[PCCraig]

As discussed in a previous thread, my home course is considering a bunker renovation. At this point, the long range plan is to renovate all of the bunkers with a "flat-bottomed, grass-faced" style and to consolidate the total number of bunkers (but keep the overall square footage of sand the same) from roughly 65 to 40.

It's been discussed that the bunkers on our 3rd hole will be renovated first a season early as a "test" hole.

Is this a common practice prior to a full restoration/renovation project? How are they generally received? How helpful are they to the club in determining costs and practices (as the plan is to reconstruct in-house)? Do they pose any problems or risks?

[Lester George]

I did two "test holes" early in my career at Ocean city Golf & Yacht Club.  Worked out fine for them and we built the other 16 a year later.  Flat bottomed grassed faces seems a bit 80's sounding style wise.  Maybe build a better bunker if you want to reduce maintenance?

Lester

[Tom_Doak]

If a club doesn't want to rebuild all the bunkers in one big disruptive fall project, it's not unusual that we are asked to work on a hole or two early on, though few clubs actually call it a "test" hole.  The idea is that everyone will become more comfortable with what the finished product will look like, and there will be a groundswell of support to do the rest of the project.

Note that I have also seen many examples of courses where one or two holes were rebuilt by an architect in a new style, and the membership decided NOT to move forward with that style, but the "test" holes survived for quite a while.  Bel Air looked like that when I first saw it; George Fazio had redone the 6th hole in the late 1970's and they didn't do any more.  I saw the same thing at another course quite recently, but can't remember where.  Generally, though, better to mess up one hole than all of them!

[Terry Lavin]

Ron Prichard did this at Beverly when we renovated the course around 8 years ago.  The membership was deeply divided about the master plan.  The committee was also split pretty evenly, with half of the guys claiming that the massive tree removal would make the course "too easy".  Most of these guys were the single digit handicap guys who love to see the chops suffer, but there were plenty of tree huggers in that camp, too.  In any event, Prichard suggested that he could take the most "vanilla" hole on the course, our short par-4 14th and if the members were happy with the work, maybe they'd just let him do his job.  He transformed a hole that had been dumbed down over the years by tree planting and bad bunker construction into a pretty, enjoyable and potentially volatile short hole.  Everybody shut up when they saw the work and Prichard was given free reign to do his work.

[corey miller]

What specifically are you testing for?  

I suppose in your case since you are doing it in house one could argue you can see if the people are capable but it seems you are focusing a little on style and either this style bunker is appropriate or it is not.  Who do you want to make that determination?

At the end of the day, most members will be happy with new sand, but if this style differs dramatically from what they are used to or area comparators (without regard to architectural heritage) you might get some gripes about "style".  At some point, our former "restoration specialist" (before we hired Gil Hanse,George Bahto) said he would build test bunkers in different styles to see what we wanted.  Is that the way to go?

At my home course of 27 holes we started on the less played nine in a style completely different than what the members were used to or what was in the ground at other prestigious area courses.  To my surprise, most all members were very  pleased which gave us a little more license to be bold on the main course.  That said, by the time  we had  started our "test" we were very much committed to what we were doing and who was doing the work, it was just a matter of attempting to educate the membership in the same way the decision makers had become educated. Almost all information was available as to the decision making process were someone interested in the matter.

Our plan called for a payment on a "per-bunker" basis.  Short of rock, or any other such circumstance, I have a hard time thinking you should not be able to get a pretty solid handle on the cost of the bunkers.

[Dan Kelly]

It's been discussed that the bunkers on our 3rd hole will be renovated first a season early as a "test" hole.

Pat --

If they're going to use No. 3 as a "test" hole, perhaps they should go further than renovation, all the way to restoration. Have those bunkers almost completely surround the green, as they did way back when.

See the photos in your clubhouse.

Dan

[corey miller]

Terry

Were you involved in the process at Beverly?  I suspect you were a supporter of the Prichard work? from the beginning but when the club agreed to the one hole test did you have any sense at what the likelihood of success (acceptance of plan) would be?  

I do  think the argument about less trees/easier is really hard to explain to the average member.  I like just saying "what shot is more fun"?  Even after tree removal, I am not sure the tree proponents understand the course might not be harder and are probably loathe to admit it is more fun.

[Greg Ohlendorf]

We used a similar thought pattern at Flossmoor with Ray Hearn. We gave him our 18th hole which was surrounded by bad willow trees and asked him to design a solution. The club implemented that design and the balance of the master plan on the other 17 holes was subsequently implemented.

Greg

[Mike_Trenham]

Ron Prichard rebuilt the practice bunker at my club prior to getting the project started.  He shifted it more to the side and reclaimed some green surface.  We are going to attack the last four holes that have yet to be touched up.  It will be a 10 year plus process from the first meeting, they got the clubhouse done quicker but with three architects of record.

[Kalen Braley]

As Mike alluded to...

I've heard of this before and always wondered why clubs just don't have someone come in and redo the practice area bunker(s) so they can see what they are getting, before committing to changing something on course.

I mean how mish-mash would that be to change all the bunkers on just 1 hole, and then decide you didn't like it? Then you're stuck with this one hole that is out of character with everything else...or you fork over even more dough to "restore" it.

Seems like such a no brainer to make the change on a practice area bunker.

[Terry Lavin]

Terry

Were you involved in the process at Beverly?  I suspect you were a supporter of the Prichard work? from the beginning but when the club agreed to the one hole test did you have any sense at what the likelihood of success (acceptance of plan) would be?  

I do  think the argument about less trees/easier is really hard to explain to the average member.  I like just saying "what shot is more fun"?  Even after tree removal, I am not sure the tree proponents understand the course might not be harder and are probably loathe to admit it is more fun.

I was on the committee, but was not spearheading the effort to get Prichard's plan passed.  I supported Prichard's proposal, based upon his expertise and encouraged others to look to the expert rather than trying to be an armchair architect.  As for the trees issue, the better players preferred the bowling alley fairways, maybe because they could better navigate their way around the course, compared to the chops.  Back in the day, one had to chip out laterally on almost all of the holes, because there were so many trees that trying to head toward the green was a path fraught with peril.  We cut down something like 800 trees and it is still a heavily treed site, but it's much more playable now.

As for selling tree management programs to difficult memberships, nobody is better at that than Brad Klein.  He gave a speech at Beverly that turned the tide.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()