"Natural" bunkers and open "Sand Scars" on links courses

[Sean_A]

I too like Castle Stuart's edge bunkering, but to some degree that is the easy bit. The bunkering surrounded by fairway is far less attractive and even quite average or dull looking. Its a good thing they are well placed.  This is where Muirfield's bunkers excell, but as I say, a lot of their appeal is down to avoiding round shapes and moving toward oblong and stark shapes....somewhat like at Walton Heath....which has exceptional bunkering. Also, there is usually a pocket or landform which the bunkers hunker into.  Still, for a formalized look, I tend to prefer the rolled over style as at Portrush.  It just looks like the fairway flows better into the bunker making them less obtrusive.


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Muirfield bunkering is indeed excellent. It works well for three reasons: the unusual shapes (as you mention. I agree there's nothing worse than a series of perfect circles); the beautiful top-lines that follow the curve of the surrounding ground; and the fact that the top is generally rolled over just a little, meaning it is a less stark tie-in.


Walton Heath is just another discussion altogether.


Portrush works well but the difficulty there is creating and maintaining the lip.

[Sean_A]

Muirfield bunkering is indeed excellent...the beautiful top-lines that follow the curve of the surrounding ground; and the fact that the top is generally rolled over just a little, meaning it is a less stark tie-in.

Si.


I find it very interesting that inland courses such as Walton Heath, Ganton, Woodhall Spa and Simpson's at New Zealand can have such awesome bunkering when it is hard to find four links which compete.  Most of the time bunkers on links are something I look past and just focus on placement because they are so rarely attractive.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean

Bang on about shapes. From what I've seen and heard Hawtree seems to think anything other than a circular pot bunker is heresy. Given his pre-eminence previously in obtaining work on a lot of links courses (that's my impression at any rate) through his R&A contacts, I wonder if that's why a lot of links bunkers aren't as interesting as the inland ones you suggest ?

Niall

[Sean_A]

Sean

Bang on about shapes. From what I've seen and heard Hawtree seems to think anything other than a circular pot bunker is heresy. Given his pre-eminence previously in obtaining work on a lot of links courses (that's my impression at any rate) through his R&A contacts, I wonder if that's why a lot of links bunkers aren't as interesting as the inland ones you suggest ?

Niall

Niall


Lets face it, to one degree or another, the move toward flashed/blow-out/squiggly shapes is a continuation of the renaissance movement as a rejection of aesthetically boring bunkers.  So you get guys like Doak playing down this trend, but he is essentially one of the leaders of the trend!  Despite the naysayers, overall the effect has been very positive because at least folks now talk about sand and that leads to discussion about playability, placement, numbers, maintenance and sustainability....all worthwhile in tempering expectations, hopes and dreams. 


The bottom line remains, however, that we as golfers will have to put up with dullish bunkers because that is the reality of most clubs.  Rattling off names like Muirfield as an example...well, may as well talk about Augusta...it ain't realistic for most clubs and to be honest much of the time the money is better spent improving greens and drainage.


Ciao 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean

Bang on about shapes. From what I've seen and heard Hawtree seems to think anything other than a circular pot bunker is heresy. Given his pre-eminence previously in obtaining work on a lot of links courses (that's my impression at any rate) through his R&A contacts, I wonder if that's why a lot of links bunkers aren't as interesting as the inland ones you suggest ?

Niall

Niall


Lets face it, to one degree or another, the move toward flashed/blow-out/squiggly shapes is a continuation of the renaissance movement as a rejection of aesthetically boring bunkers.  So you get guys like Doak playing down this trend, but he is essentially one of the leaders of the trend!  Despite the naysayers, overall the effect has been very positive because at least folks now talk about sand and that leads to discussion about playability, placement, numbers, maintenance and sustainability....all worthwhile in tempering expectations, hopes and dreams. 


The bottom line remains, however, that we as golfers will have to put up with dullish bunkers because that is the reality of most clubs.  Rattling off names like Muirfield as an example...well, may as well talk about Augusta...it ain't realistic for most clubs and to be honest much of the time the money is better spent improving greens and drainage.


Ciao

I don't agree with this as it pertains to this thread.


It doesn't cost a lot of money to create good looking bunkers on links courses. The only thing you have to worry about is usually wind so taking account of that is the priority in the design phase.


Inland courses are a different ballgame because of drainage and washout necessities.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I've so much to say on this subject, I don't know where to start... So one point only for now:


The Castle Stuart bunkers are interesting - and inspirational - because they do things the right way round. In other words, open areas of sand on a links are created naturally. They morph and move over time. What Castle Stuart does is it imitates natural erosion by identifying the areas most at risk of erosion in each bunker (the bays) and shores them up with clearly man-made intervention (sod wall). So a wholly artificial construction looks like it's had only minimal intervention to "manage'" the erosion. In turn, this perversely looks far more natural than "natural" bunkers that are over-managed.


In tandem with this, I also like full sod wall bunkers that are allowed to erode over time and don't look perfect. However, one proviso with this look is that it works only where bunkers are backed by rough grasses. Those bunkers that are surrounded by short grass are better kept clean. That doesn't mean rebuilding them before it is absolutely necessary however. They do need to be built eventually because one of the downsides with any bunker erosion is that the face can be undercut by the wind which causes major playability issues.


The photo Sean posts at Princes is just an example of a bunker not managed at all. The broad leave grasses and weeds surrounding it come from the initial construction and have never been treated to bring finer grasses back. And the face appears to have once been burnt off and now just hasn't been touched for a while, falling between two stools (open sod or grass faced). Meanwhile the fairway appears to be narrowed so there is no longer a short grass run in or connection to the playing area.


So bottom line is I love natural bunkers. But I particularly love the ones where part of the design and management philosophy is to let them morph within reason on account of the natural elements. Nothing is worse than an over managed natural look. Hence recently, I've been building natural edges in to steeper hills (usually marram covered) where erosion can have a free hand. And sticking with sod walls on lower lying flat areas where the playing surface is better kept short grass...Even on the rough edged ones, we have a hybrid style with leading edges always surrounded by sod to ensure a clean grass run-in. And maybe shoring up the odd bay, ala Castle Stuart, in order to keep a stylistically consistent theme.


Final point: some sites, the wind is so vicious it takes serious management to maintain sod wall bunkers from eroding. Natural edged ones would be impossible to rein in.

Part 2: Sand Scars


This is a far more interesting trend and one I haven't quite made my mind up on.


Firstly, I think I might have to give Bob Taylor a call to find out the extent of the ecological benefits. No-one has put them in to words.


I have to admit that the photos of the 4th at Turnberry and the hole at Gullane that Clyde posted shows that those areas have softened and look less raw now they've settled in. Just saw a photo that showed Trevose are doing the same although that looks very new, as does The New Course.... Still, I can't help feeling that it is a gesture that is out of keeping with the rest of the course in all of the above cases.


Sand scars are only there in nature where there is erosion. That is not on the leeward side of a dune (as Clyde mentions Gullane's example is) nor is it in a low lying area amongst a stand of gorse (as in The New Course). Even Turnberry's 4th - which is a restorative effort - is now out of place because the land has accreted on the seaward side and has stabilised. Previously, the sand was connected to the foreshore (I think - someone can probably prove me wrong here).


Moreover, when you only have one or two areas on the flat when the rest of the course - including the dunes themselves - are covered in deep vegetation, it just doesn't sit so well.


All that said, when done well, they look really good and there's no doubt a thinning and clearing of aggressive vegetation is great from a playability and visibility perspective.


Again, happy to learn more on the ecological benefits here...

[Tom_Doak]

Sean

Bang on about shapes. From what I've seen and heard Hawtree seems to think anything other than a circular pot bunker is heresy. Given his pre-eminence previously in obtaining work on a lot of links courses (that's my impression at any rate) through his R&A contacts, I wonder if that's why a lot of links bunkers aren't as interesting as the inland ones you suggest ?

Niall

Niall


Lets face it, to one degree or another, the move toward flashed/blow-out/squiggly shapes is a continuation of the renaissance movement as a rejection of aesthetically boring bunkers.  So you get guys like Doak playing down this trend, but he is essentially one of the leaders of the trend!  Despite the naysayers, overall the effect has been very positive because at least folks now talk about sand and that leads to discussion about playability, placement, numbers, maintenance and sustainability....all worthwhile in tempering expectations, hopes and dreams. 


The bottom line remains, however, that we as golfers will have to put up with dullish bunkers because that is the reality of most clubs.  Rattling off names like Muirfield as an example...well, may as well talk about Augusta...it ain't realistic for most clubs and to be honest much of the time the money is better spent improving greens and drainage.

Sean:


I noted from my year in the UK that the bunkers at Muirfield and St. Andrews were much more interesting than anywhere else because of the shapes -- and it's not just the 2-D shape, they get it right in 3-D, which is way harder.


We wanted to imitate those at The Renaissance Club, but it's difficult to do because you build the revetments toward the end of the grow-in process, at which point my shapers aren't around, and I hadn't budgeted for them to come back.  Fortunately, the crew at Renaissance includes guys who used to work at Muirfield and Gullane, so they know how to build sod walls ... and we did give them some interesting shapes to work with, but I think it's fair to say we could have done better at it, because we'd never tried to marry our work with sod walls before.


I don't think it is hard at all to build interesting shapes to bunkers.  I think that a lot of UK architects dumb down the shapes because clubs don't want to pay them to supervise construction, and a boring shape is better than a stupid one.


One thing I really worry about with the artificial-turf revetments is that the work goes even more slowly [because there are more layers], so you're less likely to have an artistic guy supervising the work for the duration ... AND once you get a boring shape you are stuck with it for many years.  Surely the bunkers at Muirfield and St. Andrews are so good is partly because the shapes evolved for the better over the many times they've been redone.

[Sean_A]

Sean

Bang on about shapes. From what I've seen and heard Hawtree seems to think anything other than a circular pot bunker is heresy. Given his pre-eminence previously in obtaining work on a lot of links courses (that's my impression at any rate) through his R&A contacts, I wonder if that's why a lot of links bunkers aren't as interesting as the inland ones you suggest ?

Niall

Niall

Lets face it, to one degree or another, the move toward flashed/blow-out/squiggly shapes is a continuation of the renaissance movement as a rejection of aesthetically boring bunkers.  So you get guys like Doak playing down this trend, but he is essentially one of the leaders of the trend!  Despite the naysayers, overall the effect has been very positive because at least folks now talk about sand and that leads to discussion about playability, placement, numbers, maintenance and sustainability....all worthwhile in tempering expectations, hopes and dreams. 

The bottom line remains, however, that we as golfers will have to put up with dullish bunkers because that is the reality of most clubs.  Rattling off names like Muirfield as an example...well, may as well talk about Augusta...it ain't realistic for most clubs and to be honest much of the time the money is better spent improving greens and drainage.

Ciao

I don't agree with this as it pertains to this thread.

It doesn't cost a lot of money to create good looking bunkers on links courses. The only thing you have to worry about is usually wind so taking account of that is the priority in the design phase.

Inland courses are a different ballgame because of drainage and washout necessities.

Ally

You don't agree with what?  That Muirfield's bunkers look terrific because they spend a ton on maintenance? Most bunkers are okay, not a problem, but not something which aesthetically enhances the design.  As I said on another thread, by far the most impressive new bunkers I saw in recent years were at Aberdovey, but I am told they are not doing well and the shapes are going back to circular shapes because of wind erosion.  Even at my course I see sand blowing out of pots because the direction of the wind is not so prevailing these days...especially in the winter. 

I have yet to see a blowout style in sand survive when placed close to short grass.  It doesn't mean these schemes don't exist, but if they do folks aren't talking much about them.  Castle Stuart's come the closest (that I know of), but they are much more contained than they appear by using vegetation on the edges (they are not truly natural) and very limited in where they can be placed....and I bet they cost cash to maintain.  Plus, using that land near the water would have cost cash in the build just to make it possible.  The comparison to the less attractive pots truly in the middle of play is quite stark. 

I will readily grant that creating good looking bunkers on sandy sites is relatively cheap compared to less ideal soils, but I wouldn't say they are inexpensive in the long run....bunkers are a serious expense for clubs.  Where are these terrific looking bunker schemes that are cheap to build, maintain and not relegated to the edges of the course...at least ones where there is a decent number of bunkers?  Isn't cost the reason the idea of artificial surfaces in bunkers is being introduced these days?

Tom

I should have mentioned Renaissance Club as one with attractive bunkers.  They have that hunkered down look I really like. 

There is a theme here though...attractive bunkers are at places with high green fees...there must be some correlation between attractive and maintenance costs.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,


I don't agree that it costs more to build interesting shapes on links courses. Same as Tom says above.


Ally

[Sean_A]

Sean,


I don't agree that it costs more to build interesting shapes on links courses. Same as Tom says above.


Ally

Ally


I am not sure I said interesting shapes do cost more to build.  I am saying regardless of build cost, maintainance cost is a real issue.  And, that measures to reduce maintenance costs by better placement don't always work out because wind is not entirely predictable.  Other measures to contain sand such as vegetation come with playability issues.  There are no easy answers or cheap ways out when it comes to bunkers other than building less of them and not maintaining them as well as one might.


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,


I don't agree that it costs more to build interesting shapes on links courses. Same as Tom says above.


Ally

Ally


I am not sure I said interesting shapes do cost more to build.  I am saying regardless of build cost, maintainance cost is a real issue.  And, that measures to reduce maintenance costs by better placement don't always work out because wind is not entirely predictable.  Other measures to contain sand such as vegetation come with playability issues.  There are no easy answers or cheap ways out when it comes to bunkers other than building less of them and not maintaining them as well as one might.


Ciao

They don't cost more to maintain either.


Cost has little to no direct correlation to how interesting the bunker shape is.


Cost definitely has a direct correlation to how many bunkers there are and how much sand area there is.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ally,


shape has a big effect on cost of maintenance. If a bunker is big enough and roundish you can get in and out with the bunker rake making it a quick, one man job but if the bunker is squiggly needing a lot of hand work this pushes up the bills. If the bunker is small then hand raking is the only option but it is not cheap.


Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jon,


All links courses I know are hand raked.


I did say area of sand has an effect on cost of maintenance. Area of sand is not necessarily related to whether a shape is interesting or not.


There are of course many nuances and intricacies with what I'm describing. But the bottom line is many U.K. courses went to simple shaped revetted bunkers a number of years ago and started rebuilding them every few years in-house thus simplifying the shapes further. They haven't seen the advantage in going to an artistic designer / builder to give them something more interesting, whether that be a natural edge or a sod wall edge, or a rolled over grass edge.


I believe that the current trend is both a knock-on from the 2nd golden age pioneers and a better understanding that cooler things can be done quite easily at little extra cost.


Ally

[James Boon]

Part 2: Sand Scars
This is a far more interesting trend and one I haven't quite made my mind up on.
Firstly, I think I might have to give Bob Taylor a call to find out the extent of the ecological benefits. No-one has put them in to words.
Again, happy to learn more on the ecological benefits here...

Ally,


If you do get a chance to talk to Bob Taylor, it would be great if he would agree to you posting something here.


In my earlier post I mentioned that Bob had suggested the open areas of sand on our heathland course for their benefit to reptiles (they will be able to use the sand areas better than grass areas for basking in the sun to heat up (we've also recently exposed a lot of sandstone rocks to help with this)) and rare mining bees (who will be able to burrow into the sand for their nests), but thats from my reading of his report to us, not a first hand discussion with him, and suspect they are also specific benefits to our habitat. So I'd like to know the links habitat benefits.


Cheers,


James

[Thomas Dai]

When money gets tight and/or maintenance team size becomes limited it usually seems to be tree/underbrush work that becomes less of a priority at inland courses whilst at links courses it seems to be the bunkering that suffers. I suspect the same will happen with opened-up sandy areas.
And, as is the way with trends (fads?), they come and go, and down the line the leaders at clubs/courses may decide they don’t like opened-up sandy areas.
Plus without ongoing, regular maintenance course features such as opened-up areas go array of there own accord pretty quickly and then more effort is required to one day put them back in place. Seems obvious but always needs to be kept in mind.
A constant balancing act between artistic creation, trends and ongoing use?
Atb

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I don't agree that it costs more to build interesting shapes on links courses. Same as Tom says above.

Ally

Ally

I am not sure I said interesting shapes do cost more to build.  I am saying regardless of build cost, maintainance cost is a real issue.  And, that measures to reduce maintenance costs by better placement don't always work out because wind is not entirely predictable.  Other measures to contain sand such as vegetation come with playability issues.  There are no easy answers or cheap ways out when it comes to bunkers other than building less of them and not maintaining them as well as one might.

Ciao

They don't cost more to maintain either.

Cost has little to no direct correlation to how interesting the bunker shape is.

Cost definitely has a direct correlation to how many bunkers there are and how much sand area there is.

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am saying bunkers cost money and that maintaining bunkers costs money.  Though I also believe simple shapes are easier to cope with which is why we see fancy shaped bunkers turn simple over time...the fancy shapes aren't maintained as such. You seem to be suggesting that it would be cheaper to replace the simple pots with cool bunkers and that over time the lesser maintenance costs will pay for the build cost...?  You also seem to be saying that Murifield's bunkers don't cost anymore to maintain than your average joe links...I find this very, very difficult to believe.  It must cost money to retain the shapes, slopes and revetting so well.  The bunkers must be on a tighter maintenance schedule than joe blow links.

So far as the idea of open and areas as described is concerned...

1. Are the ecological benefits worth the cost of maintenance for open sandy areas?

2. Are the areas in question seriously in play and what are the cost implications compared to keeping the would be rough playable?

We had a few areas cleared at our course and I was hoping large bunkers would be built to keep the areas clear.  They are spots where loose balls end up, but not overly visited.  Now they are practically grown back to a jungle.  I am wondering what the point of clearing is other than the work was funded by an outside agency.  There just doesn't seem to be a plan to maintain the areas in a way which is beneficial to the course.

Ciao

[Jaeger Kovich]

[font=.SF UI Text]Clyde, Ally, Sean and all...[/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][font=.SFUIText]Having just got back from Scotland seeing many attempts at the natural look at Turnberry, The Old Course And The New I think the big ideas are great and they are being done for the right reasons as Adam lays out. But the biggest disappointment at the moment is in the way they are behind built. [/font][/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][font=.SFUIText]They don’t appear natural or old/evolved in the slightest the way they are being constructed. It’s like someone just removed the Turf in a bowl, put some fescue on a smooth roll, painted a line and dropped the chunks to that line. There is no detail and no art to them. There is no building up where sand might have blown out to create a bit of a 3rd dimension, or anything like that. There are no little bits of creeping grass where things are popping up or eroding from. Basically they are missing on all of the art work and just manufacturing these things. [/font][/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][font=.SFUIText]The pic Clyde has, is basically what every single fairway bunker at Turnberry looks like. They are all the same scale. They don’t open up or form out of a bigger dune. They are isolated. And making every single fairway bunker the same style and all the green side another amplifies that. When you step back and look at that seems like something people decide to do in a board room as a compromise... everything is contained or as I call it on site: it’s all “shaped in a box”[/font][/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][font=.SFUIText].. it’s, I think, a big step in the right direction, but I wish they would let someone like Clyde be both architect and Shaper where he can get it all tied together and feel really natural. I think if they changed their process a little bit and did things to make it feel older sooner people would be more on board... I think castle Stuart and many of the gil, rgd, And c and c projects, etc, that may influence these show the difference in how important it is to have control over the construction process, especially in these areas. [/font][/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][/font]
[font=.SF UI Text][/color][font=.SFUIText]I know everyone can’t necessarily see and it’s really hard to explain the difference, but you can feel it. [/font][/font]

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jaeger,


Interesting comments - I haven't seen any of the work other than in photos so I certainly don't want to criticise. However, what you say regarding the sand scars was one of my concerns - The photos made them look suspiciously like construction scars rather than features at a couple of the courses. Like they were areas used for mining marram for bunker chunking. But the matured photo at Turnberry's 4th looks far better, if a little 2D as you state.


Ditto your comments on the fairway bunkers. It's part of the reason that aside from one entire dune shoulder that we built at Strandhill, I've only been using natural rough edges when bunkers are backed in to pre-existing dunes (whether that be fairway or green). Anything that is disconnected to the dune system we've stuck with primarily sod faces, also taking in to account there has to be a mix and combination of both styles to ensure the difference isn't too stark. Scale as well - mix up the size.


To Sean - I'm certainly not stating that building and maintaining interesting shapes is cheaper (although the course manager at Strandhill will tell you he is spending less time on bunkers now than he did previously - one of our aims).


I'm saying that cost is not a primary driver.


If it was, why would so many courses be spending time in creating much cooler bunkering in these tight times?


Another example - Martin Ebert (with Dave Edmondson) are doing the same at The Island - they look pretty cool. Ebert has also recommended the same at Portmarnock although I believe that has - rightly - been shot down. They suit the former. They wouldn't suit the latter. Correct decisions on both counts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There's no doubt, in my mind, that the inspiration for this trend has come, ultimately, from America and the work done by C&C/Renaissance et al. But what has given it legs is the realisation that exposed sand on a links site is ecologically important habitat, and tbh I'd put that down, at least in part, to the fight over the mobile dune at Trump Aberdeen.

On a thread discussing golf in China a few years back, someone (maybe Tom D) lamented that golf development in that country was the first to follow the American model, rather than start with the original Scots model and adapt from there. 


Is architecture in GBI being influenced by a current American model a problem (Doak, Trump) to be concerned with, in a big picture sense?  Of course, Morrish/Weiskoph and others have also brought an American style to the links. 


From our friends over that side of the pond, how has a more traditional American style been received?

[Tom_Doak]

 a problem (Doak, Trump) to be concerned with

Hey, watch it, there.  I would say our influence in the UK is vastly different.


There's no question in my mind that golf in the UK is being slowly corrupted by Americans.  Not necessarily American designers and American consultants, as much as American golfers, who have been forcing them for many years to slowly change the way they've always done things -- everything from letting us choose what tees to play, to greening up the courses that cater to overseas visitors [which they have to do, a bit, to stand up to the traffic].


They have also noticed the American-designed and American-developed courses winning awards, and they'd like to show they can do it, too.


The odd part is they don't seem to understand that most of us who have designed courses over there actually revere their model.  It's like we have to talk them out of building USGA greens, and other things that are totally unnecessary on a links site.

[Tom_Doak]

It’s like someone just removed the Turf in a bowl, put some fescue on a smooth roll, painted a line and dropped the chunks to that line. There is no detail and no art to them. There is no building up where sand might have blown out to create a bit of a 3rd dimension, or anything like that. There are no little bits of creeping grass where things are popping up or eroding from. Basically they are missing on all of the art work and just manufacturing these things.

Maybe they are going to let the wind do the work, instead of paying shapers £500+ per day to get ahead of the curve?  Consider how all of the old features you are trying to imitate from pictures came about.

[Thomas Dai]

It’s like someone just removed the Turf in a bowl, put some fescue on a smooth roll, painted a line and dropped the chunks to that line. There is no detail and no art to them. There is no building up where sand might have blown out to create a bit of a 3rd dimension, or anything like that. There are no little bits of creeping grass where things are popping up or eroding from. Basically they are missing on all of the art work and just manufacturing these things.

Maybe they are going to let the wind do the work, instead of paying shapers £500+ per day to get ahead of the curve?  Consider how all of the old features you are trying to imitate from pictures came about.

Very apt given the way nature has applied itself at RND/Westward Ho! recently.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom's post #45 brought to mind the interesting cross-Atlantic dynamics in the early parts of the last century that I've read about here: with, at first, Americans looking to GB&I to learn how golf courses 'should be done' (and actively seeking the golf and design talent from there to help); and then with GB&I experts/writers coming to visit and praising certain American courses as first-rate; and then with American professionals like Jones travelling to GB&I and coming back with views about the perennial greatness of courses like St Andrews; and then (with the increasing success of such Americans at TOC and the explosion in the number of outstanding golfers the US was producing) the GB&I writers suggesting that perhaps their country needed to do better and play catch-up vis-a-vis design, since the new American courses were tougher/better tests of golf and were thus producing a better class of golfer.
With the changes to/at GB&I courses today, but changes coincident with the prominence in America of the classic-styled Bandon courses, that same dialectic and cross-pollination seems to be continuing.       

[Ally Mcintosh]

I see RSG and Royal Porthcawl are going au naturel also...