[TEPaul]

This is just another aspect that it may be significant to know in the history and evolution of golf course architecture. I wonder who was the first to propose such a thing that can be fairly well documented. And I wonder when it was first proposed and where.

I believe it is fairly clear that Leeds intended to bunker up Myopia slowly. That may've been as early as 1896 or 1897. It seems this might have been the intention of the Fownes of Oakmont too, perhaps as early as 1903-04.

Macdonald certainly mentioned the benefit of such a thing but I am not aware that he said it before he mentioned it in his book in 1926.

It certainly seems to have been part of the original intention with Merion East too in 1911. Crump with Pine Valley may've been the same judging from the apparent chronological evolution of his so-called "blue/Red line" topo survey map. Crump and Govan were apparently dedicated "shot-testers" with bunkering design decisions over time.

William Flynn wrote about the benefits of it but as far as I can tell he wrote it first in the USGA's Bulletin in the late 1920s.

[Michael Blake]

Tom,

I've only read about 'bunkering up a course slowly' with regards to Flynn's writings that you mention in the '20's.  Was it Flynn who waited to see where the divots were before deciding where to add bunkers?

I'm sure all the others you mention have merit.  But I too am curious to know the ones that are documented.

[Matthew Sander]

Very interesting topic...I won't be able to shed any light on the historical aspects of Tom's question, but I can add some more questions

First, in instances where this was the approach, was the initial design entirely devoid of bunkers? Were there no initial visual bunkers to frame or to add interest? I'm sure it was case by case, but it seems that this approach would have been done to achieve efficiency in how the course was bunkered.

Secondly, are there any current projects or architects (probably more importantly are there any owners/developers) today that would consider this approach today? It would seem to be an effective method of bunkering a strategic design so the architect could assess a representative sample of shot outcomes from a variety of players and place bunkers accordingly. However, it sounds very impractical considering modern methods and course openings.  

[Philippe Binette]

Sometimes it was a money issue.

I think too that back in the days, memberships were formed BEFORE they had a golf course... so it could have been in the interest of the architect to get an understanding of the level of players the club had, and therefore delivering a product closer to its clients needs.

Also, I think the expectations for turf quality in the first 3-4 years must not have been really high, so coming back and fixing stuff was not as expensive or disturbing as it is today.

Granted, you needed an architect who had time to do that work.

[Mac Plumart]

I seem to recall Mackenzie saying if a club didn't have ample funds that they should build a few holes of the highest quality at first, rather than 18 so-so holes.  Then add more and/or bunker them out over time as more funds become available.  But I can't find that passage.  So, maybe I made that up.   

[DMoriarty]

Macdonald wrote about waiting to build the bunkers until after seeing play in a letter to Hutchinson in 1908.   In Scotland's Gift he quoted a letter from Charles Whigham giving him similar advice regarding the creation of NGLA.  But surely it must have started overseas before then.   

I've never seen any documentation that this was the stated approach at Oakmont or Myopia.  Lots of courses added bunkers over the years as they tried to make their courses harder, but that seems different to me.

[Dale Jackson]

A.V. Macan used this method from his earliest courses, starting with Royal Colwood in Victoria, B.C.  Constructed in 1913-14, it originally featured a small number of bunkers, most likely greenside.  It was only with play and Macan's ability to observe where tee shots and second shots ended up that he completed the bunkering after WWI.  He used the same practice on other courses and I believe wrote of it, although I can not immediately find it in  my files.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Dale,

As you may know, Macan co-designed Inglewood in Seattle about 1920 then returned a few years later to "bunker" the course at the request of the club. This is one of the best examples of Macan's early intentions relative to "bunkering a course later".

In general though, one of the challenges with restoring Macan courses today (Royal Colwood is an exception) is that he certainly did employ very few bunkers "out of the gate" at most projects. This is partly because - like Alister Mackenzie during the early 1930s - he was an advocate of using artificial sand bunkers conservatively... and, in some cases, "bunkering a course later". However, this challenge is compounded by the fact that many clubs for which Macan designed courses had limited funds committed to the initial course construction, and limited monies (or desire) to bring Macan back years later to revise bunker schemes.

So today, when you look at historic aerials of many Macan-designed courses there are very few bunkers to be seen. Along with an absence of paper plans in as many cases, we can only wonder what Macan's exact ideas and intentions were with regard to bunkering his golf course designs.

Thankfully, there's plenty of historical materials out there to get a good sense of his general philosophy regarding bunkers which can be used as inspiration. 

[Dale Jackson]

Jeff, I agree completely.  As you and I have discussed, Colwood is perhaps the one course that he had the time to develop fully, especially earlier in his career.  Judging by his writings on Shaughnessy he may have been able to bunker that to his own thinking.

I wonder if the sudden shift from Macan to MacKenzie at Cal Club was, in part, attributable to his slow approach to bunkering?

[RSLivingston_III]

Bendelow built a course here in GR in 1913-14 and the article talking about it described how they wanted to grow it in, play it, and then place the bunkering.
Is this what your looking for?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Dale,

Good question regarding Cal Club. As I'm sure you know, too, Macan's  work there was a remodel job. Mackenzie and Hunter were the third/fourth architects involved with the development of the Cal Club course... and, about the time they became involved there, I presume there was a bit of a "buzz" in California about the doctor's "availability" to do work around the state. Macan or Mackenzie, who was already in the area?

Shaughnessy is an interesting study. I've read about Macan being given a "freehand and unlimited budget" there, during the late 1950s, which promopted me to track down an early 1960s aerial of the course (it opened for play in 1960, I think). Upon receiving this aerial, I was shocked with regard to the bunkering. I expected not to see many; but, frankly, the early 1960s aerial of Shaughnessy isn't much different than most other Macan-designed courses: Very, very conservative use of bunkers; and, those bunkers seen in the aerial photo are very simple in shape. Nothing any lover of golf course architecture would rave over.

In part, this suggests to me that Mr. Macan was (again) confident the course layout and greens would provide sufficient playing interest and challenge. No need for too many bunkers!

[mike_beene]

was Champions Cypress Creek done this way?

[Mark Pritchett]

Sometimes when developing commercial buildings it is wise to wait a bit before installing landscaping.  This allows the landscape installation to adapt to the human traffic pattern around the building, rather than having worn out grass spots and/or paths through flower beds and shrubbery, etc. where people create "shortcuts" for their ingress/egress. 

I suppose adding bunkers in a slow fashion could serve a similar purpose.

[Bill_McBride]

With regard to Oakmont, the anecdotal evidence (which I heard while playing with a long time member) is that Mr. Fownes would see or hear of a player driving the ball to a location which he didn't like.  The next morning there would be a bunker in that location!

[TEPaul]

Bill McB:

That's true but one probably needs to consider which Fownes one is talking about. It's my understanding from the very good recent Oakmont history book (which I hope someone like Tom MacWood on here will not call another work of fiction as he has with the history books of Merion and Myopia  ) that H.C. Fownes and his son W.C. Fownes essentially worked on the architecture together as long as H.C. was alive (until 1935 I believe) and following that the architecture was worked on by W.C. until he either resigned as president in the late 1940s or died (in 1950). Both basically worked with the excellent Oakmont greenskeeper Emil Loeffler for a good many of those later years. It is true that the quantity of bunkers continued to increase under the Oakmont reign of the Fownes family until 1950. I think the course ended up with 200-300 bunkers.

Herbert Leeds of Myopia continued to increase the number of bunkers on that course over his 20 year reign as did C.B. Macdonald at NGLA, Wilson/Flynn of Merion, Crump of Pine Valley, Travis at GCGC etc. This seemed to be a common theme of those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architect who worked on those special projects for so many years.

If there was a professional architect involved in some special project for that many years the most likely candidate would probably be Donald Ross with Pinehurst and Pinehurst #2.

[Dale Jackson]

If there was a professional architect involved in some special project for that many years the most likely candidate would probably be Donald Ross with Pinehurst and Pinehurst #2.

Tom, AV Macan, Royal Colwood, 1913 - 1964

[Bill_McBride]

Bill McB:

That's true but one probably needs to consider which Fownes one is talking about. It's my understanding from the very good recent Oakmont history book (which I hope someone like Tom MacWood on here will not call another work of fiction as he has with the history books of Merion and Myopia  ) that H.C. Fownes and his son W.C. Fownes essentially worked on the architecture together as long as H.C. was alive (until 1935 I believe) and following that the architecture was worked on by W.C. until he either resigned as president in the late 1940s or died (in 1950). Both basically worked with the excellent Oakmont greenskeeper Emil Loeffler for a good many of those later years. It is true that the quantity of bunkers continued to increase under the Oakmont reign of the Fownes family until 1950. I think the course ended up with 200-300 bunkers.

My impression was that the senior Mr. Fownes was the magician who made bunkers appear overnight.

[Phil_the_Author]

That is why Tilly at Shawnee is such a suroprise for his first course as the bunkering was done prior to the winter the year before the course opened for play in 1911. It seems like the norm during those very early years for many courses was to build tees and greens, try and get decent turf and then put in the bunkers.

[Tom MacWood]

I don't know who was the first, but in HG Hutchinson's 'Golf Greens and Greenkeeping' CK Hutchison wrote: "In conclusion, there is one piece of advice I have to offer to those who find themselves responsible for the construction of a new course: do not be in hurry to make bunkers. If you do, you are pretty certain to find that many of them are in entirely wrong places, the result being useless expenditure of time and money. Hazards are the finishing touches which make or mar a course, and such weighty matter cannot be too carefully considered."

That 1906 book was very influential.

[TEPaul]

That Hutchinson example is a good one and pretty early. However, Leeds at Myopia had been using that MO for six to maybe eight years previous. He just didn't publicize it in print. For that matter, either did Hugh Wilson other than one brief but highly interesting paragraph on bunkers that he actually crossed out of the chapter he was writing. With one minor exception it appears Crump never wrote about architecture either. For the latter three we will just have to look at what they did that way. Macdonald wrote about it but it appears not until 1926.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
No doubt there are numerous examples of golf courses that had bunkers added piece meal over time, but the question you asked was who was the first to propose it.

[DMoriarty]

Macdonald wrote about it but it appears not until 1926.

Again, this is misleading and inaccurate.  As I wrote above, Macdonald wrote about following this approach in 1908 in a letter to Hutchinson.  Portions of the letter were quoted in Country Life.  Also, as CBM reported in Scotland's Gift, Charles Whigham had advised that Macdonald follow this approach at NGLA.

I am unaware of anything written by or about Leeds that indicates he followed this approach.   Surely it wouldn't have taken two decades to figure out where the bunkers ought to go.  Rather, he seems to have been trying to make the course more difficult,  as well as following the advice of various experts who saw the course, including Hutchinson.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Guys

This was fairly common in Scotland and moved down to English courses in the 1890's pre 1896. The comment about checking the divots can certainly be traced to the 1890's. Bunkers where added after the design mainly on inland courses.

Old Tom practice this and left some inland courses with no bunkers with the intention of returning 3 months later to locate bunker sites.

Melvyn.

[Niall C]

To echo Melvyns comments, this was common practice in the late 1880's and 1890's with the first real golf boom when inland courses started getting built in Scotland and eventually elsewhere. It probably also originated the idea that the early GCA's simply laid the course out in an afternoon and that was all there was to it. In a way it was as the greens sites and routing would be chosen to make best use of the land and any natural features that could add interest. However the ground would invariably be fairly rough and ready and early play over the course was really considered part of the build process in that the foot traffic would consolidate the ground. Bear in mind that the type of ground chosen would be what they termed "old turf" ie, fields that had been used for grazing rather than crops, so while they literally did lay out a course in a day and tee it up the next it should be borne in mind sheep were still doing the job of the ride on mower and feet were doing the job of the roller. Every course was a work in progress so it would be standard practice to see the run of the ball once the course had settled down to see where best to put the bunkers. The other practical reason of course would be the lack of machinery and labour to allow them run off and do it all at once.

I believe it was also standard practice for Old Tom at least, and probably the other guys as well, to initially play a shortened course. The idea being that once the footfall had consolidated the ground and the ball was running, the tees could be moved back to allow for it. This was how Old Tom laid out Killermont, his second last course built in 1903, and which wasn't bunkered until I believe 3 years later.

Tom P - to answer your question, what literature do I have to back all that up ? I can't honestly point to any books but just snippets from lots of old newspaper articles.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn and Niall,  I agree with both your posts and would add that this also seems to be what was happening with the early courses in the US, including Myopia.  Another factor seems to have been that initially the courses were for golfers who were mostly novices, or nearly so, and bunkers were added over time to make the courses more difficult as the membership improved. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()