[Frank Pont]

After the generally positive feedback on the restored sand face bunkers at the links courses Le Touquet and Royal Hague I was wondering if maybe the time would be rght to restore the sand face bunkers to Colt courses such as Muirfield, Lytham, Liverpool etc.

They all had rough edged sand faced bunkers originally, but all seem have to have gone to the generic sod faced bunkers.

I've found at plces where I have tried to convince clubs to go back to sand faced bunkers but failed (Cruden Bay, Hayling Island, Kennemer) that the main resistance came from the head greenkeeprs, combined with lack of historical knowledge and perspective of the greens committees.

I have experienced that wind erosion is not such a big problem as I had expected. At Royal Hague only one out of the 27 odd bunkers have given us sand blow problems. Le Touquet the first results so far are also very promissing.

Interested in your thoughts.....

[David_Tepper]

I do think sod-faced bunkers can, at times, look a little too clean and clinical.

I was at Royal Aberdeen for day 1 of the Walker Cup last year. The sod-faced bunkers there were so well groomed you would have thought that the edges of the bunkers had been trimmed by hand with manicuring scissors. They looked a little too perfect.

Sand-faced bunkers tend to have a more natural, rugged look to them.

   

[Mark Pearce]

Frank,

As you know, I'm more concerned about an inland Colt course which has started to contruct revetted bunkers!

In answer to the question, it's very difficult to imagine Muirfield, which is the Colt links course I know best, with sand faced bunkers.  It might look magnificent but part of me feels that the bunkers there have been revetted for so long that it wouldn't feel like Muirfield if they were sand faced.  Do you (or does anyone else) have any pictures of how these courses looked with sand faced bunkers?

[Frank Pont]

I'm sure either Paul Turner or Christoph Meister has pictures of Muirfield with ragged edge sand face bunkers.
I've definitely seen them somewhere and I must say they looked nice and Colt like to me (but thenI might be biased  )

[Melvyn Morrow]

Frank

Do you mean like this watercolour from 1885 of TOC Hell Bunker or the sod faced front which it now has (picture not shown)?



Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

13th, ca. 1936 (same year as the 18th)

[Michael Whitaker]

We had a discussion a few years back about the origins of revetted bunkers... it was fascinating. Maybe someone could find it and post a link.

I'm always amazed when I see the photos of The Old Course without revetted bunkers. Like Frank, I can see where a return to shaggy bunkers would be interesting on many courses. I think, however, that we are so used to the look of the revetted ones that turning back the clock will probably never happen on the high profile courses.

[Neil_Crafter]

no sign of revetting at St Andrews in 1903........ or bunker rakes for that matter!

[Jon Wiggett]

I have seen very few links courses with even the odd non revetted bunker so I guess I am very comfortable with the look. I agree with DT that if they are too perfect they look odd and this has been a problem in the last few years.

Jon

[Frank Pont]

Interesting responses, especially that a number feel that going back to the original style buynkering would somehow take away the character of the course. In the end this was/is a maintenance driven step, often pushed by the greenkeepers. In Amsterdam no one puts aluminum window frames in the canal houses instead of the more maintenance intensive wooden window frames, they stick to the original.

Unfortunately as we speak still classic Colt/Simpson links courses are changing to revetting. Granville, a Colt course on the French coast is a good example, up until a few years ago all bunkers were still original sand faced, now they are all being reverted to revetted bunkers. Hayling in England is another example.

Maybe the reason for this push is something different. In my work I have noticed that the greenkeepers teams really enjoy building rivetted bunkers in the winter months, as a change to the grass mowing all year. It is also something they can do themselves in house with no outside help (building rivetted bunkers does not need big shaping skills).

Overal I think one has to take the discussion to the custodians of the club and ask them the question why they do not want the course to look and play like the designer Colt or Simpson wanted it to play? My experience is that most have never thought about it, and the longer they think about it the lesser qnswer they have to this question.

This worked in Holland where in the 1990's most of the Colt courses had changed their bunkers to grass faced (often on advice of Donald Steel). Now we are in a position where all Colt courses, except for Kennemer, have gone back to the original Colt snad face bunkers. So with some  education, a good discussion, showing examples of succesful restorations of sand face bunkers one can convince people to back to the original state....

Finally, one of the other things that I would like about going back to sand faced bunkers is that you would have many more possible lies in a sand face bunker, making it a much more interesting and multi dimensional hazard that the rivetted pot bunker.

[Frank Pont]

Frank

Do you mean like this watercolour from 1885 of TOC Hell Bunker or the sod faced front which it now has (picture not shown)?

Melvyn

I think you know the answer Melvyn  , but to be clear, I like it as shown in 1885

[Ben Stephens]

13th, ca. 1936 (same year as the 18th)

Frank,

I prefer Muirfield in its revetted bunkers form two reasons - it looks tidier which reflects the stature of the club and also it is more intimidating. The flashed up bunkers look more natural, less intimidating and untidy.

It is like asking a question should Augusta revert to Mackenzie craggy outlined bunkers? Courses evolve over time and some get better than others.

Have you seen Colt's front nine at Pyle and Kenfig? they have improved the condition of it over the years and it is fun to play!

Cheers
Ben

[Mark Pearce]

Jim's picture of Muirfield does look great.  That said, revetting and sand faced bunkers would both look better than his picture of the island bunker on 18 (which is not one of the bunkers shown clearly in the 1930s photo).  A shame, perhaps, that the example photos of Muirfield are a comparison to greenside bunkers which aren't revetted today.  I think greenkeepers see revetted bunkers as a great demonstration of their skill and I'm sure a lot of club members love the look of them.

Interestingly, the building of a few revetted bunkers at Northumberland GC (a heathland Colt course in North East England) has been justified on the basis that pictures from the '60s show revetted bunkers on the course.  There's no doubt that a great deal of skill has been expended in the building of a set of revetted bunkers, they just don't seem appropriate in context.

Would it be possible to have sand faced bunkers as deep or as intimidating as, say, those that surround the 13th green at Muirfield?

[Sean_A]

I know maintenance has been suggested as not terribly important, but I think it is paramount to keep sand in holes.  That pic of St Andrews looks good, but what stops the bunker from growing due to continued erosion?  At some point, the bunker has to be controlled.  Furthermore, the examples of Muirfield's 18th look to be rather easy hazards - quite shallow.  I spose thats okay if that is one's philosophical bent (and I reckon they could be dug deeper, but not as deep as pots and still be of that sort - not really sandy faced though), but I would prefer harsher bunkers than that.  Mind you, if they are to be harsh, in most cases I think sparing use is wiser.  All that said, I think pots can be let go for more time than many clubs allow as I like the eroded look late in the revetted wall's life.  

Frank, you should go see Aberdovey.  They have built new bunkers - not sand faced, but not pots.  They seem to use grass as eyebrows ala RCD style to hold sand down.  I think they look good even if the added (essentially) rough is a bit harsh.  


Ciao

[Frank Pont]

Sean,

I had seen the Aberdovey pictures and I agree they look excellent, many interesting lies in the bunker and a very natural appearance!

I find it strange that both Ben and you mention that revetted bunkers are more intimidating/difficult. The main difficulty is if you lie close to the steep face of the rivetting. But the bottom is almost always flat or level. In a sand face bunker you never know what kind of lie you will have, often requiring you to hit a technically more demanding sand shot. In terms of depth, you can make them as deep and difficult as you want, I would be happy to make very difficult sand face bunkers at Muirfield. Good example is R Hague, where the complaint generally is that that the sand faced bunkers are too hard and too deep!

What this discussion shows is how used we have become to rivetting on links courses. Nothing wrong with that, but we should also be very clear that it is NOT Colt, he was extremely clear how he wanted his bunkers bult, and although it included a little bit of rivetting at the top of the face 3-6 inches) it was a sand face bunker....

Ben,

I guess our tastes just differ a bit on this. I do not think that bunkers that look tidier reflect the stature of the club. I would always prefer the bunkers of Sand Hills, Barnbougle Dunes and Pacific Dunes to those of Muirfield, and I think some of those clubs have staure as well.

Mark,

amazing to justify changes of a 1920's Colt/Braid course based on pictures of the 1960's, probably the lowest point with the 1970's of British golf design and maintenance.....

[Sean_A]

Frank

I disagree, there can be some horrid lies in pots.  Often times, folks say this is down to bad design, but I am not convinced.  I can't see anything wrong with going out backwards etc so long as it isn't a staple of the bunkering.  Getting out of steep bunkering is a big time skill that many folks struggle with.  Its like anything, many players can put up with not being able to putt at a hole from another part of the green once, maybe twice if they are generous, but anything more than that will usually be seen as tiresome. 

In any case, I would like to see these sand faced bunkers that are as deep as pots, hold the sand down better and are easier to maintain.  I know you didn't claim all this to be the case, but that is the crux of the matter if you are to overcome the usage of pots.  There must be some courses out there where the sand consistency will allow for this type of bunkering - have you an idea of the courses best suited for the overhaul?

The one thing about Aberdovey which I noticed is the bunkering looks intimidating (I spose part of the point of more visible hazards, but I always think dark areas in the fairway look very menacing not least because they are rather like icebergs - one can only see a small part of the danger)  but isn't really that difficult.   

Ciao

[Frank Pont]

Sean,

You are probabaly right, both types of bunkers can give you really hard sand shots.

On youre questions:

Sand face bunkers as deep as pot bunkers? See the depth of this one next to Royal Hague green 6, the hardest hole and green on the course (the Senior Tour players really bitched about it, even when playing of the yellow tees  ). And this isn't the most difficult or steepest bunker on the course....

 

Sand face bunkers that hold sand down as good as pot bunkers? That depends on the sand. If you use local dunes sand it usually means that it is quite erosion prone, since it got there in the first place by blowing  .  Two ways to deal with it, one is to put the bunkers with their faces away from the wind. That is what we have done at Le Touquet. At R Hague we have used coarser sand that doesn't blow as much, but this obviously costs more money

Sand face bunkers that are easier to maintain than pot bunkers? Here you have to to a cummulative time spent on the bunkers approach. With the right shaper I can build 3 large cut out bunkers with sand faces per day using 1 shaper and 1 work man. A large rivetted bunker can easily take two days working with a whole crew laying the sods. They last 5-6 years before they have to be redone. So sand face wins easily in the building side. Maintenance both need to be raked in the bottom, so the difference is raking the face. Again ideally to do not touch the face unless you have to eg if there has been a wash out. Avoiding washouts is a matter of good design, diverting the run off water away from the face.

Overall I would say there is no clear playing or cost advantage for one or the otherctype of bunker. So the choice is made on style taste more than anything else, and one again can ask why divert from a very important style element of teh famous designer of the course?

[Sean_A]

Frank

I look at the pic you posted and see a much easier bunker to get out of because of the wall angle.  Pots usually are much steeper and thus require a steeper sand shot which I suspect also helps keep sand in better.  I would be amazed if that bunker could retain sand as well as a pot, but I am very interested in seeing it tested. 

There is the issue of not being able to have faces downwind which I would think restricts where bunkers can go - unless different styles are used - which I am not against per se so long as they look decent.  Castle Stuart seems to do a good job of the mix and match styling.  I recall being at St Enodoc and seeing sand flow from a new bunker on the rebuilt 16th hole.  Wind must cruise up the estuary and cause havoc.  I suspect a pot would hold that sand in. 


In any case, your idea is worth trying somewhere, but I couldn't say who the best candidates are.


Ciao

[Tim Nugent]

"Sand face bunkers that are easier to maintain than pot bunkers? Here you have to to a cummulative time spent on the bunkers approach. With the right shaper I can build 3 large cut out bunkers with sand faces per day using 1 shaper and 1 work man. A large rivetted bunker can easily take two days working with a whole crew laying the sods. They last 5-6 years before they have to be redone. So sand face wins easily in the building side. Maintenance both need to be raked in the bottom, so the difference is raking the face. Again ideally to do not touch the face unless you have to eg if there has been a wash out. Avoiding washouts is a matter of good design, diverting the run off water away from the face."

A couple decades ago, upon coming back from England, I was enammered with the Revetted Bunker so I built 3 on my Chipping/short game practice hole. I didn't want to experiment on some cllients Dime and I'm glad I didn't.  The 3 bunkers used up 2 semi-tailor loads of sod (2,600 sy) and as Frank Pointed out, lasted 5-6 years (well the taller face deteriorted faster than the shallow revetments).
This was a very windy site but all the golf course bunkers were sand-faced - although not HIGH sand faced- more like 1/3 -1/2 sand.
It could be the Mason sand we have here but blowing was not a problem - but then again, we didn't have any many bunkers that were exposed to the prevailing wind.

With decending approaches into the bunkers and the faces not so high plus the bottoms more flat than concave, all were able to be raked with a sand-pro.  A problem I have with many revetted bunkers from a maintenance point of view is they must be raked by hand.  From a GCA point of view, they lack personality and artisry.  Perhaps the reason Supers on the other side of the pond like revetted pots stems from that, making them something they don't need to bother getting outside talent to do (and thus upping their worth to the Club). Plus, as we say here, they become a "Full Employment Act" allowing them a reason to keep on their best hands in the slow winter months. 
 Revetted bunkers are like the Golden Gate Bridge, once you get done painting it, it's time to go back to the other end and begin painting all over again.

I see that a 90's course here has just undertook to revet their entire course.  It should be interesting to see how this plays out  over the next 10years.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

So when were revetted bunkers first introduced and where?

[Tom_Doak]

Frank:

First of all, that's only going to happen at Muirfield or Lytham if they run out of money.  The R & A prefers revetted bunkers because they make the course HARDER.  They don't care if they are also more expensive to keep rebuilding.  

Second, though it is surprisingly expensive to rebuild the sod walls every few years, it is important to remember that the work can usually be scheduled in the winter months to round out the crew's year.  This approach has the benefit of shifting some of the maintenance work from summer to winter ... because sod wall bunkers are EASIER to maintain through the summer months.

Third, as someone with a lot of experience building sand-faced bunkers in windy environments, I can tell you that it's very difficult to keep them where you want them.  The picture of Aberdovey looks great; and my crew have built some stuff that's beautiful, too.  But don't use a picture of a bunker that somebody just built.  Show me what it looks like after 2-3 years of weather, and ask them how it's working then.

Years ago, I listened to Pete Dye answer constant questions about whether it was easier to maintain grass-faced or sand-faced bunkers.  In the end, the question always came back to other factors:  how perfect you were trying to maintain them [keeping the grass cut perfectly vs. dealing with washouts], and how many steep bunkers you had [the gentler ones are pretty easy to maintain either way].  I suspect it's much the same for sod wall bunkers as for the other two.  The only reason you think sod walls are expensive, is that you can't imagine how much money American superintendents spend on bunkers of other styles.

[Simon Holt]

13th, ca. 1936 (same year as the 18th)

Jim,

Where did you get those St. Andrews University pictures from?  Very cool.

Simon

[Cristian]

I wonder how expensive and/or labour intensive it would be to every now and then add sand to bunkers to compensate for blow out of sand faced bunkers. If the bunkers are constructed properly this should be within reason.

After all this is probably how it worked on the classic (Colt) courses until the 1960's. Pictures pre 1960 do not suggest bunkers were sandless pits.

The effect of the blowout sand itself, a more natural, some say scruffy,  and less manicured look, actually adds to how the course is presented in the eyes of many in this modern era of naturalism.

At the end of the day the reverting to grass faced or revetted bunkers in the 50's/60's perhaps has more to do with the desire to pursue a clean look including well defined limits between sand, fairway, rough and greens as was popular in the era of the the dark ages of golf course design. The exact opposite of what is popular now.

Revetted bunkers can be beautiful and the art of revetting is an interesting one. However there really is not much reason to convert classic courses to this look. I don't mind modern courses that have them, but would like to see the classics untouched or restored.

[Paul_Turner]

For Colt's Muirfield the bunkers were a combination.  Some of the steeper bunkers were revetted but the shallower ones being much more sand faced and a thinner line of sod.  The 13th is Simpson's so that photo is his work  and I think the 18th too (he did repositioned them).

Colt's bunkers at Lytham and Hoylake were ragged and mostly sand faced, with big "Le Touquet" bents planted in the face.  I think he may well have taken that style to R County Down at the same time.  

Obviously R County Down kept this style. So it's maintainable and nobody could claim these bunkers are too easy.

Some of the Irish links have resisted the urge for high revetted face:  Portrush, R Dublin

Trevose was a long holdout with sand faced bunkers but they recently sodded the lot.

[Ben Stephens]

Sean,

I had seen the Aberdovey pictures and I agree they look excellent, many interesting lies in the bunker and a very natural appearance!

I find it strange that both Ben and you mention that revetted bunkers are more intimidating/difficult. The main difficulty is if you lie close to the steep face of the rivetting. But the bottom is almost always flat or level. In a sand face bunker you never know what kind of lie you will have, often requiring you to hit a technically more demanding sand shot. In terms of depth, you can make them as deep and difficult as you want, I would be happy to make very difficult sand face bunkers at Muirfield. Good example is R Hague, where the complaint generally is that that the sand faced bunkers are too hard and too deep!

What this discussion shows is how used we have become to rivetting on links courses. Nothing wrong with that, but we should also be very clear that it is NOT Colt, he was extremely clear how he wanted his bunkers bult, and although it included a little bit of rivetting at the top of the face 3-6 inches) it was a sand face bunker....

Ben,

I guess our tastes just differ a bit on this. I do not think that bunkers that look tidier reflect the stature of the club. I would always prefer the bunkers of Sand Hills, Barnbougle Dunes and Pacific Dunes to those of Muirfield, and I think some of those clubs have staure as well.

Mark,

amazing to justify changes of a 1920's Colt/Braid course based on pictures of the 1960's, probably the lowest point with the 1970's of British golf design and maintenance.....

Frank

Flat lie in pot bunkers?? they are more like a saucer lie - the closer you are to the face there is a rise upwards. To the eye it is more intimidating to get out of a revetted bunker as it is harder to work out the angle standing in front of it thats why whenever I go in one I always look from the side to see the angle of the face. With sand faces as it is 'white' it is easier to see the angle if in front, it looks more 'friendly' and the face angle tends to be shallower than a pot bunker revetted face due to it being able to hold the sand on the sloped bank.

I cant see HCOEG/Muirfield having flash up bunkers as the club has evolved and members have played it for years as it is and like the tidy appearance of the bunkers as well as reducing the costs of sand whose prices in the UK is ridiculous (Adrian Stiff will testify) and the pot bunkers will contain them better protecting them from the wind. I also echo Tom Doak's comment that the R and A also want revetted faces because they are harder to get out.

Also having 3-6 inches of revetting on the top lip of the bunker has more maintenance issues as the binding would be weak due to lack of support below it. On this topic it seemed to me that Colt looked toward the aesthetic rather than maintenance issues. Luffenham Heath rebuilt all their bunkers with a 3-6 inch revetted lip and they are having to rebuild some as they have fallen apart.

Muirfield has much higher stature as a club than Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle Dunes - Its 100 years old and still has a 19th century club attitude compared with the three you have mentioned all of them were built in the 21st century trying to echo the early days of the famous courses of the 19th century. It will be interesting to see what the three courses you have mentioned be like in 50 years time. The sand faces will constantly erode and change shape as well as tastes towards golf course architecture design and aethestic wise will change and bear an influence on the future changes.

Cheers
Ben

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()