Bunker Options for UK Courses

[Tom_Doak]

I am attempting to start a thread here so the announcement of my work at Pennard and Woodhall Spa won't be further hijacked into questions about the details of bunkering in the UK.


Certainly, there are options for what style of bunkers is appropriate for a links course.  Revetted bunkers seem to be the go-to solution, in part because it's what Americans and visiting Brits expect, and in part because they have a history of standing up to the elements ... although, as demands for perfect conditions become more and more frequent from visitors and members, the "standing up to the elements" is starting to involve regular, expensive reconstruction that calls their "sustainability" into question.  Expectations are just as big a problem in the UK and the US.


The problem is, there isn't another obvious option.  Most of the blowout bunkers people have seen on modern courses involve enormous amounts of work to refill with sand ... a maintenance cost that Bandon green fees support, but the typical UK links cannot.  [Pennard has a greens staff of 5, Woodhall Spa has 7; they can't do the sorts of maintenance Bandon Dunes does with twice as many laborers.]  Many of the Irish links do not have revetted bunkers, but the bunkers they do have are small [so as to minimize wind erosion] and nondescript.  Royal County Down has wonderful, Bandon-style bunkers ... and good golfers complain like hell about them, but they get away with them because it's Royal County Down.


I have not seen the bunkers at Aberdovey that everyone is talking about; I'd be happy to see some pictures here if anyone can post them.  Still, those are new and haven't been tested over a few years of wind and weather.  I do remember playing at places like Westward Ho! 35 years ago and seeing small, broken bunkers that really were made by the animals ... when I went back three years later, one of them had grown to almost a half acre and they'd had to put boards up to stop it from swallowing the 5th green!  And now there are two small revetted pot bunkers in that location.


The truth is that the best way to lower the costs is just to have fewer bunkers, but that's not the direction most clubs want to go, as there is always the fear of making the course "easier".  Pennard does have some very rugged natural sandy areas at the margins of the course; we hope to experiment a bit over there on having some bunkers of a more native style.

[Sean_A]

Tom


Aberdovey's bunkers are quite similar to RCD.  Where built into a pocket they tend to be simple ovalish shapes. When more low lying they tend to be far more intricate.  Like RDC, nearly all the bunkers are lined with hair to retain sand and generally flow better with nearby rough.  It is a major departure from the round pots, though some still exist.  They are not really new anymore...the redo was 8ish years ago.


Ciao 

[Ian Andrew]

[Ian Andrew]

having bowser issues

[Ian Andrew]

sorry about multiple posts ...

[Kevin_Reilly]

Tom,

Here was a short thread from 2003 on the topic of Revetted Bunkers started by Bob Huntley.  As always, I had to pull out my dictionary for one word in his post!  Bob received some interesting replies.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,6425.0

[Thomas Dai]

Some typical examples of Aberdovey's bunkering style (as photographed by me about 18-months ago).








Very nice they are IMO too, although I'm also very comfortable with revetted style links bunkers.


There is always a proviso on bunkering for me though and that is that any bunker should be a hazard. No metal or hybrid or mid-iron recovery shots to the green. No, it's splash the ball out with a short-iron or wedge time, even sideways or backwards if necessary, and hope to make a decent score on the hole with quality shots from there on into the cup.


atb

[Pete_Pittock]

My remembrance harkens back to my only round at Pebble Beach in the early 70s when I hit a topspin lob approach on #8, barely clearing the inlet and ending up in a bunker short of the green.

What I remember about the bunker is concave faces, and plenty of  sand in the bottom.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Tom -


Can a "hybrid approach" work?


Meaning...


1. Restore what original archtect did...and/or...
2. Combo of blow-out and revetted bunkers much like what I recall seeing at Castle Stuart
3. Replace some bunkers with a "grass hazard" of either thick grass or a run-off area with closely mown grass


Yes, my response is perhaps naive so apologies in advance.
Cheers.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,

depends on the setting and climate. I would suggest a mix of revetted where windblow is a problem or a near vertical face is needed. Sleepers look good in the right setting as do the natural grass edges. Like Ian I think Castle Stuart is a good example of how to get a good set of bunkers across the entire course. Bad examples for me would be Carnoustie and Trump Aberdeen which both have good individual bunkers but simply repeat it over and over again.

One thing I would say is that most modern designs have forgotten the art of the grass bunker which is both very functional, looks good if done right and is cheap to maintain.

Jon

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't quite know on what level this appeals to me, but it does.


http://ecobunker.co.uk/ 

[David_Tepper]

Video with Gil Hanse on the bunkering at Castle Stuart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck8q8MsF1e8

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - me too. I think it's because it looks honest. It says, quite plainly: bunkers are expensive to maintain, and this new technology is a good cost saving tool. It is our best attempt to honour and replicate a traditional (but increasingly unsustainable) look while also saving money. Honesty is always good, and seems to suit the good game of golf.   

Peter

[Duncan Cheslett]

The truth is that the best way to lower the costs is just to have fewer bunkers, but that's not the direction most clubs want to go, as there is always the fear of making the course "easier". 

One thing I would say is that most modern designs have forgotten the art of the grass bunker which is both very functional, looks good if done right and is cheap to maintain.

At Reddish Vale we suffer from drainage problems in many of our bunkers, resulting in hard-pan dirt in dry months and flooded bunkers when it is rainy. The financial connotations of rebuilding all the affected bunkers is more than we can afford, so the decision has been made to grass over the most problematic or those with fewest "visitors".

It has long puzzled me why inland courses are expected to have bunkers at all - a feature natural only to seaside links or dune courses. Given that such a large proportion of most clubs' maintenance budget is taken up looking after the damn things why do we insist on retaining so many of what is basically an "alien" feature?

As for making the course easier, most golfers would prefer to be in an immaculately maintained greenside bunker than an awkward bit of rough.

[Thomas Dai]

At Reddish Vale we suffer from drainage problems in many of our bunkers, resulting in hard-pan dirt in dry months and flooded bunkers when it is rainy. The financial connotations of rebuilding all the affected bunkers is more than we can afford, so the decision has been made to grass over the most problematic or those with fewest "visitors".

It has long puzzled me why inland courses are expected to have bunkers at all - a feature natural only to seaside links or dune courses. Given that such a large proportion of most clubs' maintenance budget is taken up looking after the damn things why do we insist on retaining so many of what is basically an "alien" feature?

As for making the course easier, most golfers would prefer to be in an immaculately maintained greenside bunker than an awkward bit of rough.

Nicely put Duncan.


Less sand bunkers and more grass bunkers. I'd go along with that (and I myself am more than comfortable playing from sand). Only thing is grass bunkers don't look visually as attractive nor do they photograph particularly well.


A bit of variety is nice though, especially if the underlying terrain is sandy, so I'd still have sand bunkers on inland courses, just not so many.


I would actually like to see sand bunkers left unraked and less well maintained so they are once again an actual hazard. But.......I would give the player the option of not playing their next shot from the sand, in case the lie/stance were truely awful (even unsafe) or the player be of lessor ability. Instead though, I would allow the player the option of taking a one (or two?) shot penalty and permit him/her to drop their ball outside the sand bunker but no nearer the instead.


Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

I find that a well designed grass bunker looks not only just as good as a sand bunker but also fits its surroundings much better than it's sand counterpart. I fully agree that it would be a step forward if clubs would revert to the practice of letting golfers smooth out bunkers with their foot or club and only raking on a fortnightly or even monthly basis.

Jon

[David Davis]

Tom,


I have to say I absolutely love the bunkering at Pacific Dunes but remember Jeff telling me how much work it was to maintain them. I also really doubt that is practical or feasible in the UK or Europe in general. I'd be really interested to hear how the astroturf experiment works in terms of maintaining the bunkers. The look is a bit clean at first (but so is a traditional revetted bunker) but it would also be interesting to see how that changed after a year (if at all.)

[Neil White]

With regards to 'links' bunkering I don't think a one style approach is the most appropriate route to go.


The individual exposed nature of any links bunker should be the determining factor in which style of bunker is utilised.


Aberdovey's blown out style work well as Sean rightly points out they are used in the more low-lying areas but the course on the whole is protected from the south-westerly prevailing wind by a relatively large / tall series of dunes on its seaward edge.  I'm fairly confident that on a more open, exposed site this style would be difficult to maintain.


Ultimately you should mix and match styles as the conditions dictate.

[Niall C]

Tom

I've declared my preferences for bunker style and variety on the other thread but the question I asked which didn't get an answer is worth asking again I think, and that is how often do Pennard redo their bunkering ? It's my perception, and I know Ally M is one who disagrees with me, that clubs now redo their bunkers far more often than they did previously and that the 5 year lifespan adopted by the St A's Links Trust has become the accepted standard.

I for one like my links rough round the edges and I think that extends to the bunkers, after all they still function after the exposed revett edges begin to degrade. Why not redo them say 7-10 years rather than every 5. That would make a huge saving would it not ? If we are happy to accept the RCD look then is it such a huge step to accept less than pristine revetting ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Tom,

depends on the setting and climate. I would suggest a mix of revetted where windblow is a problem or a near vertical face is needed. Sleepers look good in the right setting as do the natural grass edges. Like Ian I think Castle Stuart is a good example of how to get a good set of bunkers across the entire course. Bad examples for me would be Carnoustie and Trump Aberdeen which both have good individual bunkers but simply repeat it over and over again.

One thing I would say is that most modern designs have forgotten the art of the grass bunker which is both very functional, looks good if done right and is cheap to maintain.

Jon

Jon

Not sure I'd use Castle Stuart as the exemplar of how to bunker a course. Admittedly I'm not it's biggest fan although I do like the course as hugely over rated as it is. For one thing the course closes down for several months which is a luxury other courses don't have, and for another the amount of staff at CS likely dwarfs the amount of staff at your average non-championship links.

I'd also suggest the bunkering is a mixed bag not only in style but effectiveness and functionality. I hope to whoever is up there that the use of sleepers never catches on and that they quietly get replaced in future years. The rise of revetting as a bunker style possibly/probably is due to the phasing out of sleepers back in the early 1900's. Sleepers are not only an eyesore but a danger as well. That's one thing the so called golden age of architecture got right as far as I'm concerned.

The other issue, IMO of course, is that the  bunkers are often too far on the periphery such that quite a few could readily be filled in as they are really there as eye candy, and if we are talking your average links, then we should be looking to cut down on the number of superfluous bunkers on a course.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall,

I'm sure you meant that I agreed, not disagreed with you...

In other words, I too like the rougher, slightly eroded look of sod wall bunkers and believe that in most clubs with less finances they can be left for longer before rebuilding.

I've a bit to add to this thread, particularly because it's back near the top of my thoughts with us starting work down in Strandhill in a couple of weeks. I'll try and get back to it later.

I'm intrigued by the photo Jim posted which uses Ecobunker for the base layers and natural turf for the rest of the wall. There are at least two big advantages I can see with that approach, namely an avoidance of cut-under erosion and an ability to leave the shape and bunker bottom in place when undergoing a rebuild.

I think Neil hits on a truth above in that links course weather and erosion problems vary enormously due to location. Having seen the west coast of Ireland winds wreak havoc over the last 5 years, each situation has to be treated individually.

John Kemp built those Aberdovey bunkers. He went through the EIGCA course at the same time I did.

Ally

[jeffwarne]

As stated on other thread (now removed)
certainly it comes down to the relative advantages of one style over another.
Hopefully, it's not just because they are located in the UK/ireland, but rather their environment (links, Heathland/Parkland etc. in any country)


If revetted bunkers truly have to be rebuilt every 5 years (some have stated longer if one can tolerate an eroded edges look-which I like anyway) it would seem like a course would have to be rebuilding 20 bunkers a year.
(or go with less bunkers which I don't often see on courses with revetted bunkers)

Some have stated that actually works ok with a small crew because the rebuilds can be done off season when there's less other maintenance to do-thus spreading out the work and providing employment over the full year.
 In theory that would work if indeed they require less maintenance in the growing season than traditional nonrevetted bunkers.


As far as Aberdovey, which is a nice look for the site, I like them but would also be OK if less tall grass was on their far banks (as some of them are).
those bunkers were rebuilt quite some time ago, certainly as long ago as the life cycle of a revetted bunker so I would be curious if anyone knows their maintenance inputs since inception vs. a revetted bunker.


Of course the cheapest option is LESS bunkers, which I'm a bigger fan of anyway.
In that case I'd prefer to see more of the RCD/Aberdovey look as it does blend in well and in the case of Aberdovey especially, enhance the landscape.
A few revetted ones spread around where wind/strategy/variety/maintenance needs appropriate would work as well.


I just about vomit when I see the Trump Aberdeen landscape littered with SO MANY horrible circular revetted pots on such a spectacular natural setting.
But then lately(actually always) I want to vomit every time he opens his mouth so perhaps I'm prejudiced.

[Eric Smith]

Here are a couple of bunkers I came across at Machrihanish Dunes. Quite a bit different than the bunkering I saw at other courses on that trip.

[Michael Graham]

Here are a couple of bunkers I came across at Machrihanish Dunes. Quite a bit different than the bunkering I saw at other courses on that trip.

Eric,

When did you take your photos at Mach Dunes? I'm going back in April for the first time since playing the course in 2009. I'm looking forward to seeing how the course has matured. Those bunkers definitely fit the landscape more than the barrage of revetted faced bunkers Jeff mentioned at Trump.

[jeffwarne]

Michael,
Note I've never played Trump (nor will I ever)
but I have played Aberdovey multiple times both before and after bunker enhancements, as well as Machrahanish Dunes.