[Tim Gallant]

While I'm on a roll, what is the collective thinking of mixing bunker styles (ie- blowouts in the fairway and revetted near the greens)? In my mind the justification of wanting the possibility for recovery from the fairway, but a test closer to the green doesn't quite add up. Does it not just make it painfully obvious that everything is man made? Especially on links courses?

[Adam Lawrence]

While I'm on a roll, what is the collective thinking of mixing bunker styles (ie- blowouts in the fairway and revetted near the greens)? In my mind the justification of wanting the possibility for recovery from the fairway, but a test closer to the green doesn't quite add up. Does it not just make it painfully obvious that everything is man made? Especially on links courses?

I don't think that's the logic behind it; I think it is aesthetic. I played Prince's yesterday and over the last few months they have rebuilt (with Mr Ebert) quite a lot of their fairway bunkers in hybrid style -- with revet on the in play side and chunked on the outside. I don't mind it; the real issue seemed to me that, because of a lack of rain, the chunks have not all taken and will probably require some reworking.

[Tim Gallant]

While I'm on a roll, what is the collective thinking of mixing bunker styles (ie- blowouts in the fairway and revetted near the greens)? In my mind the justification of wanting the possibility for recovery from the fairway, but a test closer to the green doesn't quite add up. Does it not just make it painfully obvious that everything is man made? Especially on links courses?

I don't think that's the logic behind it; I think it is aesthetic. I played Prince's yesterday and over the last few months they have rebuilt (with Mr Ebert) quite a lot of their fairway bunkers in hybrid style -- with revet on the in play side and chunked on the outside. I don't mind it; the real issue seemed to me that, because of a lack of rain, the chunks have not all taken and will probably require some reworking.

But if it was just aesthetics, why not make all the bunkers the same? Specifically, I am thinking of The Island and Turnberry, where there are chunked bunkers on the fairways, and revetted bunkers near the green.

[Scott Champion]

While I'm on a roll, what is the collective thinking of mixing bunker styles (ie- blowouts in the fairway and revetted near the greens)? In my mind the justification of wanting the possibility for recovery from the fairway, but a test closer to the green doesn't quite add up. Does it not just make it painfully obvious that everything is man made? Especially on links courses?

This was my biggest critique of Turnberry. There was such a stark contrast between the green and fairway bunkering that came off visually quite harsh. There is probably a 3rd style there with the sandy wastes way off in the rough. All styles were very ‘clean’ and felt a little too clinicial for what is generally a fairly rugged landscape. Having said that, I thought the new holes generally were a good improvement to the course and use of the land around the lighthouse.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim,


I introduced a hybrid style at Strandhill. But I’ve been very wary of two things:


1. Only placing natural edges in to natural dunes, not manmade ones.


2. Ensuring that the visuals work by using some natural edges at greens and inserting some sod in to bays in the fairway, as if you were shoring up erosion. Also using some majority sod bunkers in fairways.


I agree that when you look down a hole and see only natural edges in the fairway and only sod wall at the green, it does not look right.


Personally, I think ours look right.


Ally

[Sean_A]

I recall the issue of different bunker styles at Castle Stuart.  It doesn't bother me at all.  The issue I have is the pots don't look like they belong in some of the fairways.  There really wasn't proper pockets created to house some of the bunkers.  So this is an execution issue, not a philosophical one for me.

I think of revetted bunkers as mainly a solution for wind issues.  Some holes may need them and others may not.  I can fully understand why a more natural style works best aesthetically when rough meets the bunker.  I can also understand when a revetted pot works best for shorter grass areas even when wind may not be a big issue because of collection areas feeding into bunkers. I think a big issue with pots is when many are grouped in a smallish area...they look awful. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I rather liked the hybrid style I recall seeeing at Strandhill and have seen in Castle Stuart etc photos. It’s also similar to what I’ve seen from photos was done decades and decades ago, circa WW1.
A mixture of revetted, sleeper and opened-up would be interesting.
Something evil, in a nice way, about a pot bunker though. The dark “don’t come near me” shadow effect and the likelihood of a very awkward stance for the recovery shot.
Easy to forget though that bunkers are hazards and I’m not convinced that hazards should be manicured. Be interesting to see how opened-up sandy areas will be maintained over the next few years and whether they are a fad or not.
Atb

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I introduced a hybrid style at Strandhill. But I’ve been very wary of two things:


1. Only placing natural edges in to natural dunes, not manmade ones.


2. Ensuring that the visuals work by using some natural edges at greens and inserting some sod in to bays in the fairway, as if you were shoring up erosion. Also using some majority sod bunkers in fairways.


I agree that when you look down a hole and see only natural edges in the fairway and only sod wall at the green, it does not look right.


Personally, I think ours look right.


Ally

Ally,


Thanks for this. I actually don't mind the hybrid style alla Castle Stuart, as long as it's generally consistent, and as you say above, done in a way that has a rationale, even if it's just for show. I was more meaning where you have two completely different bunker styles as per your last point. One in the fairway, which is 100% chunked / blowout, and one near the green that is 100% revetted. In my mind, these clash.

[Tim Gallant]

I've received more private messages about this thread than all other threads I created combined!


I do hope more, especially the lurkers, will post   

[Adam Lawrence]

Tim,


I introduced a hybrid style at Strandhill. But I’ve been very wary of two things:


1. Only placing natural edges in to natural dunes, not manmade ones.


2. Ensuring that the visuals work by using some natural edges at greens and inserting some sod in to bays in the fairway, as if you were shoring up erosion. Also using some majority sod bunkers in fairways.


I agree that when you look down a hole and see only natural edges in the fairway and only sod wall at the green, it does not look right.


Personally, I think ours look right.


Ally

Ally,


Thanks for this. I actually don't mind the hybrid style alla Castle Stuart, as long as it's generally consistent, and as you say above, done in a way that has a rationale, even if it's just for show. I was more meaning where you have two completely different bunker styles as per your last point. One in the fairway, which is 100% chunked / blowout, and one near the green that is 100% revetted. In my mind, these clash.

But I don't think that's what is going on here. The fairway bunkers I mentioned at Prince's, as I said, tend to have a chunked edge on the out of play side, with revet on the fairway side -- roughly as Ally's 'hybrid' style.


As to why not at greenside, I think it's fairly clear -- they want the bunkers to be maintained with short grass to the edge. I haven't seen any that I can recall, but I'm sure Martin would consider a chunked edge at greenside, if, for example, the bunker bled into a large, hay-covered dune

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I introduced a hybrid style at Strandhill. But I’ve been very wary of two things:


1. Only placing natural edges in to natural dunes, not manmade ones.


2. Ensuring that the visuals work by using some natural edges at greens and inserting some sod in to bays in the fairway, as if you were shoring up erosion. Also using some majority sod bunkers in fairways.


I agree that when you look down a hole and see only natural edges in the fairway and only sod wall at the green, it does not look right.


Personally, I think ours look right.


Ally

Ally,


Thanks for this. I actually don't mind the hybrid style alla Castle Stuart, as long as it's generally consistent, and as you say above, done in a way that has a rationale, even if it's just for show. I was more meaning where you have two completely different bunker styles as per your last point. One in the fairway, which is 100% chunked / blowout, and one near the green that is 100% revetted. In my mind, these clash.

But I don't think that's what is going on here. The fairway bunkers I mentioned at Prince's, as I said, tend to have a chunked edge on the out of play side, with revet on the fairway side -- roughly as Ally's 'hybrid' style.


As to why not at greenside, I think it's fairly clear -- they want the bunkers to be maintained with short grass to the edge. I haven't seen any that I can recall, but I'm sure Martin would consider a chunked edge at greenside, if, for example, the bunker bled into a large, hay-covered dune

Adam,


Not sure I agree. The below are photos taken from Turnberry last summer. There are three very distinct bunker styles, often on the same hole. I don't believe there are any hybrids, but may be wrong. Do you believe this is done solely for aesthetics? If so, it is jarring, and doesn't look natural in a setting where everything else is natural. We can do better

[MClutterbuck]

Hey Tim,


I can't really comment on most of your original post and the evolution of these courses as I only have 1 visit to each.  However my impression of the Ailsa was unlike yours. There are clearly 2 (not 3 I think) bunker styles, but with I believe one exception, a very clear theme of revetted green side and natural style in fairways.


I did not mind this aesthetic at all. I suppose most classic courses with 100% revetted bunkers did not get the revetted bunkers built at once?


If I recall correctly, there was just one hole with a center fairway pot revetted bunker that looked out of place to me.


I believe your third photo is of a sandy, natural area, not really a bunker.

[Tim Gallant]

I did not mind this aesthetic at all.

Marcos! Great to hear from you, and good observations!


On the point I pulled out, I suppose with this entire thread that's part of what I'm hitting at. Is Turnberry still a great course? Absolutely. But why are we settling for 'don't mind it' when it can be better? Why are clubs tightening fairways and ripping out unique, original features, when we know that this is precisely what makes those courses great?


Other examples I can think of off the top of my head:


- Changes at Dornoch (is it really going to make that course better?!)
- Carnoustie being saturated throughout the playing season (admit last summer it looked pretty good, but don't think they could have kept it watered in that heatwave)
- Lahinch - why build a second par 3 for the 11th?! Is the original not one of the best holes on the golf course?
- Machrie....
- Waste area in front of the 9th green at Gullane, that has now disappeared because the members hated it
- Pennard second hole


I know I'm being silly, but I see courses that the world envy, that are the jewels of the GCA community, and yet, there is a constant tweaking that is going on that isn't adding any value. I could almost excuse this in the 70s/80s, but we went through that. We've learned from that, and now I feel like there is much more awareness and understanding for what makes good GCA.


I'm all for improving the playing conditions and experience for the golfer on those courses, but not at the often misguided intention of making certain holes better.


Let's admit there's a lot that's not right, and allow those who have a genuine interest in ensuring the courses move forward in the best possible way to help (hello Clyde, Blake, Angela, Frank, Tom, etc).


Full caveat - as I mentioned in my first post, I do think there is stellar work happening as well, but most of it is either restorative, or working on tree / plant encroachment/regeneration. I haven't seen much inspiring work on already great courses that leads me to think that these courses are in desperate need of being updated.

[Thomas Dai]

Dare one add Dura-bunker, Eco-bunker and various bunker base/liner products etc to the debate?
atb

[Peter Pallotta]

Reminds me of an old friend who, harbouring some flak he'd taken for dating so much, complained: "People say 'beauty is only skin deep'. So effing what? What isn't? *Everything* is only skin deep!"
Which is to say: in a way, with gca, maybe it's *all* aesthetics (so called). In other words: maybe aesthetics and design/playability are not two separate parts of one whole, but instead an inseparable continuum -- one in which, for example, the (so called) 'look' of a bunker is actually also its 'challenge'

[John Mayhugh]

I understand Tim's point. While I will agree that there does seem to be a great deal of good work going on, I fear that some things that are special or memorable are being lost.


Here's an example that's only marginally architecture related. Back in May of 2018, I was privileged to play my second shot on the 2nd hole at North Berwick from an inconvenient, but thrilling location. My tee shot landed in the fairway, but thanks to the way the wind was moving it, it bounced and rolled onto the beach. Conveniently enough, I found a ladder down from the fairway.nb 2 ladders by john mayhugh, on Flickr

A close up look at the ladder to the beach.nb ladder by john mayhugh, on Flickr

A year later, that option was gone. I 'm not sure if this was the needed approach to deal with erosion - it sure seemed like a severe reaction. Is it the most effective? Maybe. Was it the most cost effective? Maybe. Does it take a really cool aspect to the hole and eliminate it? Unfortunately, yes.
nb 2 may 19 by john mayhugh, on Flickr

I was really disappointed to see the change. I've no way of knowing what the alternatives were (or even how "historical" the playing from the beach is), but I do miss the older version of the hole. The hazard remains, but a truly memorable option for recovery goes away. I'm hopeful that clubs looking at making changes of any sort consider the value of unique as much as they do terms like fair and consistent.

 

[Tim Gallant]

John,

Thankfully, that option is not lost. If you hit on the beach, you just have to access the beach before the boulders. I have hit many times off the beach this year. You do have to miss it a few more yards to the right now, but the option of 'A driver onto the beach, and a wedge into the green' as Trevino said, is still very much in play. 

[Mark Chaplin]

Michael Woolf what “on going” bunker work at RSG?


The only bunker work I recall at TOC is on the second and the fifth, both of which are improvements.


I was talking to a knowledgeable Swinley member yesterday who doesn’t understand the fuss about the 17th. I’ve yet to see it.

[James Brown]

Sorry for the subject, but I feel like as a GCA community, we are asleep to what is happening in the UK&I at the moment.


To preface what I'm about to say, I need to give a bit of context. I love golf in the UK. I love the links courses, and heathland courses. From Scotland to England to Wales to N.I. and Ireland, there is so much quality, that I would happily play my golf here for the rest of my life and never complain....


So now that you know this doesn't come from a place of anger, but of concern, I need to ask: what the hell is happening to our great courses here in the UK?! While the pendulum in the US seems to have swayed back towards fun, playability, contoured greens, uniqueness, minimalism, naturalism, and originality, the UK is going in the other direction! It seems like up and down the coast, the best courses are getting assaulted by bad GCA work and bad GCA decisions, which is homogenising the best we have to offer. (Caveat: I am not trying to call out specific architects, and apologies if this seems like an assault on you). Some examples of things I have seen / heard:


- 20 yard wide fairways at North Berwick
- Remodelling of par-3s 8 & 17 at Swinley Forest
- Bunker work at Sunningdale Old, which looks like a cross between....who knows
- Green slope softening at places like St George's Hill
- General uninspiring and unoriginal work at places like Turnberry
- Making greens and holes at Royal Aberdeen more homogenous, most notably the 3rd.
- Bunker work at courses like The Old Course
- Won't mention Wentworth again...
- Praise of places like Adare Manor, which are the most unsustainable golf courses known to man.
- Consideration given to destroying beautiful original holes at Cruden Bay for 'championship' sake.


Ran and others beat the drum years ago, and at least had a hand in helping to educate about what good looks like in the US. Now, I feel like we are asleep here in the UK. And it's only set to get worse. As more and more who don't know better praise this work because it's new, more and more clubs will start to look at their neighbour and think 'We want some of that!'.


But are we really improving these courses? I don't think so. The only improvements I've seen at great courses is where a club has gone back to the original principle of what the course was when it opened: Alwoodley, Tandridge, and New Zealand (with bunker work) to name a few.


What's happening and what can we do? They say the first step to recovery is through acceptance. Can we accept that there is a lot of work happening at great golf courses around the UK that is not good?!

Which fairways at North Berwick are 20 yards wide?  Maybe on 14, but I can’t think of others.

James,


I actually think 14 is one of the wider fairways! I was specifically thinking of 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 17. There may be points on those fairways that extend to 25 yards wide, but I have personally paced those fairways and seen 20/22 yard width.


The reason it doesn't stick out to most is that there is a very small semi-rough that borders the fairways on each side, at about 3-5 yards. So including this small semi rough, the fairways are closer to 30 yards (still tight tight tight!).

I’ve played NB in 3 of the last 5 seasons and just never found it to feel overly narrow in the least.  I thought the playing corridors were nicely varied.  North Berwick feels like exactly the same course I played for the first time a dozen years ago, so I just don’t think of it as an example of the newly defined bad management trends you have cited. 

[James Brown]

I understand Tim's point. While I will agree that there does seem to be a great deal of good work going on, I fear that some things that are special or memorable are being lost.


Here's an example that's only marginally architecture related. Back in May of 2018, I was privileged to play my second shot on the 2nd hole at North Berwick from an inconvenient, but thrilling location. My tee shot landed in the fairway, but thanks to the way the wind was moving it, it bounced and rolled onto the beach. Conveniently enough, I found a ladder down from the fairway.nb 2 ladders by john mayhugh, on Flickr

A close up look at the ladder to the beach.nb ladder by john mayhugh, on Flickr

A year later, that option was gone. I 'm not sure if this was the needed approach to deal with erosion - it sure seemed like a severe reaction. Is it the most effective? Maybe. Was it the most cost effective? Maybe. Does it take a really cool aspect to the hole and eliminate it? Unfortunately, yes.
nb 2 may 19 by john mayhugh, on Flickr

I was really disappointed to see the change. I've no way of knowing what the alternatives were (or even how "historical" the playing from the beach is), but I do miss the older version of the hole. The hazard remains, but a truly memorable option for recovery goes away. I'm hopeful that clubs looking at making changes of any sort consider the value of unique as much as they do terms like fair and consistent.

This is definitely a trend I don’t like at all.  I played Crail for the first time and found out to my utter horror that the beach was actually out of bounds on several holes on the front nine, apparently a decision that was made in the last several years. 

[Robin_Hiseman]

Dare one add Dura-bunker, Eco-bunker and various bunker base/liner products etc to the debate?
atb

I recently saw the Eco-bunkers at the new Dumbarnie links, in Fife and thought they were outstanding. It was not possible to tell them apart from a natural revet, unless you were within arms length. It is a technology that is very welcome in my opinion and very likely to grow in popularity.

[Mark Pearce]

The beach is out of bounds at Crail for safety reasons.  And it has been for at least 10 years, I suspect longer.

[Ira Fishman]

As a "one play" guy, I enter gingerly. But I did play NB twice in a row and agree with other posters that I did not find narrow fairways. And Number 2 is dramatic even though the before pictures look a bit more dramatic. I hit it so far on the beach one day that no method of access would have worked.


On the other hand, I am troubled by the changes to Numbers 14 and 15 at Nairn. I played "before" but think changes in search of more Championships could unfortunately undo a terrific green and fun, funky fairway.


Ira

[Tim Gallant]

Michael Woolf what “on going” bunker work at RSG?


The only bunker work I recall at TOC is on the second and the fifth, both of which are improvements.


I was talking to a knowledgeable Swinley member yesterday who doesn’t understand the fuss about the 17th. I’ve yet to see it.

Mark,


I believe Michael was referring to the conversion of bunkers from revetted to a more 'blow-out' style, but I could be wrong. I haven't played it since they made changes (specifically to holes like number 5) but have seen photos.


On the bunker changes at 2 to TOC, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it improves the hole as I know how much time you've spent on the course, and you've seen it in all conditions. I know Tom D definitely disagrees. In a recent post on Instagram, he had this to say:

[/size]Thrilled to be back in St Andrews, but my first view of The Old Course is those cursed new bunkers beside the 2nd green, right out my window at The Old Course Hotel. Thankfully the green is still intact, so as Herbert Warren Wind wrote, there could be a man lying down between you and the hole, and you might not see him, so steep are the undulations in the green.


On the Swinley changes, if the member doesn't know what the fuss is about, I can only pray that he has no sway on making further changes to the course, because it really doesn't get much worse than this;


https://twitter.com/Top100GolfNomad/status/1150171723087659013


As one GCA poster said in a PM to me: Changes to the 17th at Swinley Forest are almost a war crime.

[Thomas Dai]

An early open-sand and revetted hybrid.



I wonder how much of the wood used for the stabilisation of this bunker, and that's what it is, stabilisation not visual aesthetics, came for driftwood found on the nearby seashore?


No rakes back then either. Excellent!
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()