News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


THuckaby2

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2003, 02:41:40 PM »
Gene:

Again, it comes down to how strictly one defines "natural."

We saw lots of things that sure would function as bunkers on the drive out to Mullen.

But by a very strict definition, if one tiny inch of shrubbery is removed from a sandy hollow, it's no longer "natural."  

So the bunkers at Sand Hills are dirty, natural-looking, fantastic, hellish to get out of, very perfectly placed for strategic choices in play... they're just not natural, because no bunker on a golf course can be, if one wants to be persnickety enough.

TH

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2003, 03:09:05 PM »
Good Tom, this is not about being persnickety, whatever that means.  I'm not ready to capitulate.  How about rephrasing the question:  "Are ALL bunkers ARTIFICIAL?"  I think so.

Tommy,

I have been out having a marvelous lunch, hence my late reply.  I'm not sure what passes for a bunker in your photo of the 10th at Friar's Head.  Since you have called me out, I'd hazard a guess that the saddle left of the ant hill reflects the handiwork of man as well as the "C" shaped bunker in the face of the ant hill.  Also, the bunker short/right of the "c" and the bunker short and right of the green look to be crafted as well.  Even if I'm incredibly wrong, I'd hazard a guess that every inch of the place was touched up by somebody.  

As for that walk, book it Dano.  

I'm sure Bill McBride and others have seen the marvelous sand dunes between Destin and Fort Walton Beach in the Florida Panhandle owned by the U. S. government.   A course there could put this argument to bed.  

Regards,

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

THuckaby2

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2003, 03:15:44 PM »
Hey, I agree with you, Mike.  All bunkers are artificial, by definition, on a golf course - if they are touched at all, maintained at all, they are artificial.

Some just LOOK more touched, and more maintained, than others.

To some golfers, this degree of how artificial they look matters more than to other golfers.

And sure, there are lots of walks one can take where one sees pieces of sand that would function great as bunkers.  The trick is to build a golf course around them!   ;)

TH

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2003, 03:26:23 PM »
Mike,
Now lets see what everyone else thinks.....EXCEPT Rich Goodale! He'll go last!

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2003, 03:29:51 PM »
I am glad to see you are a god now too Emperer. I am with Rich and Mike on this one.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2003, 03:36:12 PM »
And sure, there are lots of walks one can take where one sees pieces of sand that would function great as bunkers.  The trick is to build a golf course around them!   ;)

Tom, therein lies the rub.  Man cannot leave well enough alone.  Sand Hills is true to the minimalist school not because of the bunkering, but because of the green contours.  With the exception of the 2nd and 3rd greens they are all relatively subtle, at least for my liking as well as the treehouse's.  C&C could have easily constructed more dramatic slopes that would classically intergrate to the surrounds and appear to be wholly natural.  Instead, they took exactly what the land gave them - no more.  

I suspect I have doodled more golf holes than anyone on this site.  One of my favorite exercises is to randomly draw a series of dunes, then route and design 18 holes around, over or through them.  Invariably, I'm not happy with something and do a little "earth-moving" for a myriad of different reasons.  I'm willing to bet architects, graders and shapers do the same.

Regards,

Mike
« Last Edit: September 16, 2003, 03:37:23 PM by Mike_Hendren »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2003, 03:37:07 PM »
  Carne GC in Ireland.  The "Other" Gleneagles in Brora. And, as Gene said, Sand Hills and the drive to it. Also, Tierra Del Mar (proposed golf course) on the Oregon Coast.  

  They are out there.  We just have to look for them.  I also must say that I am not ashamed when I can't tell the difference between manmade and natural.  When I CAN tell is when I may become temperamentally caustic.
 
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2003, 04:02:04 PM »
So far Slag, you get it!

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2003, 04:29:02 PM »
I'll get in on this

For starters, I must agree that no bunker is really natural, per se, to use the most strict definition of what "natural" is.

What I wish to add, however, is that something must be mentioned here about courses built on sand.

Everyone knows that most of the great courses of the world are built on sand.  Take PV, for example, the bunkers blend seemlessly into the native terrain primarily because the native terrain is sand.  It is easy to accomplish "natural" looking bunkers at places like Cypress, Pac Dunes, Sand Hills, Melbourne, etc because of this fact.

I'm inclined to think this is where the notion of a "natural" bunker has originated from.  It comes from hazards that seem more like an extension of the existing landscape then  something that was "built".

What this calls into question now, IMHO, is what about courses that are not built on sand.  How does a bunker become "natural" in this situation.  It is hard to make a "sand bunker" blend seamlessly into the existing landscape if the landscape is not that of sand.  

For this reason I am a fan of anything that attempts to serve as a transition between native and artificial.  Take heather, like we see in some of Fowler and Colt's stuff.  I love to see it in the noses of some of those courses like Walton Heath.  There is something to me about Pete Dye's waste bunkers that seems to "fit" at a place like Sawgrass, Harbour Town or Kiawah.  They seem to go hand in hand with marshland.

What is facinating to me is why I love Oakmont's bunkers so much.  I don't know what it is, I can't explain it, but I love em.  I think it has something to do with their irregular shapes and eroded edges.  To me this seems more in tune with nature, even though they aren't "natural," again, per se.  To me nature and natural is not synanomous with clean edges and symetrical shapes.  It embodies a spirit of imperfection and evolution.  

Golf is an outdoor sport.  It might be my bias but I prefer my courses to appear that they have always been there.  I look at golf course architects as discoverers, and for this reason I suspect I would be poor at creating a Shadow Creek, for example.  However, Pete Dye has done a fantastic job, IMHO, with Whistling Straits.  Not a one of those bunkers was there in the beginning but you'd have a hard time convincing someone who knows nothing about the evolution of the course otherwise.  

I think a lot of what makes golf golf is steeped in tradition.  It all started in Scotland and thus the spirit of the game is intertwined with the attributes of those early courses.  Sandy soil, wind, tall grasses, undulating ground.

What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Patrick_Mucci

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2003, 04:57:10 PM »
MDugger,

Many golf courses in Florida are built on sand.

However, what lies below the sand may prevent anything but raised, artificially constructed bunkers.

In addition, drainage can be a MAJOR problem for bunkers in Florida, especially for flat golf courses that sit low to the water table.

Remember too, that the summer rains are heavy and almost daily, creating more drainage and maintainance problems.

Each location must be looked at individually, and not in the context of other bunkers in other locations.

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2003, 06:59:41 PM »
Is that the case for Seminole?

I don't think they'd of had those problems in Florence.
 ;D
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

TEPaul

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2003, 07:00:03 PM »
Cirba and Huckaby;

Next time you play with Goodale you both chase him down the fairway with 2 irons and beat him about each ear mercilessly--it might knock some sense into him. If I'm not mistaken if you Mike take the left side and you Tom take the right side it might be a perfect double hit simultaneous attack.

TommyN:

I know the answer to your question about Friar's #10 but I certainly didn't figure it out for myself.

TEPaul

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2003, 07:02:46 PM »
By the way, none of you posters has gotten the answer to this question about what exactly constitutes a "natural bunker". The only conceivable way to get the answer correct is to first read Max Behr for a year!

And furthermore that leaves Rich Goodale out completely. Not only will he not read Max but even if he tried he's completely incapable of understanding him without asking me 101 questions afterwards!
« Last Edit: September 16, 2003, 07:06:15 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2003, 07:11:20 PM »
"In addition, drainage can be a MAJOR problem for bunkers in Florida, especially for flat golf courses that sit low to the water table."

Patrick:

A statement like that just shows what a dunce you can be sometimes. Didn't you know that real bunkers are occassionally SUPPOSED to HAVE gray slimmy crap in them and are supposed to smell bad too? It tends to keep both golfers and their golf balls at the height of avoidance and is considered ultra strategic!


Patrick_Mucci

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2003, 07:25:58 PM »
MDugger,

I believe that holes # 7, 8, and 9 were swamp or lowland that had to be filled.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other "valley" holes didn't have to undergo the same process.

The holes on the two ridges appear to enjoy a sand base.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2003, 07:26:23 PM »
I find myself looking for a synonym for "natural-looking."

How does "pseudo-natural" suit you?

How about "imitation natural"?

Maybe we should just leave nature out of it!
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

TEPaul

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2003, 07:35:50 PM »
Aw, Patrick, you don't know what you're talking about. #7, 8, 9 a swampland? Even if it was that's just a another stab in the dark assumption on your part! See that berm all along the side of the 9th hole next to the Australian pines. That right there was the key to the original reflux drainage system on the entire course. Donald was a closet hydro genius--but you obviously never knew that either. Stick with me and eventually I'll supply you with enough knowledge to be semi-dangerous someday!

Patrick_Mucci

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2003, 08:03:32 PM »
TEPaul,

I'm familiar with the berm on # 9.

Are you familiar with the practice area between # 9 and # 1, and how it was only recently reclaimed from wet, if not swampland like conditions ?

But, you're right, you are learning from me.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2003, 08:29:48 PM »
Rich, I'm with the Huckster, I played CPC for the first time in March and, while I evaded them all, I saw absolutely nothing irrelevant about the beautiful fairway bunkering at #4 or #5. Pars would be difficult indeed from any of those bunkers.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2003, 08:35:11 PM »
And Mike Hendren, yes I've seen those wonderful dunes between Ft. Walton Beach and Destin many times and thought "aha, links golf!"  However, given that those dunes are on a sand spit barrier island maybe 1/4 mile wide, all environmentally protected to the max, and owned by the U.S. Air Force in large part, a new golf course is not in the works!

Mike_Sweeney

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #45 on: September 16, 2003, 09:09:39 PM »

Still don't believe natural bunkers do exist?

 

Dr,

A board lurker here played Sand Hills this past weekend, and he swears that some work has been done to the course, specifically, the bunkers around 17, based on pictures he has seen versus what he saw this weekend. Was I correct in saying that the work to the bunkers was done by Mother Nature and winter storms that changed the bunkers? If so, then that has to be a natural bunker ?

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #46 on: September 16, 2003, 09:18:54 PM »
....least we all forget ,bunkers are first and foremost strategic hazards....if the site conditions warrent ,yea ,they can 'look' natural ,if that is what one wants [cypress point originally] or not [pick any raynor]........the only 'natural' would be waste areas that one designs around [which includes sheep holes and blowouts]......
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

TEPaul

Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #47 on: September 16, 2003, 09:36:12 PM »
"Are you familiar with the practice area between # 9 and # 1, and how it was only recently reclaimed from wet, if not swampland like conditions ?"

Patrick:

Yes, I am familiar with the so-called "practice area" between #1 & #9. Basically it was never used except as an area where Hogan would practice alone. He's hit balls from there over the the ladies tee on #1, over #10 tee and into the present practice range. Frankly that procedure pissed off a bunch of members but none of them ever did a thing about it. It never really was a wet area until that time in 1969 when Hogan took a leak out there.


Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #48 on: September 16, 2003, 11:30:26 PM »
Mike Hendren:

Just in case you would enjoy being proven totally wrong, you should spend a day at the most orgasmic site for a golf course not yet developed - Inch. For there you will find hundreds of "natural bunkers", far more than the number of sheep currently running around the place.

I had dinner with Arthur Spring last month. He is now in the 12th year of the permitting process hoping that things may finally get resolved fairly soon. Unfortunately, the latest doesn't sound so good for going forward. Nonetheless, the place clearly proves your assertion wrong. The tricky part - if planning permission is accomplished - will be to leave as many of those "natural bunkers" alone. It will take great restraint. But, nobody could see Inch and seriously make the statement you made. It's "natural bunker" heaven.

While I haven't been to Sand Hills I've driven through the area and have a pretty good idea of the natural condition of the land. Inch is in a whole different category. You don't need to build bunkers. You just need discipline to touch as little as possible.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2003, 11:31:53 PM by Tim_Weiman »
Tim Weiman

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Natural Bunker" - An Oxymoron
« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2003, 09:00:44 AM »
It takes many planets and stars to line up just right to have a "natural bunker". This includes the appropriate site and terrain, drainage, etc.

I have promoted the ideal previously that golf courses are not "natural", but rather they are a journey thorugh landscapes which are devised by the hand of mankind.

- - -

Here is a favorite definition:

Landscape Architecture — Primarily a fine art, and as such, its most important function is to create and maintain beauty in the surroundings of human habitations, and in the broader natural scenery of the country; but it is also concerned with promoting the comfort, convenience and health of urban populations which urgently need to have their  hurrying workday lives refreshed and calmed by the beautiful and reposeful sights and sounds which Nature, aided by the Landscape Art, can abundantly provide  (Origin: Penn State’s Dr. John R. Braken, as recalled by Arthur Jack  Snyder)

- - -

Golf is a human condition. As I said, you need the planets and stars to line up just right to work out so it takes the place of what might be created artificially, even if created so as to mask the artificial qualities.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2003, 09:01:55 AM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back