[Jonathan Mallard]

Interesting story about how they made the change in advance of the Open Championship in '13.

http://www.golfeastlothian.com/news.asp?s=2&nid=GEL-N10130

[Tom_Doak]

Did not think I would live to see the day.

[David Davis]

Although it's been a few years since I played Muirfield I seem to remember the bunkers I was in, 2 on the day to be really perfect in terms of the sand being not too deep and not to soft and powdery. They state the reasons to switch as not draining well and blowing away. Does the fact that it's blowing away mean the sand was essentially too powdery, not course enough? Or is the main reason just because they were running out of resources?

[Niall Hay]

Is this common for top end Scottish courses?

[Dane Hawker]

A sad day for golf.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Sustainability comes to mind, as does the idea that the sand does not last forever, of course they would need a sand supply to top up from wind erosion, etc.

So, what are they meant to do, what are the alternative solutions, the perception is that it is a very well run club, and would have made a well considered choice.

I am assuming they have not chosen bright, white Augusta type sand, but rather a sand that was a close match to the local sand in color, so what is the issue?

The only playability one I see is the heavier nature of the sand will mean they will play or require a different kind of shot.

[Ronald Montesano]

It is refreshing to read quotes from the course manager, the company representative, and no one else. Whether the R&A was involved or not, the fewer the voices in an article, the better it reads for me.

[Mark Pearce]

A sad day for golf.

What an odd statement.  Would you care to expand on why it is "a sad day for golf"?

[Tom_Doak]

The part it's difficult for me to understand is that the club owns another 200 acres of dunes immediately below the course and all the way along to the north of The Renaissance Club.  And they were running out of sand?

[Mark Pearce]

Tom,

That's a really good point.  I wonder if there are planning or regulatory reasons why they can't take sand from that land?

[Paul_Turner]

Good grief why don't they just use the natural sand?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Good grief why don't they just use the natural sand?

Paul,

I suspect they might have thought about this given that it will cost them a lot more money to import sand than to use on-site stuff.

Possible reasons that I can think of:

1. It doesn't drain well.
2. It blows around.
3. There isn't enough of it. Quarrying the nearby dunes may well have permitting issues given the ones Tom and team went through a few hundred yards away.

I have spoken to a couple of links courses that have run out of local sand... But I can't for the life of me remember which ones!... I do remember that one told me that they were considering nighttime attacks on the beach (which they didn't own) to steal a few grains here or there...

[Mark Pearce]

Good grief.  Ally gives three good reasons.  Coincidentally the same three reasons given in the article.

[Ally Mcintosh]

And given that the first of those reasons was what brought Lythym under scrutiny less than one week ago, the timing of the article clearly isn't a coincidence....

[Paul_Turner]

Ally

Do you think it's much different from decades past?  All the sand blown out?  I'm a bit skeptical of this.

I remember an old quote from the greenkeeper at Troon...Gary Player was complaining at an Open that there wasn't enough sand in the bunkers and the greenkeeper replied "far as I know, it goes all the way to China".  

Importing sand for bunkers on a links seems like maintenance overkill or they are just digging too deep now.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I honestly don't know Paul.... I'm not very familiar with Muirfield.

Have they ever had drainage problems in their bunkers?

Hawtree was in there recently, wasn't he? I wonder if it was in consultation with him...

[Brett Hochstein]

Ally,

Great points.  As for Lytham though, I think their sand was more of a water table issue, which doesn't suprise me at all.  I know at some of the bunkers at St Andrews you wouldn't have to go too much further down to hit water, and Lytham is that much further inland.  The telecasters made mention that the staff kept pumping water out and it kept coming back up from below.

---

I've never heard of this before at a major links, and it does seem surprising given all of the sand they have available on the rest of their property.  It did seem from my wanderings a few years ago though that they take most or all of their sand from the more wooded areas while leaving the dunes alone (SSSI? attention from locals?).  Maybe they were picking up more organic matter in those areas.  Even if they were taking the dune sand, it could still present a drainage problem if the particles differ from the bunkers in such a way that they lock each other up and fill the voids.  The course is much more inland, and I would imagine the golf course sand is different from that of the pure dune sand just on heavier plant material growing and breaking down upon it over a long period of time.

[Dane Hawker]

A sad day for golf.

What an odd statement.  Would you care to expand on why it is "a sad day for golf"?

I hate bunkers. I hate the many hours it takes to maintain them. I hate the costs of replacing sand. This is on parkland courses. The thing I like about Links course is that the bunkers are natural. If links course start buying sand from off site bunkers there is something wrong about how golf is played. A bunker is a hazard. If you go in it you should be penalised. 

[Rich Goodale]

My guess is that the sand will be thicker and heavier.  More like US courses.  Less hassle to maintain, but less interesting to play.  At least that is what happened at Dornoch when they switched sand supplies 5-10 years ago

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()