[Simon Barrington]

An exchange on another place (aka "X") earlier today, relating to Brian Schneider's great work at New Haven CC, highlighted a belief I have long held in terms of the clear superiority in the care and quality of work in the US on classic designs, versus the work currently being done in the UK (with a few very notable exceptions).

I will not call out any one specific local GCA as there are several making the same professionally limiting error in my view, so unfair to pick on individuals.

This is really apparent and visually jarring in regards to bunkering, the UK is getting overwhelmed by (for want of a better term) pseudo "Colt-enzie" pastiche bunkering with the same cloned-shaping, liners, and incandescent white sand/China Clay.

A large number of our courses are starting to all look the same, "McCourses" with raised flash-faced "McBunkers" if you like ("Mc" as in Burger joints, not MacDonald/Raynor/Banks of course) they are losing and diluting their individual character and quirk. Never mind the original intent or sunken flat-bottomed aesthetic of their ODG!

Worse than that these Instagrammable Rhorshach ink-blots are being put on courses that never had such bunkers on them, and often on courses where the original architect was known not to do so on that specific site, topography, land type, or in that period of design.


It is the imposition upon rather than working with the land and environment, the ODGs extracted or highlighted with variety and subtleness of touch. These highly visual features shout too loud and are the expression of obvious blatantism (perhaps they express the societal place we are in?)

I emphasise this is a design and aesthetic criticism, as the new bunker technologies can be used to produce all bunker shapes, if care is taken. It's also a design relevance and heritage issue.


Why are they imposing standardised White PVC Double Glazing onto our Listed Buildings? It's similar to lip fillers and surgical enhancement, fake beauty.

I am not suggesting courses do not invest in "modernising" their bunker estate with technology to aid maintenance, but that they should do so carefully and with due regard and respect to the courses past style. The GCAs should act accordingly to protect the unique vernacular, and sometimes the client from themselves.

Putting diluted pastiche look-a-like hazards inappropriately on a JHT, Fowler, Fernie, or James Braid course is becoming all too common.

It just seems the EICGA are not educating their UK members enough as to how important it is to do thorough Golf Archeology and Research on their projects, nor are they empowering them as to the vital importance of being prepared to educate the "Invincibly Ignorant" (as per Tom Simpson called them) Boards and Committees of the commissioning Clubs that what they see on Instagram is not at all appropriate for their precious course.

They are IMHO collectively failing our precious architectural heritage. I have even heard comments from senior GCAs over here on Yutube Videos of projects diminishing the clear role of certain ODGs on courses, in order presuambly to give them carte blanche on any changes they now envisage, they don't like the responsibility of restraint that ought to be present.

I predict that GC Atlas (&/or other such historical commentators in the future) will look back very dimly on this period in the UK, it is potentially as damaging (architecturally) as over-planting of trees from 1960's onward, and the lack of Rollback.


Sorry to be so strident, but just fed up of seeing the same remodelled "here is our wonderful new McBunker" images over & over & over again on Socials!

Light the blue touch paper & please discuss...

Cheers

[Niall C]

Simon


In a previous life, was your name Melvin Morrow ?


Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Personally I have always found it refreshing that UK courses were not so fussy about bunker esthetics as US clubs.  If you are now spending the same sort of $$$ on rebuilding your bunkers, God save you.

[Ben Stephens]

'It just seems the EICGA are not educating their UK members enough as to how important it is to do thorough Golf Archeology and Research on their projects, nor are they empowering them as to the vital importance of being prepared to educate the "Invincibly Ignorant" (as per Tom Simpson called them) Boards and Committees of the commissioning Clubs that what they see on Instagram is not at all appropriate for their precious course'.

As a EIGCA member I disagree with this rather glaring comment - some of our members are at the top of their game when it comes to Archaeology and Research on their projects I can name a few of them - I think you need to get your facts right. We do try and educate our clients. At times the clients wants something different or like something seen at another golf club rather than recreate something that was done in the past.

One example is a project I have done with a fellow member of EIGCA and I did historical research on it which was a JH Taylor designed course however the safety margins were not met as houses and roads were close to a particular green that we had to relocate the green away from the houses/roads with basic shaping for the green/tees and one bunker because that's what the client could only afford.

Our initial design was more related to a Taylor style and the company that maintains the greens were appointed as the contractor said it has to be simplified as it is easier/cheaper for them to build and maintain. If it was to our original design with more contours, hollows and bunkers they said it would be more expensive and not meet the small/tight budget.

The UK is a different world when it comes to golf courses as opposed to USA and Europe who tend to have bigger budgets.

[Niall C]

Ben


As a history geek I wouldn't talk against doing a bit of research into the design history of a course, I'm just not enthralled with the idea that just because the original architect did something that we should blindly reproduce that. For sure it should inform the design process but it shouldn't limit the gca. To my mind the gca should ask whether the proposed change was for a specific reason ie. improve drainage, or whether it was to make the course better (not that improving drainage doesn't make the course better). If the reason is to make the course better then they need to be mindful of the heritage and be aware that if they are looking to improve on say Harry Colt, then that might be a (too) high bar to get over.


Niall

[Tim Martin]

Keeping with original bunker shapes, depths and sizes is an important part of the restoration process. Greens chairman/committees should be suspect and question any plans that diverge from this practice unless there is some overriding reason for the change. There is a U.S. based firm that does a terrific job with these projects through every phase and then somehow convinces the powers that be to change the bunkers to conform to their proprietary style instead of what was originally there. My criticism has to do with mainly Golden Age courses.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben


As a history geek I wouldn't talk against doing a bit of research into the design history of a course, I'm just not enthralled with the idea that just because the original architect did something that we should blindly reproduce that. For sure it should inform the design process but it shouldn't limit the gca. To my mind the gca should ask whether the proposed change was for a specific reason ie. improve drainage, or whether it was to make the course better (not that improving drainage doesn't make the course better). If the reason is to make the course better then they need to be mindful of the heritage and be aware that if they are looking to improve on say Harry Colt, then that might be a (too) high bar to get over.


Niall

Niall,


Also the game has changed since Colt days - technology in terms of golf equipment, maintenance equipment, construction approaches and types of drainage available have moved on a long way. The bunkers are there to accommodate certain distances that golfers hit the great thing is that they can be easily replaced and moved further up or made more visible which today's golfers prefer and drain much better.


Also in the last decade has seen a rise of specialist bunker companies who provide products that makes bunker easier to maintain and prevent losing sand or preventing weeds coming through. In an ideal world I would prefer to use natural materials however client will be likely to overrule it and put in artificial materials so it is cheaper and easier to maintain in the long term without having to work too much on the bunker over say 10 years or so.


Golf overall is becoming more expensive and clubs are finding ways of saving money in the long term and becoming more efficient on which areas to maintain.   


Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Keeping with original bunker shapes, depths and sizes is an important part of the restoration process. Greens chairman/committees should be suspect and question any plans that diverge from this practice unless there is some overriding reason for the change. There is a U.S. based firm that does a terrific job with these projects through every phase and then somehow convinces the powers that be to change the bunkers to conform to their proprietary style instead of what was originally there. My criticism has to do with mainly Golden Age courses.

Stafford Vere Hotchkin kept on cutting the depths of the bunkers at Woodhall Spa over the years - is that improvements?. Now Tom and his crew have made them more sensible and playable (however they may have lost a bit of their bite)


Some Golden Age courses were improved over time - I am sure if Colt, Mackenzie and RTJ were alive now they would adapt the course to today's game as per the current crop of Golf Course Architects.

[Tim Martin]

Keeping with original bunker shapes, depths and sizes is an important part of the restoration process. Greens chairman/committees should be suspect and question any plans that diverge from this practice unless there is some overriding reason for the change. There is a U.S. based firm that does a terrific job with these projects through every phase and then somehow convinces the powers that be to change the bunkers to conform to their proprietary style instead of what was originally there. My criticism has to do with mainly Golden Age courses.

Stafford Vere Hotchkin kept on cutting the depths of the bunkers at Woodhall Spa over the years - is that improvements?. Now Tom and his crew have made them more sensible and playable (however they may have lost a bit of their bite)


Some Golden Age courses were improved over time - I am sure if Colt, Mackenzie and RTJ were alive now they would adapt the course to today's game as per the current crop of Golf Course Architects.

Ben-Wouldn’t you say that RTJ/Reese made plenty of changes to Golden Age courses because they thought their style was superior to what was originally there? They created quite a burgeoning business for the current crop of modern architects to “De-Jones” said courses. “Dejonesification” seems to be a thing.

[Tom_Doak]

It was really Hotchkin’s son Neil, more than his father, who dug the bunkers so deep at Woodhall Spa that they developed maintenance problems.


It was impossible to determine original depth of bunkers that were once shallower (the old sand layer is gone), so we just winged it to keep them as deep as it was practical to do.  They’re all in the same spots as S.V. Hotchkin put them, though

[Don Mahaffey]

The evolution of modern golf courses construction/maintenance has driven the belief that courses should play perfectly as often as possible.
I remember the golf digest playing tips from 50 years ago where Trevino would suggest digging feet into a bunker to determine the firmness and how much sand to take...today the bunkers on the course are supposed to be EXACTLY like the practice bunker.  Used to be an elevated green would be firmer and players might approach it differently then a green in a depression...now, we have tools to measure moisture, firmness and ball roll and they are are supposed to be the same. We no longer ask the player to adjust, we ask the greenkeeper to adjust.


The balance of function/playability and art has always been important, but it's never been more difficult then today where whatever is built better function at a very high level regardless of the soils, climate or time of year. This is not the easiest time period to let art be the star.   Some shapers and designers are very good at this balance, but many just build the same thing over and over with slight tweaks no matter the soil or the grasses.


Was it Pete Dye who said golf architecture is just making drainage look good? I feel there is still a lot of truth to that but it's more complicated now with the demand for great art AND great function.  I feel like these modern design demands are separating the pack a bit.

[Niall C]

Ben


Yes, the game does move on and I do find it ironic that those who advocate both a stop to advances in equipment while lauding the golden age of architecture often fail to see that if it was similar advances in equipment that helped fuel the golden age of golf course design in the first place.


However in terms of bunkers, and lets just ignore for a second that bunkers on classic courses have generally already been moved and reshaped a dozen times, and lets just assume that they are where they have always been and that they are designed/shaped the way they have always been. Why would you want to do anything to them ? Perhaps renew the drainage, sod wall or whatever but why move it ? Because it is no longer challenges the flat bellies ? Well who says that the ODG's only designed for flat bellies. Maybe they just wanted to put a bunker there because it sat well in the face of a bank ? Personally I'd take that reason for the position of the bunker over a modern gca getting his slide rule out and deciding the bunker needed to be moved to challenge the scratch golfer.


Then there are the greens. I know Simon didn't really refer to them in his OP but in terms of the "too high a bar to get over" discussion they are perhaps the most important element of the course. For instance, how many modern day gca's would have the balls to decide that they could do better than say Colt or MacKenzie ? I know of one who tried, and failed, and who threatened to sue when I pointed out his work was a failure but I suspect most gca's wouldn't be so rash as to even try.


Niall


     

[Ben Stephens]

Ben


Yes, the game does move on and I do find it ironic that those who advocate both a stop to advances in equipment while lauding the golden age of architecture often fail to see that if it was similar advances in equipment that helped fuel the golden age of golf course design in the first place.


However in terms of bunkers, and lets just ignore for a second that bunkers on classic courses have generally already been moved and reshaped a dozen times, and lets just assume that they are where they have always been and that they are designed/shaped the way they have always been. Why would you want to do anything to them ? Perhaps renew the drainage, sod wall or whatever but why move it ? Because it is no longer challenges the flat bellies ? Well who says that the ODG's only designed for flat bellies. Maybe they just wanted to put a bunker there because it sat well in the face of a bank ? Personally I'd take that reason for the position of the bunker over a modern gca getting his slide rule out and deciding the bunker needed to be moved to challenge the scratch golfer.


Then there are the greens. I know Simon didn't really refer to them in his OP but in terms of the "too high a bar to get over" discussion they are perhaps the most important element of the course. For instance, how many modern day gca's would have the balls to decide that they could do better than say Colt or MacKenzie ? I know of one who tried, and failed, and who threatened to sue when I pointed out his work was a failure but I suspect most gca's wouldn't be so rash as to even try.


Niall


   

Niall,

Totally agree with your first paragraph. Isn't it human nature to advance as time goes along. Being an Architect - golf Courses can be similar to housing in terms of advancement - FLW Mies and Corb - their style is still copied by a number of architects today.

Second paragraph - other than not moving the location you are right it can be down to maintenance, drainage and improving aesthetics so that they are more eye catching and visible. The banks being increased so they are more visible lead to them being harder to get out in some respects. On the other hand some courses have run out of space which has led to bunkers being relocated and others who have space move their tees back so that the bunkers remain in play. Some designers have put them in random positions unlike the Joneses who tend to put them in a cluster (Crail Craighead for example which I didn't really like as I prefer them more spread out and random irrelevant of how far people hit their tee shots)

There are new stuff like capillary pipes in the middle of bunkers which takes water down a couple of metres into a soakaway which one cost effective solution especially in clay based areas.

Yes I did mention relocating green - however the surrounds we tried to recreate JHT who liked mounds and many small bunkers but only ended up with gentle slopes and one bunker which doesn't look like a JHT bunker - the sand bunker areas are being reduced in the UK on many courses and some are being converted into grass hollows which will be more of a feature in the future on many courses in the UK in my opinion. Designers are often restricted by capability and budget reasons it is around 5% that have the cash and splash it on bunkers. 

Everyone always think they can do better    no design is perfect. Le Corbusier once said at a presentation - 'you know life is always right it is the architect who is wrong' quite ironic I think

Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Keeping with original bunker shapes, depths and sizes is an important part of the restoration process. Greens chairman/committees should be suspect and question any plans that diverge from this practice unless there is some overriding reason for the change. There is a U.S. based firm that does a terrific job with these projects through every phase and then somehow convinces the powers that be to change the bunkers to conform to their proprietary style instead of what was originally there. My criticism has to do with mainly Golden Age courses.

Stafford Vere Hotchkin kept on cutting the depths of the bunkers at Woodhall Spa over the years - is that improvements?. Now Tom and his crew have made them more sensible and playable (however they may have lost a bit of their bite)


Some Golden Age courses were improved over time - I am sure if Colt, Mackenzie and RTJ were alive now they would adapt the course to today's game as per the current crop of Golf Course Architects.

Ben-Wouldn’t you say that RTJ/Reese made plenty of changes to Golden Age courses because they thought their style was superior to what was originally there? They created quite a burgeoning business for the current crop of modern architects to “De-Jones” said courses. “Dejonesification” seems to be a thing.

That's what people initially thought in the 1950s and 1960s when RTJ was at the 'top' until the 2000s things evolve over time.

[Ben Stephens]

It was really Hotchkin’s son Neil, more than his father, who dug the bunkers so deep at Woodhall Spa that they developed maintenance problems.


It was impossible to determine original depth of bunkers that were once shallower (the old sand layer is gone), so we just winged it to keep them as deep as it was practical to do.  They’re all in the same spots as S.V. Hotchkin put them, though

Yes it was more Neil Hotchkin


Woodhall plays differently today than the first time I played it as it felt long - it feels much shorter and easier to me nowadays

[Sean_A]

For the most part, the new cookie cutter bunker design has replaced the old cookie cutter bunker design. By far the bigger issues to me are how much sand, location and bunker size variety. The size issue and placement are what betray this new style. Much the same as revetted ovals on links. This is exactly where the high quality new courses are blowing the doors off these cookie cutter renovation jobs. If there is a tight budget, that is all the more reason to make sure every bunker makes a visual as well as playing impact. If this is done, it is likely the amount of sand can be reduced.

We have a perfect course candidate with Cleeve Hill. A good bunker scheme could transform the course. Instead they are talking about routing changes.

Meanwhile, one of the best bunker jobs I have ever seen quietly disappeared at Aberdovey because of lack of money…that’s what I was told.

Meanwhile, another great bunker job at Sutton Coldfield is being ignored.

Cool stuff has happened, but apparently the clubs aren’t cool enough to matter.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()