Bunkers and putting surfaces, then and now

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was reading Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" today, and couldn't help but marvel at the character of so many of the old bunkers, fairway and greenside, and putting surfaces.

I don't know whether it's because the black and white photos give these features a distinct quality, but those two architectural features seem so much more dramatic than today's bunkers and putting surfaces.

The bunkers also seem so much more pervasive/systemic and expansive, to the degree that the golfer really had to "navigate" his way around the golf course.  They seemed to be a far greater impediment to scoring well.

Have today's bunkers and putting surfaces become sanitized due to mechanization ?

How often do you see an oddly shaped green, a non-symetrical green.

If anyone hasn't read Geoff's book, you really owe it to yourself to get a copy.

[Tom_Doak]

Greens have become sanitized due to SPEED.  Too many great old greens have had to be softened, because people's standard is now a number on the Stimpmeter, instead of the playability of a given green.

Bunkers have become sanitized due to the ridiculous desire for fair lies in hazards, leading to more frequent raking and edging and eliminating a lot of the rub of the green you use to find.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

Well said, ever thought of becoming a course designer?

Melvyn

PS To those not gifted with a good sense of humour, the second part of the above comment was a joke.

[Bill_McBride]

The sand pro and Stimpmeter are largely responsible.  Too bad. 

[Jeff_Mingay]

It's unfortunate, too, that many golfers (and even designers) think of bunkers as peripheral elements - features that should be located off to the side of the centre line. There's nothing more exciting, in many cases, than putting a bunker "right in the golfer's face". Golfers are then really forced to "navigate" their ways to the hole.

As I recall, a number of those great old holes shown in Geoff's book illustrate this point and, in turn, stand out as quite dramatic by comparison with so many golf holes designed in more recent times.

[Peter Pallotta]

Is it also a function of the greater comfort level that designers and clubs/members back then had with adding bunkers and hazards after the course was essentially finished?

I have a feeling that the landscapes Pat refers to seem much more 'hazardous' than today's because there was not the pressure back then to get the course right -- and absolutely right -- from the very day it opened, such that part of the acceptable 'evolution' process could include going in a adjusting/adding bunkers depending on what the players/membership tended to do and wanted.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think the absence of trees brings one's focus to those bunkers and putting surfaces.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Greens have become sanitized due to SPEED.  Too many great old greens have had to be softened, because people's standard is now a number on the Stimpmeter, instead of the playability of a given green.

Bunkers have become sanitized due to the ridiculous desire for fair lies in hazards, leading to more frequent raking and edging and eliminating a lot of the rub of the green you use to find.

Tom,

It may be difficult to slow down and reverse the speed issue, but, what about the bunker issue ?

What can be done to restore character to the shape and function of bunkers at the member, superintendent and architect level ?

[Jason Topp]

...

What can be done to restore character to the shape and function of bunkers at the member, superintendent and architect level ?
[/quote]

Not much (on the function side) if a super wants to keep his job

[Rick Shefchik]

Did old-style (i.e. more interesting and hazardous) bunkers wash out more frequently than the current, blander variety?

[Kyle Harris]

The sand pro and Stimpmeter are largely responsible.  Too bad. 

Those using them are in the state of responsibility. The tools themselves, when employed correctly, are quite helpful.