If sand splash elevates the perimeter of a green, why isn't

[Steve Okula]

thus sand splash from greens is unlikely to remain in following days.

Are you suggesting that they vacuum their putting surfaces every night ?

Not vacuumed, but certainly loose sand is blown off the putting surfaces and greens surrounds on a daily basis.

Steve,

How is it blown off the putting surfaces and green surrounds on a daily basis ?

I stay overnight at PV and am up very early and have never seen that practice.

Could you detail how they do it, or are you just making an unsubstantiated claim without any first hand information ?

We use back-pack type leaf blowers, I have used them myself. Every golf course has them. A routine operation every morning at upper-level clubs, I was at Pine Valley three weeks ago and saw them there. They are strapped onto a person's back. They run on 2-stroke gasoline engines, and are started with a pull-chord. The motor powers a fan that causes air to blow out of a flexible pipe, and the operator standing up can direct the air flow to force leaves, sand, divots and other unwanted debris off the playing surface and into adjacent areas where it may be left of collected, depending.

Blowers are noisy, and greenkeepers normally try to stay well ahead of play so as not to disturb the golfers. It's possible to play a golf course and not see one in operation even on the days they are used.

[Mark Chaplin]

Blue ink, I must be special.

Steve is a superintendent so maybe, just maybe, he knows what he is talking about. Steve sorry your not special just a green inker!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Blue ink, I must be special.

Steve is a superintendent so maybe, just maybe, he knows what he is talking about. Steve sorry your not special just a green inker!

Take a closer look at he grass in the photo.

Does that look like the grass on a putting green.

So maybe, just maybe, neither one of you understands the subject of this thread

[Will Lozier]

We use back-pack type leaf blowers, I have used them myself. Every golf course has them. A routine operation every morning at upper-level clubs, I was at Pine Valley three weeks ago and saw them there. They are strapped onto a person's back. They run on 2-stroke gasoline engines, and are started with a pull-chord. The motor powers a fan that causes air to blow out of a flexible pipe, and the operator standing up can direct the air flow to force leaves, sand, divots and other unwanted debris off the playing surface and into adjacent areas where it may be left of collected, depending.

Blowers are noisy, and greenkeepers normally try to stay well ahead of play so as not to disturb the golfers. It's possible to play a golf course and not see one in operation even on the days they are used.

But Steve, HOW are these machines fastened to one's back!?  This seems like such a fascinating device!  Oh boy...technology these days!

Cheers

[Tony Ristola]

If sand splash elevates the perimeter of a green, why isn't surface drainage negatively impacted to a good degree ?

Usually contours aren't directing surface drainage into bunkers.

If the flow does go into the bunker, and it's cut off by a build-up of sand from bunker shots, my bet is the water percolates/disappears in the sand build up. If not, it's pretty easy to tell as the area has a weak/different stand of turf.

[archie_struthers]

 

As to #10 at Pine Valley my recollection is the rolling thunderstorms and the high volume of water entering the bunker precipitated the change . Superintendent Dick Bator oversaw the changes to the DA.  They  had experienced massive wash outs and the bunker was becoming so conical as to be completely unplayable. Bator rectified this by widening it a little , building the aforementioned lip to deflect runoff, and putting a slightly larger flat spot in the bottom.

I can't say I heard any talk that the increased green speeds achieved under Bator's stewardship made the design too penal, but it certainly increased the terror of putting into the DA.   We have aired this out before, but it was many moons ago.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

They're hard to miss, if not visually, acoustically.

They're so noisy that I believe OSHA requires the operator to wear ear plugs, lest they go deaf.

While my vision is questionable, my hearing remains acute.

They're used mostly for pine needles and leaves.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If sand splash elevates the perimeter of a green, why isn't surface drainage negatively impacted to a good degree ?

Usually contours aren't directing surface drainage into bunkers.

The DA at # 10 at PV may have been in the minority, but the same greens that feed balls into the adjacent bunkers also feed surface water into those same bunkers.

NGLA would be Exhibit "A" 

If the flow does go into the bunker, and it's cut off by a build-up of sand from bunker shots,

Not on greens that feed balls into adjacent bunkers.
Some greens are designed to feed the marginal or miscalculated shot into an adjacent bunker, and those greens accommodate that function very well.  Unfortunately, gravity applies to golf balls and water alike.

 my bet is the water percolates/disappears in the sand build up. If not, it's pretty easy to tell as the area has a weak/different stand of turf.

I think the ODG's were pretty cognizant of how to move surface water, and for the most part did a great job of it.
Subsurface conditions are a major factor as well

I have a great photo of Seminole taken on the Saturday morning before Thanksgiving when a storm off the ocean stalled and dumped 3.5 inches in an hour and a half.  Almost the entire course, save for the ridges, is under water.   The next day we played..... Summer rules.

Ross's umbrella like greens feed water into the adjacent bunkers at Seminole and probably Pinehurst and other courses and "sand splash" isn't going to change that.

To whom can I send the photo for posting ?
Bill Brightly, how about you ?

[JESII]

Pat,

The cross section Grant posted should reveal your answer. His photo shows it's not a myth but does not prove that each and every case has the same answer.

[Bill Crane]

BUNKER SPLASH BUILD UP!!

Prior to frittering away my free time reading GCA.COM I referred to a process I thought was happening at my primary home club – Springdale GC in Princeton, as “Accretion”.
 
We have seventeen of the original William Flynn greens from his re-design in 1927 remaining.  They are push up greens primarily with back to front and some side slopes, and none of them slope off in the rear.  Two greens are double tiered.  The greens and the majority of the bunkers have been in the same place for a long time, at this point some for 85 years!

Virtually all the greens have higher peaked areas at the edge of bunkers, and the greens slope down from those peaks toward the middle of the green, which in most cases is counter to the prevailing slope of the green in that area.  Effectively, the greens have become bowled with bunker splash buildup on the sides or toward the front creating slopes to the middle.

When we have a real downpour and pooling happens it tends to collect in the middle of the greens in a stream and move to the front.  Some greens are really obvious such as the 5th (old #9) where a thin stream accumulates in the middle of the green as soon as pooling occurs.  The bunkers that have drainage issues mostly are located in an area where the back of the bunker is lower than the surrounding terrain that is flat.

Looking closely you may be able to see this buildup effect on some of Joe Bausch’s pictures taken in October 2011 of Springdale on the NJ section of his collection on MyPhillygolf.com.  Picture 23 Hole # 4 (old ,   Picture 30 Hole # 5 (old 9),   Picture 36 & 37 Hole # 6 (old 1),   Picture 58 Hole # 10  (old 12),   Picture 74 Hole # 13 (old 15).  { Thanks, again to Joe Bausch for this resource.}

In the last few years the Greens staff has done sand treatments once a year when aerating.  Prior to this era they seemed to do a fair amount of top dressing during aeration treatments.  Having not been on the Greens Committee I cannot comment on the extent of the top dressing or effect.

I believe the softening effect of bunker splash buildup is one of the patinas that develop on golf courses that many people who have no interest in GCA unconsciously equate with old courses.

Wm Flynnfan

[Tony Ristola]

The DA at # 10 at PV may have been in the minority, but the same greens that feed balls into the adjacent bunkers also feed surface water into those same bunkers.

NGLA would be Exhibit "A"

Not on greens that feed balls into adjacent bunkers.
Some greens are designed to feed the marginal or miscalculated shot into an adjacent bunker, and those greens accommodate that function very well.  Unfortunately, gravity applies to golf balls and water alike.

You answer the reason why below. "Subsurface conditions are a major factor as well."

The 10th at PV had flash sand bunkers on both sides originally. Bunker maintenance was a different story until a few decades ago. Today those bunkers are grass face, and slow down the water. I'd like to see what it's like after a heavy thundershower, and what it was like after a heavy shower when the bunkers were flashed.

I think the ODG's were pretty cognizant of how to move surface water, and for the most part did a great job of it.
Subsurface conditions are a major factor as well

Yes, and any problems have likely been dealt with since their passing.

[Steve Okula]

Regarding the 10th hole DA bunker at Pine Valley, the maintenance still hasn't been perfected. There must be significant washouts, as the sand face is patched up with pieces of wood. It's obvious the water rolls off the green and into the bunker, sand splash and blowers notwithstanding.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

The cross section Grant posted should reveal your answer. His photo shows it's not a myth but does not prove that each and every case has the same answer.

Jim,

Look at the grass in Grant's photo, does that look like putting surface to you ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Regarding the 10th hole DA bunker at Pine Valley, the maintenance still hasn't been perfected.

How many more decades will it take ?

There must be significant washouts, as the sand face is patched up with pieces of wood. It's obvious the water rolls off the green and into the bunker, sand splash and blowers notwithstanding.

It was worse before they added the deflection buffer, when the green went right to the bunker.

[Grant Saunders]

Pat,

The cross section Grant posted should reveal your answer. His photo shows it's not a myth but does not prove that each and every case has the same answer.

Jim,

Look at the grass in Grant's photo, does that look like putting surface to you ?

That hole was dug 3 foot from the edge of the the green. Of course the sand splashes further than that.

I will not be digging a hole in the green itself just to prove a point to a you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

BUNKER SPLASH BUILD UP!!

Prior to frittering away my free time reading GCA.COM I referred to a process I thought was happening at my primary home club – Springdale GC in Princeton, as “Accretion”.
 
We have seventeen of the original William Flynn greens from his re-design in 1927 remaining.  They are push up greens primarily with back to front and some side slopes, and none of them slope off in the rear.  Two greens are double tiered.  The greens and the majority of the bunkers have been in the same place for a long time, at this point some for 85 years!

Virtually all the greens have higher peaked areas at the edge of bunkers, and the greens slope down from those peaks toward the middle of the green, which in most cases is counter to the prevailing slope of the green in that area.  Effectively, the greens have become bowled with bunker splash buildup on the sides or toward the front creating slopes to the middle.

Bill,

How do you know that they weren't designed that way in 1927 ?
How do you know that the perimeter's adjacent to the green weren't altered between 1927 and current date ?.


When we have a real downpour and pooling happens it tends to collect in the middle of the greens in a stream and move to the front. 

How do you know that that's not the result of a systemic agronomic/drainage issue within the green, rather than a systemic problem at the perimeter of the green ?

Some greens are really obvious such as the 5th (old #9) where a thin stream accumulates in the middle of the green as soon as pooling occurs.  The bunkers that have drainage issues mostly are located in an area where the back of the bunker is lower than the surrounding terrain that is flat.

Looking closely you may be able to see this buildup effect on some of Joe Bausch’s pictures taken in October 2011 of Springdale on the NJ section of his collection on MyPhillygolf.com.  Picture 23 Hole # 4 (old ,   Picture 30 Hole # 5 (old 9),   Picture 36 & 37 Hole # 6 (old 1),   Picture 58 Hole # 10  (old 12),   Picture 74 Hole # 13 (old 15).  { Thanks, again to Joe Bausch for this resource.}

In the last few years the Greens staff has done sand treatments once a year when aerating.  Prior to this era they seemed to do a fair amount of top dressing during aeration treatments.  Having not been on the Greens Committee I cannot comment on the extent of the top dressing or effect.

I believe the softening effect of bunker splash buildup is one of the patinas that develop on golf courses that many people who have no interest in GCA unconsciously equate with old courses.

Could it also be the result of irrigation patterns ?

[Steve Okula]

Regarding the 10th hole DA bunker at Pine Valley, the maintenance still hasn't been perfected.

How many more decades will it take ?

There must be significant washouts, as the sand face is patched up with pieces of wood. It's obvious the water rolls off the green and into the bunker, sand splash and blowers notwithstanding.

It was worse before they added the deflection buffer, when the green went right to the bunker.

In retrospect, it was unfair for me to say that the maintenance of the DA bunker hasn't been perfected, implying that the problem lies with the GCS, who only inherited the problem, he didn't cause it.

It would be more accurate to say the design flaw in the DA bunker still has not been corrected.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

The bunker has an interesting history and wasn't included in the original design.

Change doesn't happen rapidly at PV and the bunker is legendary, hence, I don't know that substantive design changes would be made as their budget seems capable of handling maintainance issues caused by what you refer to as an inherent flaw in the design.

I'm probably part of a shrinking number who played the bunker when the putting surface fed balls directly into the bunker.

In the early 1960's, I first played the course with two good Pros and a very good friend.  My dad had been playing it for decades and had told me stories, interesting stories and horror stories about the experiences of people he played with at PV.

When I came to the 10th tee, I didn't get an uncomfortable feeling, certainly not the shock to my system that occured when I arrived at the back of the 5th tee.

Anyhow, I hit my approach about 15 feet from the pin which was cut pretty much front slightly right of center.
But, as I walked past the D.A., my curiosity got the best of me.
So, I threw a ball into it and descended.
I was struck by the ice cream cone nature of the bunker and the thought that if I didn't get the ball out on my first shot that there was a good chance that it would return to the bottom of the cone and lodge in one of my footprints.
I took a normal swing, but, the ball caught the top of the bunker and came back to rest in the bunker, but, miraculously, not in a footprint.
I then took a bigger swing, hit a terrific shot up onto the green, then to my horror, watched as the ball slowly rolled back toward the bunker, then down and back into the bunker.
Now I was pissed.
So the caddy says, "I'll bet you $ 5 that you can't get on"
I accept his bet and widen my stance to the degree possible, take a mighty swing and "viola", the ball comes out about 10 feet from the hole.

In those days unaccompanied guests were permitted, so, the other amateur in my group, a good golfer, who had never played PV, has the bunker restored and drops a ball into it.  He takes one, two, three, four, five shots and it's getting worse and worse since the narrow bottom of the bunker is basically deep footprints.  Finally, after about a dozen blows, one of the Pros, kidding him, says, "Why don't you try going out backwards, because we don't have all day to spend here watching you dig to China".  So, he turns around and hits it out backwards and says that he wished that he had thought of that on his first attempt.

I know the bunker always had drainage/washout issues, but, I wonder, given the manpower and budget, if the deflection lip wasn't added to speed up play rather than to improve drainage ?

[paul cowley]

Patrick my friend...not trying to be part of a pile on, but as I have recounted before, I was a greens keeper in the early 70's at Pebble Beach. During this time I rose up the Portagee ladder to become Head of Special Projects (that no one wanted to do), and one of my special talents was rebuilding the extreemely high bunker lips that were collapsing from the accumulated weight of sand deposited from bunker shots...especially those around the green. I clearly remember tackling my first one on the right fronting greenside bunker of the NLE par 3 #5. The collapse was sufficient to make the top edge look like something from a jack o lantern grin.  Good luck with your theory! 

[archie_struthers]

 

Really think I addressed the question correctly , given my knowledge of both Mr Ransome and Mr Bator's opinions at the time the changes were made.,  Though some purists bemoaned the changes , the storms would consistently destroy the bunkers due to the runoff from the green . It was basically a funnel, and water poured into the aperture.  I really believe it was a maintenance , not a pace of play issue.

Even back before the changes , not a lot of balls ended up in the DA. It's  quite small relative to the green and challenging it isn't integral to any pin placement . It, like many hazards at  Pine Valley, punishes the poor shot to the extreme.  So again getting in the bunker didn't really factor into pace of play for the club. Green speed is another issue altogether.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick my friend...not trying to be part of a pile on, but as I have recounted before, I was a greens keeper in the early 70's at Pebble Beach. During this time I rose up the Portagee ladder to become Head of Special Projects (that no one wanted to do), and one of my special talents was rebuilding the extreemely high bunker lips that were collapsing from the accumulated weight of sand deposited from bunker shots...especially those around the green. I clearly remember tackling my first one on the right fronting greenside bunker of the NLE par 3 #5. The collapse was sufficient to make the top edge look like something from a jack o lantern grin.  Good luck with your theory! 

Paul, this thread and the "theory" as you call it, have nothing to do with the lips of bunkers.

It's about the perimeter of the putting surfaces, the greens.

I don't understand why so many are trying to shift the focus from the green to the bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

I wonder, before the lip and intervening rough were added, how many recovery shots from behind the green, ended up in the DA ?

[archie_struthers]

 

Not many Pat,  the back bunker doesn't see much action.  It's such a bad play to over club there that most players and caddies steer clear of over clubbing. 

However , the left side gets plenty of hold on pulls and the bunker over there is quite nasty!

[Mark McKeever]

I know there is one caddy who doesnt fear overclubbing on 10.  Where's Colbert??

Mark

[Bill Crane]

Mr. Mucci:

Thanks for your comments. 
 
I do not have empirical evidence that the slopes around the bunkers are caused by bunker sand splash, it is just my observation that it looks that way after 45 years of walking the old course.
 
It would be interesting to find some clear pictures from the twenties or early thirties to try to spot if the green slopes and the peaks near the bunkers were designed and built that way by William Flynn and his firm Toomey and Flynn, and also whether the green surrounds have been altered.  This will be a nice project for our History and Archives group recently established by Malcolm McKinnon and me.
 
It would also be interesting to spend some time with the current and former Super to see if drainage or irrigation patterns have affected the slopes by the bunkers.  I have been reading the annual David Otis (USGA Green Section) reports regularly for over a dozen years now and do not remember him addressing any issues of the sort that may affect the drainage.

The Super may also have some knowledge of how much surface sand they found near the bunkers when installing the new irrigation system three years ago.

I may be the only one at the club who has any real interest in this. 

Wm Flynnfan