18 @ Blackwolf Run: Water-filled Bunker?!?

[Wade Whitehead]

For the US Women's Open this week the USGA filled the long bunker left of eighteen with water.

Coverage indicated it took three days to fill.

Questions:
1. Has this ever been done previously in championship golf?
2. Pak's winning recovery shot from her Open win was from the now-gone bunker.  Why would the USGA deprive the event of such an iconic finish?
3. At what point does this become a bad idea (if it isn't already)?  Are we headed toward filling greenside bunkers to make them more of a problem?

I think the whole idea is awful and would, were I the architect, take offense.

WW

[Andy Troeger]

Are you sure about point #2? I thought this was done the last time they were there as well. I recall being a bit surprised when I played the course years later and found all that sand!

Its a low area anyway next to the river, so even if its quite a project to make happen its not quite as odd as it perhaps sounds. The hole is tough enough anyway though and the course has plenty of water holes.

[Wade Whitehead]

Memory may be failing me on Point #2.  I thought I remembered her playing from the bunker on the way to her win.

WW

[Bill Seitz]

Memory may be failing me on Point #2.  I thought I remembered her playing from the bunker on the way to her win.

WW

From Ran's write-up:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/blackwolf-run-river/blackwolf-run-river-pg-ii/

Flooded to form a lateral water hazard for the 1998 U.S. Women's Open, the area left of the 18th has now been formalized into a bunker.

I assume they do this somehow by diverting the river?  I don't recall seeing a mechanism when I played it a couple years ago, but that would seem to be the only way to keep it filled, assuming they don't line it with something. 

[Wade Whitehead]

Got it.  It was flooded in 1998 as well.

Still, I'm wondering: At what point is this a bad idea, if it isn't already?

WW

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

It was originally intended to be a water hazard according to Kohler.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/bunker-returns-to-water-hazard-on-18-at-blackwolf-run/

[Howard Riefs]

Kohler pushed the USGA for it to again play as a water hazard this year.

http://m.jsonline.com/more/sports/160971355.htm

[Matthew Petersen]

Based on the info in that link from Howard, I see no issue. It certainly doesn't seem to be a trend as this is the only course where I can remember it being done and it's actually being done to return the hole to its original design intent, more or less.

[SL_Solow]

I have played the course for years.  When it first opened the course descriptions described it as a water hazard.  For a long time it played as a dry grassy depression.

[Mike McGuire]

Awful with water. Seeing stairs down into a water hazard is comical.

[Wade Whitehead]

Architects: How would you react if a course owner decided to fill one of your bunkers with water for a major championship?

WW

[Matt Kardash]

I don't think any architects on this site build flat bottom bunkers that run the length of the entire hole. So, in that sense, I don't think it is even a discussion that is possible.

[PCCraig]

The hole is already hard enough without a water hazard running the length of the hole. Plus, it's a more interesting hazard with sand.

[Adam Clayman]

There's so much mis-information about this course it's embarrassing. The routing never began with the tee shot over the river. That was the original 10th.

The hole being discussed here was the original 9th and was not water, in 1989.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Architects: How would you react if a course owner decided to fill one of your bunkers with water for a major championship?

Well, never having been in that position, I don't really know, but hopefully they consulted Pete before doing it.  That said, I get the impression the USGA is pretty firm on what they want their courses to play like for the championships, and I would think clubs and archies are used to that.

My only close experience is Sand Creek Station getting the USGA Publinx in 2014.  They told the club they needed a bigger practice area than what we provided and a better short game area, so they called me and we did it.  I hope to be involved at least a bit in any course set up questions, but SCS has put on so many state am championships, I think they have their course set up figured out for that level player.

The whole water filled bunker reminds me that when Fuzzy Zoellar got into design consulting, his big thing was the 6" deep water filled chipping ledge, and I know at least one got built somewhere.  Any thoughts on that design feature?

[Mike Hendren]

Once again the USGA thinks they know more than one of America's great architects.  Is this more clumsy handiwork from Mr. Davis?

Bogey

[Mike Benham]

In regards to the architects original design, this is no different than the USGA lengthening a course, adding new tees boxes.

Just a month ago, we saw that they added a temporary tee box on 16 and a temporary bunker on 17 at Olympic.   And Olympic did not have a sufficient short game area so they converted the 18th hole (from 100 yards in and greensite - including sodding the green with the same bent grass as used on the Lake course) to the short game practice area.

This is what the USGA does.

[Wade Whitehead]

I understand that this is what the USGA does.  I don't think it's the same as lengthening a course, however.

Adding yardage is intended to require players to hit longer clubs into greens (matching, perhaps, what they once might have hit (before technology took over the world)).

Filling a bunker is dictating no recovery from a poorly played shot.  A bunker permits possibilities that a hazard does not.  Mr. Dye decided that a bunker was the best fit on 18 for a reason.

Will the bunker on 19 be removed now that the Open is gone?  I didn't realize if so.

And, yes, I realize that Se Ri Pak "recovered" from the hazard in 1998, but her ball didn't end up in the water.

WW

[Phil McDade]

Wade:

Dye (with Kohler's input) "lined" that bunker so it could go back-and-forth between being a bunker and a water hazard. On a course with many penal elements, the two realized a water-lined closer was a bit too much for the final hole for public play, but a worthy feature for championship play. So it "became" a bunker, and is so for the daily play at Blackwolf Run. But it reverts to a water hazard for championships. And Kohler, as mentioned in the linked article on this thread from the Milwaukee paper, liked the iconic image of Pak standing in the water -- and wanted to make sure the water element was intact for this year's championship.

[Wade Whitehead]

Thanks for that helpful response, Phil.

Are there "lined" bunkers on other course that allow this sort of elasticity?

WW

[Phil McDade]

Wade:

Not that I'm aware of...

[jeffwarne]

Wade:

Dye (with Kohler's input) "lined" that bunker so it could go back-and-forth between being a bunker and a water hazard. On a course with many penal elements, the two realized a water-lined closer was a bit too much for the final hole for public play, but a worthy feature for championship play. So it "became" a bunker, and is so for the daily play at Blackwolf Run. But it reverts to a water hazard for championships. And Kohler, as mentioned in the linked article on this thread from the Milwaukee paper, liked the iconic image of Pak standing in the water -- and wanted to make sure the water element was intact for this year's championship.

next year a lined windmill

[SL_Solow]

I just pulled out my file of yardage books (yes I confess, I keep a file) and pulled out an early Blackwolf Run before holes 5-13 of the river Course had been built on the other side of the road.  It showed number 9 of the River 9 (the hole under discussion) as having a water hazard running down the entire left side.  So perhaps the original intent was to fill the depression with water as has been done in both Women's Opens.  I have played the course from shortly after it opened and never saw it filled with water during regular play and i remeber asking in the pro shop about the different presentation in the yardage book, a feature that was retained in the book after the last nine was added.  I was told that they planned to fill it but apparently, only rarely.  Pete Dye's intent?  Someone will have to ask him.

[David Harshbarger]

Javier Arana apparently built a 1" deep water hazard.  Would this hazard be better if, when filled with water, it was shallow enough to accommodate a recovery?

[David Schofield]

The soils there are Sandy Loam (according to NRCS) which can support infiltration rates of 0.5 inches per hour (according to WisDNR).  The bunker is about 3 acres, so the flow out of an unlined bunker (ignoring evaporation) would be:

3 ac x (43560 ft^2 / 1 ac) x (0.5 in / 1 hour) x (1 ft / 12 in) = 5445 ft^3 / hour.

Converting to gallons per minute:

(5445 ft^3 / hour) x (7.48 gal / 1 ft^3) x (1 hr / 60 min) = 679 gallons per minute.

While this sort of fill rate would be possible, it seems unlikely that they'd keep that up for the entire tournament.  Therefore Phil's unsupported statement seems to be the most likely scenario.   

As for the source of water, the TV cameras showed a fill pipe pumping a steady but low flow into the bunker just ahead of the tee box.  It seems unlikely that the waste area is at or lower than the river because that would mean that the groundwater would naturally flood the waste area.  And even if it were at the same elevation, I'd be impressed if they could get a diverson past WisDNR.