[Matthew Mollica]

I'll refrain from referencing the course, or identifying the holes at first.

I'm interested in people's opinions on the maintenance practices in relation to these three hazards.







What's the consensus on the presentation of these three bunkers?

Matthew

[Tommy Williamsen]

I don't mind flora in waste areas, but none of these pictures enhance the look of the course.  They just looked uncared for.

[Brett_Morrissy]

MM,
I am guessing that is a recent reno in AUS, the pig's ear or ice plant for our Northern mates, has gone too far in the 1st and 3rd images, the fact that it spreads and grows so quickly automatically has a unkempt look as opposed to 'wild'.

I don't mind the ice plant, but it must be a maintenance nightmare, recently playing Spyglass where I was told that they have recently spent a lot of money and man hours removing the ice plant from the sandy seaside holes.

So, what do I think of the 3 bunkers:
1 & 3 I do not like, it looks like the 'plague' or something from a sci fi movie spreading thru the bunkers - I would not be happy if that was my course.
2  - I am ok with the tufted grasses in a bunker, I play at a course with "sandy wasteland" - so don't mind grasses in the bunker, but would prefer it not in there, or it is not classified as a hazard but rather wasteland.

bm

[Dustin Knight]

Matt,

I must say if pic 1 is the bunker on the right hand side of the 4th at this particular golf course ??. Then in a very short span of time the flora has certainly
taken over a large majority of this particular wasteland post renovation. I guess it serves a valuable purpose to control erosion to a certain extent
on such a windblown site.

Appealling to the eye.. not really... more natural looking than pre-renovation.... IMO yes.

Having said that, It looks like this could predominately cover the sandy wastelands very quickly if not monitered on a regular basis. This would certainly
comprimise the intent of the renovation should the plant take over dont you think?

[Neil_Crafter]

Are all these actually defined bunkers - as in hazards?
The second one looks like quite a good natural sandy waste to me, but not the first and third that look like overgrown bunkers.
Neil

[Matthew Mollica]

Dustin,

The first image is of the 4th hole.
I appreciate that the wind is a real factor on this course, and that erosion is a concern, hence the bunkering style on much of the course.
This would also explain some of the planting, to essentially bind sandy areas which would otherwise end up 20km north.

The negative effect on playability on ice plant and other dense plantings however is significant IMHO.
Especially inside a hazard.

I showed the bunkering to a friend, and not knowing the course, he asked "how many months ago did the course shut down?"

MM

[Bradley Anderson]

The natural look is great if you are willing to pay extra for it. 

[Mark_F]

I appreciate that the wind is a real factor on this course, and that erosion is a concern, hence the bunkering style on much of the course.
This would also explain some of the planting, to essentially bind sandy areas which would otherwise end up 20km north.

Why have bunkers, then, MM?

[Matthew Mollica]

You raise a very interesting point Mark.

Not too long back, if I remember correctly, there were no bunkers in these three positions.
IMO, there need not be today either.

MM

[Andrew Summerell]

What should the definition of a waste bunker be? Has the growth in these bunkers been planted or merely allowed to grow naturally? If the growth within these bunkers were to be taken out, would they cease to be waste bunkers? And the questions go on….

Personally, most waste bunkers I have seen don’t work, are poorly designed & built & end up being maintained bunkers that don’t have rakes in them.

Even the idea of ‘pure’ waste bunkers within irrigation areas is stupid because local flora will grow & the bunker will be barely noticeable within a few years. So, if you want it to remain a waste bunker you have to maintain it, which goes against the idea of what a waste bunker should be.

Matty, don’t you think the white sand in the bunkers is beautiful? White sand waste bunkers in as area were the natural sand is yellow, hmmmmm!

[Dustin Knight]

Matt,

I took some pics of a lot of the "new" waste areas just prior to the tournament last year and they looked like they had been in place forever... I am truly shocked to see how quickly the vegetation has taken to these areas. The bunkering style was dictated by the wind and I wonder if some of these areas in hindsight should have been left untouched. I hope the recently renovated course not far away does not have such a quick growth of vegetation over the newly exposed areas...... I remember playing my 2nd shot from the area in pic 1 only 8 months ago and thinking how great it was... after these pics im not so sure... 

[Terry Thornton]

Matthew,

What hole is pic #2 on, if it's on LHS of #5 then I'm fairly certain it is not a hazard but sandy waste.

Pics #1 & 3 I don't care for at all. Perhaps other recent priorities have seen these 2 bunkers being neglected.

[Dustin Knight]

Let me say after those comments that this is certainly a favourite course of mine, however I am not so sure the restoration architect would have anticipated such a speedy covering of the flora. The newly sodded bunkers are a testament as to how exposed this property really is. Could the acelerated growth be a side effect of the extremely wet winter we have experienced so far this year??

Pup,

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic and such accelerated growth in these areas?? How is the wasteland on the right side of the 10th fairway progressing?... is this being consumed as quickly as 4??

[Dustin Knight]

Terry,

It certainly looks like the LHS of 5, I wonder if the lack of growth may have some relation to the wind direction and possible protection which the "junk" beside it may provide, as well as being on a spot where during our wet winter this year, moisture would funnel down towards the green very quickly and not be drained by the root sytems of the occupying vegetation prior to run off.

[Terry Thornton]

Dustin,

As I recall it, when that area on #5 was first done (maybe 7 years ago at a guess) it wasn't kept up and eventually grassed over etc. Its second incarnation was more extensive, and at the time of my moving 4 years ago was being 'maintained' quite well.

[Dustin Knight]

Matt,


Is pic 3 the area between the 8th and 12th?

[Dustin Knight]

Terry,


I fortunately play there quite regulary but only in the last few years have I really had my GCA hat on while there. I do remember the area on the LHS of 5 always being somewhat of a sandy waste area even back to the mid 90's. The pic of 4 really has me scratching my head though, I'm headed down there for a few days at the end of this month and will certainly check it all out with a little more detail.

Paging pup???


I can't help think that something like this would never happen at CPC as this site is often compared to in some ways.

This course is still leaps and bounds ahead of any in this state of the country!!!

[Phil_the_Author]

This goes back to at least 1911 when Tilly did this in some of the bunkers at Shawnee

[Anthony Gray]

  Sometimes they are just to penel.RCD has areas that are unplayable.I lost a ball at PB hole 3 in the left side bunker because the grass was so penel.At times it is over the top but in general I like the look.

  Anthony

[Neil_Crafter]

without wanting to spoil things, I think these are the waste bunkers at NSW Golf Club, after having looked at them again. And they are very different to the style of the sod revetted pot bunkers on the course. Do they work? Questionable.

[Matthew Runde]

I love thsose.  I'm sick of the felt-draped-over-a-brick look, because it seems so contrived.

[Terry Thornton]

Matt,


Is pic 3 the area between the 8th and 12th?

I think it is the LHS of #9

[Andrew Summerell]

Dustin,

As I recall it, when that area on #5 was first done (maybe 7 years ago at a guess) it wasn't kept up and eventually grassed over etc. Its second incarnation was more extensive, and at the time of my moving 4 years ago was being 'maintained' quite well.

I agree that the area left of the 5th has been maintained quite well. Interestingly, the tufts of grass in that waste area are what is often called 'Parramatta' grass in Sydney. (I don't know the real name & don't really care) It is native throughout the Sydney area & even in Matthews photo, it can be seen in the background.

We refer to these as waste areas, but really they are just areas that the vegetation has been removed to open up the sand below. The old photos in the clubhouse from the late 20's & early 30's show a lot of these areas.

[Andrew Summerell]

Terry,

As far as I know, the area to the left of the 5th has always been there, it's just that it was covered with grass for many years. In other words, they just had to clear the vegetation to get it to where it is now. Is that true?

As far as I am aware, the other two have been built/manufactured/dug out. If this is true, maybe it gives us a good guide to what should & shouldn't be waste areas.

The other question is, what bunps & hollows have been left over after original construction & subsequent renovations?

[David_Elvins]

Whilst I am not a huge fan of the bunkers, the club needs to do something.  By far the worst feature on the course is the wide expanses of couch (bermuda) rough that link the holes through the middle of the course (holes 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16).

The best holes are where the ti-tree is close to the fairway and they avoid this problem. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()