Bunker Photo - Paramount Country Club

[Steve Lapper]

Niall,


  As I mentioned in my last post, my nerve was indeed poked and in hindsight, I probably reacted a wee bit too strongly. Like I'd said, it's a place near and dear to my heart and it's impossible for me to not be passionate about defending it.....even from a less-than-ideal photo taken on a day that was less than ideal for recapturing anything other than hickory pride (inside joke). I'm glad you see the differences through Joe and Jon's photos.


  Bunker styling is personal, but is also quite predicated on the practically of the terrain and soils it occupies. For example, at Paramount, we lack native sand-based soils so that literally mandates that in keeping with AWT's original design concept, we create and maintain shallower pits and smoother faces. Otherwise, with the torrential downpours we face in-season and the harsh ice and snow we face off-season, we;d be rebuilding our bunkers all too frequently.


  As for my comments on the observational skills of those I mentioned, I really believe their "eyes" lie amongst the best trained in the game and while your historical acumen might more than measure up, I'd argue their eyes have few peers, save for Bill Coore, Tom Doak, and maybe Gil Hanse.


  Glad we seemed to sort all of it out and you are indeed welcome as my guest anytime....crowdfunding or not!


  Now back to designing a great miniature course!


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

The photo of the 7th green at SFGC from 1925 shows the bunkers as they were right after they were built. The look had nothing to do with any "maintenance practice," Rather that is what maintained that look to them for many years as can be seen in various photographs...

I've seen far too many photos of holes on courses taken during the 20s to believe that the "raggedy edges" to bunkers was caused by a "maintenance practice." That clubs went away from this look may have actually been caused by new maintenance practices adopted by those clubs over the years.

That look was simply a choice made by club and architect back then just as changing to a different look for the same holes/course years later was...
 
Then you should have no problem showing me a myriad of photos of bunkers from the 20's that had the clean, crisp, well manicured look that we see today.
 
I don't believe that it was a "choice" made by the club, rather the methodology for building bunkers at the time.
 
Once built, maintenance perpetuated the look rather than altering it.

[Phil Young]

Pat,

I'm sorry but I'm not going to waste my time posting numerous photographs that are readily available to you simply to engage in a nonsensical argument over what YOU believe to be true.

YOU are the one who stated, "Aren't the rough or jagged edged bunkers pictured, more a product of maintainance practices in the 1920's."

I posted an actual example showing you a photograph of a bunker designed by Tillinghast and built UNDER HIS PERSONAL DIRECTION taken a short time after the course first opened for play that contradicts your statement. These edges were specifically designed to look that way and were definitely NOT the "product of maintenance practices in the 1920s."

This bunker "style" was quite different from others that he built in many other areas of the country at the very same time that this and the others at SFGC were being built.

Go to the Tillinghast Association website and take a tour of the photographs a number of courses built ca. 1924 and you'll see everything from big round ones to others with numerous capes and bays, etc...

Tilly designed and built bunkers to fit the land and meet the desired looks of those who employed him.

By the way, since YOU made the original statement, "Aren't the rough or jagged edged bunkers pictured, more a product of maintainance practices in the 1920's" I believe that YOU should provide numerous photographic examples of this practice before making that same demand of one who provided one for you and that disproves your statement...

That sage Forrest Gump would have said to you, "Pat, a moron is as a moron does..."

[Niall C]

Phil/Patrick,


There's no doubt in my mind that as far as MacKenzie and Colt were concerned in the early years they were going for the rugged natural look and it wasn't a case of lack maintenance. Why bunker design moved away from that might be a matter of fashion although I'd suggest it was probably more to do with ease of maintenance which I suspect is why most incremental  changes occur on golf courses.

Niall

[Niall C]

  As for my comments on the observational skills of those I mentioned, I really believe their "eyes" lie amongst the best trained in the game and while your historical acumen might more than measure up, I'd argue their eyes have few peers, save for Bill Coore, Tom Doak, and maybe Gil Hanse.
 

Steve,

This is a rehash of an old conversation we had previously. I recall then you suggested as Brad and some other writers/commentators who I wasn’t familiar with had given Balmedie or Castle Stuart (can’t recall which) a thumbs up we should just more or less accept that as the definitive judgement and hold our peace. My argument then (as now) was what made their opinion more valid than mine or anyone else on this site, and then unfortunately Brad took that as a personal knock on him which it certainly wasn’t intended to be.

So rather than go down that route again let me state that in terms of the engineering aspects of building a course I certainly wouldn’t hold myself out in any way an expert in comparison to say a practised architect or contractor, nor would I consider myself knowledgeable on all (or perhaps any !) aspects of course maintenance, even though I’ve had both a modicum of training on golf course architecture and have seen enough greenkeeper reports to make a fairly large coffee table book.

What I will say is that in terms of what I consider what makes for good design that I have definite ideas based on observation, experience and I guess what you would call education, and I consider myself capable of articulating those ideas. In that respect I’m no different than many on this site whose views I respect even if I don’t agree with them. I think that makes my views as valid as Ran’s or Brad’s or anyone elses’s (I mean c’mon, have you read some of Rans reviews, or how about Doak rating Moray Old a 4, dear, oh dear, oh dear ).
So why don’t we just agree that you won’t cite Brad et al as back up and I won’t mention any more dead guys, and that we simply duke it out (on the page) mano-a-mano. What do you say ?

Niall     

[Jason Thurman]

Even Beyonce takes a bad photo once in a while.





Is the cover photo a good representation of Paramount's aesthetic?

[Steve Lapper]

Niall,


  It was Balmeadie and yes, I do believe that those who have physically seen more than you and I put together are better suited to make architectural assessments. Having one's own ideas is always valid and personal tastes are no more or less valid than anyone else. Lets just agree to disagree on that stuff.  A Hamiltonian duel with a niblick sounds just right and unlike the precocious fellow from Nevis...I'll be sure to swing out towards you, instead of the sky


Cheers

[Niall C]

but here's the thing, how do you know what I've seen ? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,


So it's your position that bunkers built in the 20's were built with crisp, clean bunker edges and maintained in that style for decades after introduction ?


In looking at every photo in Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design"I didn't see one photo of a bunker with crisp, clean lines.


So why would you build what you can't maintain ?

[JC Urbina]

     
[/size][size=78%]If I may hop on to this discussion from a consultants point of view.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]The 5th hole at Paramount is the photo and hole the group is discussing, the "rubbish" look of the bunkers has been discussed but what hasn't been mulled over is the entire presentation of the hole.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]When I was asked to consult at the Paramount Club what I took away from my first visit was the enormous scale of the golf course and the variety in which each individual hole was laid out.  Sadly the discussion has centered around a photo taken by Ran that focused on the bunkers.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]What the photo doesn’t show:[/size]
[/size][size=78%]A) is the opposing slopes on the fairway and green.  [/size]
[/size][size=78%]B) the line of charm as some like to call it that is offered from the tee.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]C) the large trees on the right of the green that serve as sentinels.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]D) the deep full-scale green side bunkers that are so well placed based on the horizon line[/size]
[/size][size=78%]E) the extra wide space in the fairway on the right that lulls you into a false sense of security.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]F) the mowing lines that accent the proper line of attack and the improper line.  [/size]
[/size][size=78%]G) the green approach that requires some skill to hold the line on a running shot.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]H) the left side of the green that is void of bunkers that allows a bail out if so desired by less skilled players.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]I) over 35 feet of elevation change. [/size]
[/size][size=78%]I guess what I am trying to point out to viewers of this thread is that a photo gives a glimpse of what the hole looks like much like the photo on the cover of a good book but it doesn't offer the sum of the whole contents of the book.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]The real key for me and I am still astounded is the way the two important playing surfaces, the fairway and the green have opposing slopes.  The fairway tilts from left to right as you view the hole from the tee and the green slopes from right to left.  The lines of convergence between the fairway and green can be intersected at almost the exact location that you want your ball to be placed, close to the fairway bunkers on the left as viewed from the ground by the golfer.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]That was no accident, that was genius as conceived by the original architect A.W. Tillinghast. [/size]
[/size][size=78%]So back to your point about the look.  I have always felt that good golf courses are way more complicated then most give them credit for and that individuals ranking a golf course or giving it a passing or failing grade by playing it or walking the golf course just once should revisit the golf course at least twice before passing judgment.[/size]
T[/size][size=78%]he bunkers at Paramount were carefully [/size][/size][size=78%]crafted[/size][/size][size=78%] by shapers that I am happy to be associated with, George Waters, Tony Russell and Jeff Stein and Superintendent Brian Chapin that has transformed a golf course into a work of art; I know they view the golf course in a much different light.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]I wish all golfers would give golf courses a little more credit then a once look over, I always do, they have way more to offer then just the cover of a book.[/size]
 

[Jon Wiggett]

Phil,


So it's your position that bunkers built in the 20's were built with crisp, clean bunker edges and maintained in that style for decades after introduction ?


In looking at every photo in Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design"I didn't see one photo of a bunker with crisp, clean lines.


So why would you build what you can't maintain ?

Patrick,

they had edge cutters back then so why do you think they could not maintain them? I do agree though you do not see many if any sharp edged bunkers but I would think this was down to expectations, choice but not ability to maintain.

Jon

[Niall C]

Jim
Jim

Thanks for your post. As the instigator of this thread let me clarify that I was commenting on the look of the bunker in one photo and haven't seen the course which wasn't stated by me but I think it could be inferred by the opening post. In the OP I also referred to this style being used elsewhere and in that regard I was using the bunker in the photo as an example of a style that I personally don't care for.


In subsequent posts I clarified that I was referring purely to the look, and making it clear that there was a lot more to bunkers than just the look. There's no doubt that my OP, which was written in haste, could have been better written and I suspect if I'd used the phrase "doesn't look good to me" rather than "rubbish" then this thread wouldn't have raised as much heat. Also happy to accept that the bunker style reflects the original intent of Tilly and that they have been carefully crafted by you and your team. However at the end of the day I was referring to how a bunker looked in one photo and the style that represented and while my views could have been expressed better, I'm happy to stick by them.


Niall


 

[Phil Young]

Pat,

You must be drinking with your old friend Tom Paul because I said NOTHING whatsoever of the kind. In fact, YOU were the person who maintained that the RAGGEDY EDGES in bunker design in the 1920s was the product of MAINTENANCE PRACTICES whereas I posted a photo of a bunker designed by Tilly in 1924 whose edges were RAGGEDY and then stated that they maintained that way for many years!

This is why I said that I wouldn't argue with you over this and so I'm letting you know that you can say as you wish and I'm going to ignore it...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

So it's your position that bunkers built in the 20's were built with crisp, clean bunker edges and maintained in that style for decades after introduction ?

In looking at every photo in Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design"I didn't see one photo of a bunker with crisp, clean lines.

So why would you build what you can't maintain ?

Patrick,

they had edge cutters back then so why do you think they could not maintain them?
 
Jon,
 
I think it was because it was very labor intensive, given the equipment and limited manpower at the time.
 
Today, you have ground crews for 18 hole courses that exceed 20 in number, with budgets from 1 to 2+ million.
 
In the 20's and especially during and after the depression and during and after WWII, resources and labor was scarce.
 
Didn't AWT travel the country removing bunkers in order to reduce maintanance costs ?
 
Maintaining sharp/crisp bunker lines would have been an overwhelming endeavor.
 
So, why build what you can't maintain ?
 
I do agree though you do not see many if any sharp edged bunkers but I would think this was down to expectations, choice but not ability to maintain.

I don't think they had the manpower nor the funds to maintain sharp/crisp bunker lines.
 
I was surprised that I couldn't find one photo of one bunker in all of Geoff's great book on "Golden Age" architecture that had sharp/crisp lines.

Jon

[Brian Chapin]

Jim, Thanks for your post. Always nice when you chime in.

Pat and Phil:

It is clear that Tillinghast preferred a natural appearance of wind-blown sand on the banks of bunkers. But while researching our project at Paramount we often came across contradictions to the ideals that he wrote about. For us, with limited ground photos (we actually have a sort of decent ground photo of #5) , we did the best we could to take into consideration his writings as well what we saw from other old pictures, our own aerials, and the many other courses we visited.

I learned that despite what he wrote about the topic of introducing sand into the bunker, the bunkers he built varied by site. The old pictures of WFW that I have seen do not have the same "grassy/sandy" banks and capes as the pictures of SFGC. The photos of Newport CC are are more like SFGC. Quaker Ridge looks to have a cleaner edge and some of the photos of the original Fresh Meadows show bunkers edges and banks that appear to be just as well maintained as the current day Fresh Meadows. The photos of Somerset Hills show flatter, grass down bunkers with cleaner edges, especially the photo of #2 (redan). I always believed that this is due to the site conditions that existed. SFGC to my understanding is a naturally sandy site, while WFW is much heavier soil and often rock. It doesn't seem surprising to me that sand would be spilling out of the bunkers at SFGC creating a beautifully natural wind blown look while at WFW the bunkers are more contained within themselves with more dense stand of turf and a more well defined edge.

To answer Niall's question about the general look of the bunkers at Paramount:

There is great variety to the bunkering at Paramount as far as the look of the grass around the bunker. The three bunkers you asked about on the 5th hole are surrounded by fairway turf, maintained without buffers of rough around them so as to allow balls to roll or even trickle into them, effectively enlarging the "area of influence" of each hazard. Some of the other bunkers have clumpy,rough, sandy fescue edges that would probably be more pleasing to your eye as you have described your taste. Some others have normal 1.5" dense rough around them. The grassing selections for the surrounds each bunker are determined by where the bunker sits on the property and what the surrounding area is like.

What they all have in common is a lack of flat area in the floor of the bunker. The fingers are in place to break up the floor so that the player would rarely find himself with a flat lie in a bunker. They are not "simply draped over the face of a straight forward oval bunker" as you suspected. The turf fingers influence the floor of the bunker far beyond what is actually grass. Similar to an iceberg, the grass finger is just the what is visible above the surface. In some areas the fingers have a very large influence over the floor of the bunker in others (as is the case with these on #5) the influence is less sever, but still present.

[Phil Young]

Brian,

Tilly's bunkers were quite site specific and quite different from each other even at clubs nearby one another. The reason for posting the SFGC photo was because Pat insisted that Tilly NEVER designed "raggedy-edged" bunkers because bunker edges were the product of maintenance practices rather than specific design practices.

SFGC's were designed and maintained raggedy-edged for many years while Zukor's/Paramount were the opposite which is why Jim & you restored/rebuilt & have meticulously maintained the look that they have... And an outstanding look it is!

[JC Urbina]

I am not sure what happened to my last post, it seems a little garbled and hard to read but in essence the 5th hole at Paramount has more to offer then just the bunkers.


If I may touch on the bunker presentation at Paramount little more.


First,  I want to clarify what Brian Chapin touched on.  We did extensive research on the look of the bunkers and did our best to restore what was applicable to the site at Paramount.  These are not SFGC bunkers or Wing Foot or Quaker,  although I did use a theme I was familiar with when I was consulting at San Francisco Golf Club.  I often use shapes that are conducive to a style that Tillinghast had used on previous projects.''Brian and I traveled to Long Island and Newport and I also suggested that Brian C  see SFGC, I wanted Brian C to be familiar with Tillinghasts work, we even traveled to Somerset to see the bunkers and work that Brian Slawnick was doing there.  So the effort and research I have listed was extensive, we just didn't go in there and wing it.


When discussing the presentation of the bunkers  it  is evident in most of the old B/W photos that I review, bunkers are raggedy but for various reasons other then architects intent. Pat and Phil have different opinions on bunkers, based on the years I have been studying old photos they are both right.


I have a library of photos of Pasatiempo golf club that Dean Gump gave me to assist with the restoration both in aerial and ground photo form.  What I noticed at Pasatiempo was the bunkers changed over time.  I have a photo that shows Mackenzie hitting out of a bunker that would be considered very raggedy, in another picture various bunkers around the course  seemed very well maintained.


I attribute that to several factors.


Seasonal photographs, winter photos vs summer photos, what a difference.


Bunkers closer to an irrigation source, green side bunkers tended to have more turf then fairway bunkers.


South facing bunkers vs North facing bunkers, one of the bunkers at Pasatiempo on the 12th hole that faces south is almost all dirt, compared to the one on the other side that faced north. Depending on the photos the look can be very different.
[size=78%][/size]
Now lets talk about the grass type, I used a similar photo archive at The Valley Club of Montecito that the former super Sean McCormick provided me.  Now were dealing with a warm season grass, the edges are very defined, the grass is filled in with hardly any soil exposure.  The south facing bunkers are healthy and show extensive turf growth as compared to the north facing bunkers.  Josh Pettit who did some of the research can attest to the style of bunker at The Valley Club.


We did our best to recapture that look knowing that the warm season grasses were going to take over the bunker and require much more maintenance, that is one of the reasons the bunkers tend to evolve quicker in southern states.  Factors contributing to the bunker look back then were winter seasonal rains. 


Look at the bunkers at Crystal Downs, they have a unkept raggedy edge on the outside of the bunker and very manicured inside slope that is facing closest to the fairway or green side of the bunker.  Again same architect of record with help from Perry Maxwell but a much different presentation.  Same designer different outcome.



So based on the years I have been studying old bunker photos I think based on the season, year of photo, location of bunker, type of turf, and many other factors, including the monetary health of the club, bunker presentation were constantly changing.