[Patrick_Mucci]

About a year or so ago I posted a thread about cross bunkers

In the December 15/22 issue of GolfWeek, Brad Klein devotes a column to: a little of their history, their demise and hopefully their resurrection.

It may be that the Televising of the Senior Open at Plainfield will act as a catalyst with respect to restoring abandoned cross bunkers, and rejuvenating interest in incorporating them into new designs.

What  clubs have eliminated cross bunkers from their golf course, when and why, and  do you know if the club intends to restore them ?

Should some, like the 3rd at NGLA be promoted, more into play, by moving the tee back, making their carry a meaningful choice ?

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

I think cross bunkers need to be more of a strategic option employed by any architect. Bunkers on the sides of holes are today less meaningful given the predictability of today's equipment.

Cross bunkers add a great deal of strategic calculation. I thoroughly loved the inclusion of bunkers in the middle of fairways -- the 3rd at PD is a good example. Bethpage, Ridgewood and I'm sure of a number of other holes in the NY metro area have them.

As far as NGLA 3rd hole is concerned -- adding a bit more length would not hurt and as you indicate brings into play the very nature of what the bunkers are supposed to do -- make players THINK very carefully before pulling the trigger at the tee.

Just an opinion ...

[TEPaul]

Haven't seen Brad Klein's article on cross bunkers, but their demise? Where does he say they've been taken out? And whereever that is a good restoration should put them back in! They sure haven't been taken out at my course (other than the "top shot" bunkers) or all the other Ross courses I've seen.

Most of the cross features I've seen on a lot of the old courses are partial cross features anyway, except maybe Tillinghast and Crump.

Pat, if you want to see some cross features on new construction courses you should get out and see some Doak and also some Coore & Crenshaw, the architects you love to say we all admire too much!

[Mike_Cirba]

What do we think of the bunkering scheme on this hole, located on a course that's been recommended to me and which I'm hoping to play soon?  Incidentally, the course is only a few years old.

http://www.tourgolfinc.com/holes/hunto8.html

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

A good example of bunkers en echelon. In my mind variety is the key - cross bunkers, diagonal, en echelon, side bunkers, central hazards, etc.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I like the look of that! Talk about features in the middle! Well I certainly always am--and that's definitely lots of features inside the fairway lines. It does look a bit too much like a pinball game to me though. Somebody is getting the right idea--sort of!

[TEPaul]

By the way, MikeC, if that particular hole is Ron Fream, I'll be go to hell, as my Dad used to say. He's like some of the late 50s, early 60s rock singers who tried one style after another until something finally caught on!

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I'll tell you what that Hunter Oaks designer should do with that hole you posted. Take out the first two bunkers, take the big cross-bunker on the right and turn it a bit diagonally and meld it into the next bunker up on the left, take out the next bunker on the left and the one just in front of the green and he would really have something!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Actually, the designer of Hunters Oak was in attendance at Jeffersonville during Brad Klein's Donald Ross presentation the other evening, and it wasn't Ron Prichard.  His name is Ian Scott-Taylor and more can be found at www.dragongolf.net

Besides the mid-fairway bunkering, what I found appealing is the apparent random look of their placement, yet it's clear that they are really placed with intent.  It reminds me a bit of that hole of Stephen Kay's that you and I have talked about at Blue Heron Pines (#7?) that just appears to be a field of bunkers from the tee, yet offers clear choices once you actually play it.  

By the way, your suggestions are intriguing and I'd like to know what you think of some of the diagonal bunkering at Blue Heron Pines East, by Smyers, if you get down there sometime.

Tom MacWood,

I definitely agree that variety of bunkering schemes is key.  

[Craig_Rokke]

Mike-

I sort of like what I think he's trying to accomplish. It sure looks like the aerial view of a Taliban runway though! Is
the course part of the group of other Queenstown courses?
Do you know who did/is doing the course?

[Mike_Cirba]

Craig,

Please see my note above to Tom Paul re: the designer.

Hunters Oaks was built in 1999 as a private, corporate retreat on the eastern shore of MD.  If you're interested in heading down there, let me know.

[Craig_Rokke]

I had overlooked your answer to who designed the course.

[Steve Sayers]

Lu Lu (Ross 1912) has eliminated many bunkers over time due to finances/maintenance issues – including the cross bunkers on 5 and 17.  We are in the process of developing a master plan /restoration plan and it is the hope of all involved that many of the original bunkers including the cross bunkers on 5 and 17 will be restored.

With regard to cross bunker restoration, under the thread The "Added Yardage" Factor?? TEPaul wrote:

“I couldn't agree more when you say that "adding" yardage by "adding" tees is far better than changing and moving architectural features on the body of the hole itself”

When adding yardage is not an option due to space limitations, is it better to restore features (i.e. cross bunker) in their original position or move them so they have a value similar to when the course was designed?

[Mike_Cirba]

Steve,

That's a great question, and although the purist in me would prefer to see them restored to their original position, I can see strategic related considerations for perhaps shifting their position.  I guess I'd recommend looking at it on a case by case basis.  

For instance, if a cross bunker isn't in play, might it have served some other purpose? (i.e. directional, "hiding" feature, or even "top shot"?).

On #5, could you describe where the cross bunkers used to exist?  

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I love cross bunkering. A course i play in alabama named Steele Wood, designed by jerry Pate has them employed in the side of a hill on the 14th hole diagonally setting up a very stategic blind tee shot over them. doak did the same in a less severe way on the 9th at PD. I feel it is a great once a course tool. I also love modifications of them for 2nd shots on par 5's.

[TEPaul]

Steve:

That's surely the ultimate question! My preference would be to move them to bring them back into play for today's golfers and again make their placement strategic and meanful but that should definitely be in the hands of a really good architect and not just some people on the green committee for their own personal game (as so often happened in the past).

It can be tricky business moving them a lot as you might start missing some natural upslopes and such (or have to reform them) and the progressive and connecting strategies can get out of whack but be encouraged that for every problem there is a reasonable solution somehow that can stay within the character--or at least I hope so!

I heard Ron give a lecture on restoration at Atlantic City last week (with GeoffShac on the panel too) and he used one of your aerials as one of his slides. I believe he said he thought the aerial was one of the best and most explanatory aerials he'd seen of Ross showing everything he needed to see.

I'd be glad to talk to you some more about your restoration plans for LuLu--I love the golf course--it's my kind of place! Your close quarters and tightness does present some problems though! If there seems to be no way to work around the tightness you should factor in the concept of real "firmness" for the golf course--it would seem to be contradictory but the way it can work might surprise you as to its assets and benefits!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Sayers,

Good luck with the restoration of the cross bunkers at LuLu.

Will an entire plan be submitted for approval, or will its component pieces be submitted for approval ?

Will you use Gulph Mill's cross bunkers as an example or Ross's intent, in your effort to recapture the lost cross bunkers ?

TEPaul, et. al.,

I can see the demon "fairness" raising its ugly head any time a cross bunker is being considered for restoration, or first time introduction, especially if the membership gets to review and break down a project into its component pieces.

Walk me through the cross bunkering at Gulph Mills using the pictures that you've included in your most impressive book.

Thanks.

[Steve Sayers]

Mike:

Lu Lu’s 5th originally had two bunkers about 75 yards from the green. One bunker is still visible in the right rough as a grass bunker.  Based on a 1924 aerial, there was a sister bunker to the one in the rough that was in the middle of the fairway.  Both bunkers were unusual shapes that can be described as frying pans with fried eggs (grass mound) in the middle.  I will try and scan the aerial photo and post it here later in the week.

TEPaul:

As you know we are working with Ron Forse on the restoration / master plan and I am sure he will do an excellent job of restoring Lu Lu, bunkers and all.  The current Green Committee is well aware of the hazards of pursuing individual objectives and not those of the membership as a whole.  With that thought is there a way to determine where the placement of the bunkers would be the most effective in capturing the design intent of Ross?  One way I have been thinking is to paint a grid on the fairway for a week (or more to capture more playing conditions) and if your ball comes to rest within the grid place a hash mark on a sign.  This will give the committee a better understanding of how the hole plays for the membership and where placement of the bunkers would be most effective.

With regard to the aerial photos of Lu Lu, I was at the Hagley Museum of a short time last week.  There are 14 photos of Lu Lu; however, there are also several photos indexed under Manufactures that also capture a number of holes at Lu Lu, including one showing the fairways of 8 and 11 joined at the top end creating a large horseshoe effect. Unfortunately I did not have time to devote to ordering the photos, but will be going back within the next few weeks to continue my research.

Thank you for your offer to talk with me about the restoration of LuLu and I will certainly take you up on it!  

Patrick:

At this point, I believe we are looking to submit the entire plan for approval from the membership; however, I’m sure prior to that, there will be discussion on the component pieces.

Thank you for your well wishes with our restoration project.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Sayers,

It has been my limited experience that when you place visible markings on the golf course, it's akin to painting a bullseye, and may result in contentious debate with factions championing what suits, or doesn't suit their game, sometimes derailing or delaying the project.

Perhaps line of sight, vis a vis, stakes, far removed from the fairway and rough might be less noticeable, while still providing the method for deternining the ultimate bunker location.

Good luck in your effort to complete the maximum restoration achieveable.

P.S.  Keep us posted on your progress.

[Tyler Kearns]

In regards to the HunterOaks hole, it's nice to see bunkering implemented in the line of play, rather than simply to the sides of the fairway, but it appears somewhat overdone. The first couple of bunkers seem to be solely in play for the weaker players, thus they may have a very difficult time. The whole strategic idea, that ample room be given so that poorer players can avoid forced carries or hit dead straight drives (at the penalty of reaching the green in more than regulation numbers) seems lost.
As far as making longer players think before pulling out the driver on the tee, this hole is effective, for it can only be conquered by a long, STRAIGHT ball, or deftly played wedge after long-iron from tee.

[Mike Cirba]

Steve,

I think we speculated about the possibility that the long, uphill 5th may have played as a par five when it was first built.  The cross-bunkers 75 yards short of the green would have definitely been a go-no/go decision for longer hitters back in the teens.  

Interestingly, and please see my reply to TKearns below, I would also guess that it still plays much like a par five for a good portion of your membership!  So, I would heartily recommend that they be placed exactly where Ross put 'em!  

I say this because moving them to 50, or even 25 yards short will have little impact on the best players, but they would certainly create strategic interest for the majority of the members, who would be left with the dilemma of playing left (and leaving a sharply downhill running approach), trying to carry the bunkers, or laying up and leaving a considerable pitch third shot.  

TKearns;

Shouldn't higher handicap or short hitting players have a pleasurable challenge too???  

I find it to be amazingly patronizing that we've all fallen into this mindset that the path to the hole for the weakest hitters has to be totally devoid of interest, challenge, excitement, and strategy.  The thinking seems to be, "let's just clear the path and let them bump it along and they'll be happy as pigs in manure."  Well, to that I say, "rubbish!"

I play a bit of golf with women and seniors, who tend to drive between 140 to 200 yards, with carries of 120 to 180 respectively.  Why not have a bunker at 140 where the weaker player has to decide to avoid or carry it?  Who cares if the stronger player considers it to be a frivolous hazard, of little note or consideration?  

Just watch a super senior take on a fearsome looking hazard courageously, and take a look in their eyes as they watch their ball sail away....watch their body language as the carry looks questionable, and then watch their smile when you tell them that the ball found the fairway beyond (they can't generally see that far), and then tell me that your heart isn't racing a little bit for them as well.  

[TEPaul]

Steve:

Mike Cirba makes a really really good point about those cross bunkers on #5! It's almost automatic when thinking about this subject to look at things through the eyes of a good player only and it's wrong to fall into that trap.

When routing a course at first and then applying golf features to the routing it always makes sense to me to start by looking at it through the perspective of the very good player, but this should be done only for strictly spatial reasons as a starting point (otherwise I find it's very easy to get yourself stuck for  room or length)! However, once you've gone through the design application for that particular player it works to start backing back down and visualizing things (features) through the perspective of other levels--generally from the tee but sometimes backwards.

Regarding restoration, particularly those cross bunkers on #5 Mike Cirba is very correct about them for good players--they just won't come into his wheelhouse! Some people have always wondered the true reason Ross designed so many of those types of cross bunkers and there seems to be many valid reasons all of which I think RonF can tell you. Some subscribe to the notion that the courses were so firm back then that a reasonable option (for anyone) was to carry the ball over them and onto the green. Most of those types though are 50 and less from the greens. Yours on #5 at 75 seem a bit far out for that and probably were designed a bit more for the strategies (of others) as MikeC said.

My point, like Mike's, is you should not try to fit them (move them) for the good player and you should very much consider all the other levels when restoring them. And in that vein it would seem they should probably go back in where they were, as he said.

I don't know how your taking the restoration plan through your membership but if you're going to present it for everyone's perusal you will probably find the whole gamut of opinion, as we did, about certain features. The good players will likely wonder why restore them at all (they won't see how it affects them and therefore they'll question their necessity and cost) and the other levels will be concerned about how they will affect their play!

This is the perfect opportunity to explain to every level of player the basic career theme of Donald Ross and his constant design endeavor to consider design (and different and exclusive golf features) for everyone to accomodate every level. Use his quote on this; "It's easy to design an easy course, and it's easy to design a difficult course, but it's not easy to design a course that accomodates every level of player."

So convince the good players that these features are not for them, they are for other levels and if they resist on that, ask them, in a nice way, not to be so single minded (or selfish) about looking at design questions. And for the other levels for whom they will come into play convince them that this is classic Ross, designing something for them (for everyone) to think about too (like the good players on other features), to deal with, to make interesting and enjoyable decisions with etc--convince them that this is a great example of the "designing for all" type style and one of the things that made the man so great (and the course so good)!!

And then of course don't forget to really analyze exactly how they WILL play for the women and the old guys because if you don't really analyze that specifically you're going to hear from them anyway! They will probably say we don't want anything there to encumber our progress and you'll have to tell them that golf features that APPEAR to encumber your progress is the very essence of the game and the basis of golf course architecture!!

But Mike Cirba makes an excellent point on this particular hole anyway. As for the other holes and cross bunkers (if there are others) you might have some latitude to move them for a good player, but maybe not, and even if you do remember what Mike said on this particular example.

[Bill_Coggins]

Patrick,

I know I would like to see more use of cross bunkers.  Lining 'em up down the sides is punishing most slightly poor shots, not making 'em think.

I also agree with the suggested changes to the Hunting Oaks hole listed.  I think the short bunker are too much for short hitters and the bunkers short and left are fluff.  I would leave the bunker directly in front of the green.  It helps create a "Bottle Hole" for the long hitter who doesn't think.

[Doug Wright]

For an excellent array of restored cross bunkers, I'd look no further than Wilmington Municipal GC, where Ron Prichard, Tom Devane and greenkeeper Greg Cross faithfully restored the original Ross design. Cross bunkers abound--on tee shots and on approach shots. See the GCA course description. Top shot bunkers too As I mentioned in my review of the course, the cross bunkers on the par 5s there are pretty easy to carry today. Could have been more compelling if they'd been move back 25 yards or so. But the good news about nearly all cross bunkers is they really make you think, which is the essence of strategy.  

[Steve Sayers]

Mike and TEPaul:

Thank you for your input and recommendation.  

Mike is correct in that Lu Lu’s 5th does play like a par five for many of our members.

Although we are in the early stages of the restoration planning, I believe the cross bunkers on 5 will remain in their original position for two reasons – first the remaining bunker is original and it would be criminal to flatten it only to reproduce it in another position and second, the bunkers will have the desired effect in their current location for all levels of golfer particularly with the thought that additional tees may be added forward of the current location (senior tees).

I scanned the 1924 photo of Lu Lu but have no idea how to post it.  Where can I find help on how to post a photo to the board?

Thanks again!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()