, he talks about the process they used to age a new stone wall on the property of the Renaissance Club--is this also a grievous insult to the history of golf in Scotland? I don't think so. It's certainly fair to question how these features play, or the meaning of the historical references themselves, but we're not talking about island greens or clown's mouths here. That's the thing I can't really square up--these courses are clearly aware of history. Even if one doubts the merit of their historical referents, they are nevertheless criticized for being too "American". Yet there are plenty of very high profile courses in the UK that are far more guilty of this term (used here as a pejorative, despite the diversity of great American courses).

I think it's rather unfair to expect CS to be Royal Dornoch or the Renaissance Club to be North Berwick. It does make me wonder, though: Is it even possible to build a great links course in Scotland in the modern age? If it looks brand new it will certainly be too "American", and if it's pre-weathered it'll be too "American" as well. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom Dunne

From a previous debate on Castle Stuart Bunkers some more photos, noting the neat standard and uniformity of the sleeper tops









Good clean line for the sleepers unlike CS

Melvyn

[Tom Dunne]

Melvyn,

I understand. I'm saying that during that time period the clean look you're talking about was not universal. You posted the photo of Hell bunker I was referring to in my last post. In that shot the bunker is not revetted all the way across; the entire left side of the "horseshoe" is more crumbly in appearance. This actually supports the point that the CS bunkers featuring both formalized sections and more tumbledown ones in the same hazard is something that has historical precedent.  

In other words, the bunker builders at CS aren't pulling a look out of thin air. They're just not emulating the period look that you prefer--even if you're right that that clean line across was more common. It's pretty obvious from that photo of Portrush in Hutchinson's book that not every sleeper in that crater was uniform in height.     

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom, we all know that you are the only sacred cow on here...

All I am saying is from day one, a select group of people bitched and moaned about how the course looks based off a few photos.

All of the negative comments were about the look, sod-walls and sleepers, not how the course played. But at the end of the day, bad press is better than no press, at least people are talking about it.

[Marty Bonnar]

Ryan,
one man's 'bitching and moaning' is another man's 'reasoned criticism'. That for me is the life-blood of this discussion group. Let people have their say. You never know, you might learn something from other opinions.

The question of the Sleepers is a mere detail on what otherwise LOOKS like a very interesting piece of golf course design. WE are so far up ourselves that we choose to debate and discuss the minutiae of golf course design, which you and I both know is so far removed from Joe Average Golfer's (or any other Joe Average's) radar. I AM drawing a line at the half-timbered Coke machine though! That is a step too far for the old traditionalist in me. And bear in mind that this is the guy who studied Architecture in the 70s. All beton brut, Le Corbusier and Post-modern symbolism, Baby.

I'd venture to posit that as your company is extensively operating in a country which has absolutely NO History of golf course design to refer to that you have a wonderfully unique ripe opportunity for all sorts of 'experimental' design. Start a thread telling us more about how your individual and collective design philosophies have developed given that opportunity. That would be way more interesting than re-hashing the great Sleeper conundrum, which will always ultimately be a matter of taste and choice rather than a properly debatable topic.

best,
FBD.

[Ryan Farrow]

Thanks Marty,

I hate to see topics devolve like this sometimes. I just felt like we had this discussion before, over and over again. I agree with you about the coke machines though, flammable, are they?

I appreciate the detail work that goes on in some golf courses, whether its the bunker work, teeing areas, rest rooms or comfort stations. Its something a lot of architects just overlook and don't bother with. Perhaps I feel it is a bit un-fair to overly-criticize a golf course because of these things. Even more so when they are pulled off so well, with some obvious differences in aesthetic preferences or cultural beliefs.

[DMoriarty]

Hello Melvyn.  I hope all is well.  A few comments .. .

- While it may not be an issue for you now, the age of the sleepers has been an issue with some in the past and even came up on this thread, with one poster complaining about "'old'" sleepers.
- I am no expert on the landscape architecture of this earlier era, but I have studied it some.  Respectfully, I think you may be mistaken when you write that sleepers would have been straight and level or otherwise be considered poor workmanship.   This was an era when artists, craftsmen, architects (especially landscape architects) were moving away from a strict adherence to straight and level lines and artificial formalism and were instead incorporating a bit more of the movements of nature into their designs.   And, as for the supposed uniformity of the sleepers in the old photos, I am afraid I just don't see it that way.   
 -Most of these old retaining walls in the photos are of a different type altogether, with vertical sleepers holding back horizontal sleepers or possibly even horizontal planks ( as opposed closely placed vertical sleepers.)  The top-lines of these retaining walls will necessarily look straight in photos because the top-line is made up of the length of the plank!  But take a look at the vertical sleepers in the photograph from Burnam, those holding back the horizontals.  They are far from uniform.  Likewise with the vertical sleepers in the photo of the "cape" bunker.  Some aren't even vertical.   None of these retaining walls look to have been made to careful specifications or with new materials. 
- Generally, this was also a period (and not the first period) where great effort was spent to try to make new things look like they had been around forever.   Is it not possible that, even in this early time period, those that built and maintained courses also wanted to make them look like they had been there forever, even if they had not?

[Sean_A]

Good grief.  So folks don't like the look of some bunker fluff, be it wood or not.  How many bunkers look good - even on sandy sites?  Its sand for cryin' out loud.  Ryan is right, a more productive and instructive thead would focus on the archie's ideas of the balance of sand and other elements and the placement of the bunkers.  The look is much of a muchness when we take into account all the different opinions on what looks good. 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

It's a rare day when I find myself disagreeing strongly with Sean but this is one thread where I have to.  The issue here is that the builders of CS went out of their way to make these bunkers look old and worn.  The sleepers don't fulfill a function, they are simply there for decoration (whether in the bunkers or on the Coke machine).  Part of architecture is the detail and these sleepers are a detail that some of us don't like.  Of course they are relevant.  Then, of course, there's Ryan and his absurd and tiresome fixation on Melvyn.  If he was interested in CS he'd know that there has been a recent thread discussing the architectural merits of the course but since his bete noire didn't post there he probably hasn't read it.

The difference between CS and OM appears to me to be that the sleepers in the bunkers at OM actually have a function in securing the bunker, rather than just being eye candy.  The sleepers at CS appear just to be eye candy and the worn, rotted look strikes me as a conceit and one I don't like.

I haven't seen either course, by the way, so I'm commenting just from the photos.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

So Ryan is right is he, so what about his other comments

“Melvyn just don't like it because an American designed it...... thats what it all comes down to. If you have read previous posts on this subject you can quickly get to the bottom of it.

Melvyn has a Utopian dream of golf courses only built on "pure links land". Anything else is substandard.

CS has an abundance of sleepers throughout the course in nearly every area, yet my comments are centred on fake aging of a few bunkers which I believe relates to golf course architecture that being the reason for GCA.COM Discussion Group

So that’s the way some on this Discussion Group wants to treat GCA. There is no more merit now in talking about bunkers with old bits of wood faking the age of even one but lets talk about the rankings of the top 100 courses. But this site is so repetitive on the top listing which has zero input to the discussions relating to GCA.

So much for live and let live. Come to think of it, I should not expect much from a bunch who have to use distance aids to play golf effectively cheating themselves every time they resort to their aids. If you cant judge distance then what hope is there that you can openly discuss golf course architecture


David

On all the sites either visited or that I have old photos in the UK they tend to display a uniformity. I certainly cannot comment on the US courses. I wish you well

Melvyn

[Sean_A]

It's a rare day when I find myself disagreeing strongly with Sean but this is one thread where I have to.  The issue here is that the builders of CS went out of their way to make these bunkers look old and worn.  The sleepers don't fulfill a function, they are simply there for decoration (whether in the bunkers or on the Coke machine).  Part of architecture is the detail and these sleepers are a detail that some of us don't like.  Of course they are relevant.  Then, of course, there's Ryan and his absurd and tiresome fixation on Melvyn.  If he was interested in CS he'd know that there has been a recent thread discussing the architectural merits of the course but since his bete noire didn't post there he probably hasn't read it.

The difference between CS and OM appears to me to be that the sleepers in the bunkers at OM actually have a function in securing the bunker, rather than just being eye candy.  The sleepers at CS appear just to be eye candy and the worn, rotted look strikes me as a conceit and one I don't like.

I haven't seen either course, by the way, so I'm commenting just from the photos.

Mark

I am not one to go for over-frilly courses.  On many levels I enjoy most of all bare bones golf.  So far as I am concerned, CS is out there in terms of spending money - much of which is questionable imo.  Whether or not the aesthetics of the bunkers float everyone's boat is merely an opinion.  If we are gonna talk about opinions I would much rather it be concerning the function of a bunker and how it relates to the terrain, stratetgy of the course and the balance of features.  The look is the least of my concerns, but I concede the style of bunkers is an easy target for discussion and on some level worth talking about.  In your opinion, other than aestehtics, do the bunkers work? 

Ciao 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()