Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Evan_Green on February 12, 2005, 09:53:25 PM
-
It makes sense that sand bunkers would be chosen as hazards in the British Isles as golf courses were first built given they fit in very naturally with links and duneland where there is natural sand.
It also makes sense that the concept would be imported to the US given the games Scottish roots.
However, while sand bunkers fit in naturally with linksland, they dont really seem to fit in naturally in a sterile tree-lined parkland setting in the same way they do in a dunes setting.
It will be interesting to see if architects will invent "new" hazards that have not been tried yet given the trend in architecture to fit the course to the natural terrain (at least this being the case with the better architects)- these "new" hazards may work better in certain environments that more traditional hazards and still be at heart of the game's classica roots.
-
"they dont really seem to fit in naturally in a sterile tree-lined parkland setting in the same way they do in a dunes setting."
How don't they fit? Is it because designers are too busy trying to make them look too maintained? Pick-up any book of English Heathland courses and tell me how trees don't work with sand hazards as fitting in the image of how they should look.
Look at some of those images of Boston Golf Club, Walton Heath and tell me that bunkers don't fit in naturally. How does links benefit more from the relationship?
Questions-questions-questions...Always questions.....
-
Evan and TommyN:
That’s more than an excellent question, and also a very difficult one to ask because the sand bunker has apparently become perceived to be almost a necessary ingredient of a golf course. But is it really, and if so, why? If it has become, over the evolution of golf and architecture, perceived to be almost a necessary ingredient of golf and architecture one certainly can ask why. Is it now only because most all golfers have come to expect sand bunkering on a golf course even if there is no naturally occurring sand within a hundred miles of that golf course? Would golfers today generally perceive a golf course to be incomplete somehow if it had no sand bunkers where no sand was naturally occurring within a hundred or two hundred miles? That’s an excellent question and one that should be looked at carefully on here.
Max Behr wrote on this subject as deeply and eloquently as any I’ve ever seen. He analyzed the use of the sand bunker in an historic and evolutionary sense. He analyzed it in the sense of its inherent naturalness, or lack of it, in various settings. And Behr wrote on golf and golf architecture’s philosophical relationship to nature and what appeared to the golfer to be natural as deeply and eloquently as anyone I’ve ever seen. He wrote constantly on the relationship of what appeared natural compared to what appeared artificial to the golfer. He wrote constantly on the consequences of the distinctions between what appeared natural and what appeared artificial to a golfer. Matter of fact, the perception by the golfer of that distinction became almost the fundamental theme of all Behr wrote about on the subject of golf architecture.
Behr even wrote an article entitled “The Natural Use of Sand” in the 1920s. I’d be glad to discuss the subject particularly using the history and logic of what Behr said about it but I won’t if the contributors begin to joke again about Behr and his writing style and simply make that the subject of this thread instead of this obviously interesting and fundamental question.
Behr, in his extensive writing on architecture occasionally referred to golf’s ‘necessary exceptions’ when he wrote about those few features in architecture that could never be made to look as if the architect did NOT make them. In all cases those ‘necessary exceptions’ were tees, fairways and greens, prepared with short grass. In some cases, he included the sand bunker where sand was not naturally occurring, and occasionally he included prepared rough.
So Evan’s question is a good one. Are sand bunkers absolutely essential on a golf course or can architects come up with a “new” type of hazard in the future to replace them, even if only occasionally?
Well, we do know that there is probably not a course in the world that does not have tees, fairways and greens, but what about one that has no sand bunkers? There’re plenty of mundane courses that have none, and I know a few that’re pretty interesting. And then there’s the notable exception of Royal Ashdowne Forest that has none by royal decree. So while sand bunkers may appear to be a universal ingredient in golf and architecture they really aren’t. And then there’s the question of what could replace them, what a “new” hazard feature could be, as Evan asked? There’re a number of them, some very well known. Would you like me to relate some of the fundamental points Behr made on this subject Evan?
-
What sort of hazards would you be writing of? We now have boulders, desert, walls, water, sand, buildings and I am sure there are some others. This is an interesting proposal, especially considering the trend in gardening to come up with man-made features for the garden. Usually designed to be low maint. and functional, yet not without some aesthetic value.
Ciao
Sean
-
Sean:
When Evan asks what a "new" hazard feature could be other than a sand bunker, I don't know that he necessarily means something that's never before been done or used in golf architecture.
Max Behr referred to the hazard "dimension" as generally being the "vertical" dimension, or height, vs length or width.
Bill Coore sometimes refers to the "features" in golf, even hazard features, as being akin to "notes" used in the arrangement of a symphony, for instance----eg they are interchangeable.
We know of a number of things that're natural or appear to be that have the vertical dimension (height) that can be used as hazard features---eg natural topography, broken or undulating ground, mounds and hollow, certainly trees and to some extent to the lie of the ball---rough.
Of course, Behr didn't say a golf architect couldn't use features on a golf course, including hazard features, that were clearly artificial and man-made looking, he just apparently thought it was a better idea to make things look like nature made them somehow.
But if golf architects decided in the future to use "new" hazard features that are artificial looking the possiblities would be virtually limitless, don't you think?
-
Tom
OK, so you are talking about making "rough" areas, such as broken ground more a feature rather than using bunkers and water etc. This may come to pass given the limited availability of "ideal" land.
It seems many great courses are being built by people looking for land that is ideal, but not necessarily considered so in the past. I spose much of the problem is maint. of these sites, proximity to urban areas and potential environmental issues and as we can see with Rustic Canyon, the impact of extreme weather. All this for under $75 can sometimes be difficult to deliver!
Ciao
Sean
-
Evan
The National Greenkeeper, November 1930, discusses the first Hole at Merion Cricket Club as having a "pocket of sand in a mound at the back of the Green punishes an overplayed approach".
This really wasn't a bunker, but certainly a hazard, and a difficult one at that. Hitting from an elevated mound from sand to a downslope run to the cup.
-
One aspect, that was missing from Tom's first post, was the recoverability aspect of sand v. other hazards.
Tom, could you expound on that? as well as this..
Would you like me to relate some of the fundamental points Behr made on this subject Evan?
-
In the 40's or 50's RTJ wrote that different species juniper should be used as an American version of heather and gorse. The only course I've seen that uses it in large quanities is the nine-hole Dunes course in New Buffalo, MI--very effectively I might add.
-
"One aspect, that was missing from Tom's first post, was the recoverability aspect of sand v. other hazards.
Tom, could you expound on that?
Adam:
Should I assume by that you want me to expound on what I believe Behr's feelings were about recoverablity from sand v other hazards, not my own?
-
It would seem obvious to me that we Americans have quietly introduced the world to a new form of hazard in the last 25 years:
THE CART PATH !!!! (Complete with concrete curbing)
-
Althought it's not new...
The ditches at Oakmont are affecting the play on a lot of the hole and they were built for a very technical aspect: drainage.
They are very effective and to be considered in the strategy of some holes out there.
One hazard that is seldom use is a natural depression. We have a hole at my home course, 270 yards par 4 where there's a major dip covered with long grass to the left of the green. If you drive it in there, you're standind 15 feet below the green in the rough... very fun
Of course there's the Pinehurst type of greens, that are hazard it itself..
-
Courses in the coal region of PA (Pottsville area specifically) have been known to use fly ash (half burned coal) and coal slag in hazards.
It's indigenous to the area and quite unique. One of my favorite courses, Mountain Valley Golf Club in Mahanoy City, PA has employed both to some success, and it plays remarkbly like sand.
-
I know it's sacrilege here, but I think the most underutilized hazard in golf today are trees.
Sure, trees die eventually ... some in five years, some in fifty. In the meantime they are very effective hazards. They add a three-dimensional shotmaking element to recovery play.
Lots of architects are scared to design around a tree now, but if a parkland property had clumps of trees and specimen trees spaced properly, a very good course could be made with minimal bunkering.
-
Tom has a great point, two of my favorite holes in golf employ trees at some very strategic points, both these holes have no bunkers on them either.
The nature of a hazard is to dare it, and in doing so succesfully, reap rewards... trees offer a third dimension that other hazards do not employ and can do more to shape a shot or define how a hole should be played than any manmade hazard.
Trees are also natural to many golf course sites so their effective use falls in line with a minimalist approach to golf design.
Not so much sacrilege, just underutilized or misused.
-
Doesn't it all boil down to texture, recoverablility, and the hazard material's relationship to naturally occuring features, as TEP has stated above?
We have seen the advent of "environmental zone" hazards in the last 30 years. Green staked areas where one is not allowed to enter to recover a ball. It might as well be a water hazard since texture of the material that the ball lies within is irrelavant and the recovery shot can't be attempted. Then there is the lava flow variety. I never played at a course like that, but I assume that if your ball lies in the craggy and rough lava, and you are goofy or a gambler, you might elect to not ground your club and hit the ball, chancing ruining your blade on the sharp material. Not a very viable option IMHO. Then there are the darn unenterable flower beds that play like the enviro green staked hazards. All these are not compatible with recovery and are undesirable in my opinion.
Obviously, the rough grass area (perhaps with a modest level of minimum maintenance of 4-6" and sprayed for broadleaf infestation) in hollows like a grass bunker, or on convex mounds or hummocks offer the best potentially recoverable and naturally occuring material of a texture where the club can be utilized to attempt a shot.
I have always been curious about Shivas (Dave Schmidt's) ideas on rough strips meandering within fairways and crossing them in diagonals and such, challenging ball placement or extracting a half shot or so penalty on the recovery. While they wouldn't necessarily pass the naturally occuring test or traditional golf course appearance, they sound interesting and possibly worthy of a try by some specifically or conducively laid out course with wide fairways and few bunkers.
Waste areas also present the more logical areas to try different materials of a texture that allows an attempt at recovery, without ruining a golf club. There are those experiments with the coal slag and by products of industry of various regions. They have the pine needles which are sort of a hazard texture with unique playing characteristics for hitting shots from them. They have crushed marble and other stone, and some artificial ground materials. I suppose one could spread wood chips or sawdust, or ground corn husks or corn or grain. All of which is silly stuff, but at least presents the possiblility of a recovery blow being struck at the ball that landed in such a hazard zone.
I don't like rock walls, stone fences, boulder fields, hard scrabble fields and anything of a man made permanent barrier including RR ties, as a personal point of distaste. Using old structure foundations and basements like Hurdzan's use of some old farm building at Devils Paintbrush or Pulpit or whatever... is undesirable in my own personal bag of preferences.
So to conclude, I can't think of anything more valid than the above discussed "rough strips, hollows or mounds" or pine needle areas, or sandy wastes or wastes of some natural or indigenous to regional industrial by-product material as proper texture for a hazard area.
Oh yeah, trees... deciduous preferred or coniferous with bases trimmed up at least 4-5ft from ground level offering some chance to punch out from beneath... ::)
-
About strips of rough in a fairway...
Wyncote Golf Club in Oxford, PA has a hole (13th, since they flipped nines a few years back) where a long strip of rough splits the fairway length-wise, and the golfer is forced to choose a side of the fairway to hit or even attempt to carry the rough.
It plays similarly to a "Principal's nose" style of hole as the favored side is between the rough and OB, however, the rough isn't as penalizing as sand.
-
TomD said;
"I know it's sacrilege here, but I think the most underutilized hazard in golf today are trees."
Tom:
Good for you saying that. I think this virtual "party-line" on this website against the architectural or strategic concept of trees on a golf course is one of the weakest aspects of this otherwise intelligent golf architectural website.
I'm certainly not questioning anyone's personal opinion about trees on golf courses (some should probably have them and some shouldn't) but the apparent "doctrinaireism" of some on here that there should be no trees on any course is about as closed-minded as a doctrinaire tree-hugger, in may opinion.
Furthermore, I think it makes them incapable of understanding or even recognizing the interesting philosophies with trees on some sites from the likes of Mackenzie, Colt, Tillinghast, Crump and Flynn!
-
I think an interesting hazard feature in place of sand bunkers is the idea of higher and natural grass area on say low grade mounds of hollows within fairway areas.
Another idea that fascinates me is something that simply looks like obsoleted bunkering of which there are plenty on courses, including mine. There's an awesome on at Myopia. Have any of you heard of the concept in building architecture of "deconstructed" architecture? There's quite a bit of it that goes on around me---and it's fascinating in many ways! The same concept could easily be applied to golf course architecture!
The interesting thing about that idea is they can be every bit as effective and strategic as a sand bunker can but they don't need sand---and they certainly don't remotely the same amount of man-power, maintenance and cost.
I realize it's not been discussed on here yet but we should all realize that perhaps the biggest reason for the highly defined and perhaps emaculate sand bunker in golf may not actually be aesthetics---it probably has far more to do with simply THE RULES OF GOLF!
In my opinion, the evolutionary effect of the Rules of Golf on everything about bunkering and its evolution may be the most significant of all.
-
TEP, I really don't think it is as negative as "doctrinaireism" when considering a propensity of many GCA contributors to shy away from the use of trees as hazards or features in golf course design. I think it is more a mindset of traditionalism, and for many, they know that poorly placed trees are also not compatible with good turf conditions in key areas.
It would be way too narrow minded or unrealistic for anyone to take a "no tree" or "anti-tree" stance in modern, and regional golf course design. We all know the traditional and seminal origins of the links. We all know that the game can't be transported without compromise and acceptance of regional growth of trees in their many species and climates. But, trees are a double edged sword. There are golf course designer/archies that have a keen sense of them, and those that are misguided or really don't seem to understand various trees unique and individual species growth and water use characteristics. They wind up incorporating the wrong trees in the wrong places, and create a nuisance to the game rather than an interesting feature, hazard, or challenge.
I think it is incumbant upon any archie worth his or her salt to know the habits and unique characteristics of existing or proposed trees on thier prospective properties very very well.
-
Tom
I have played a few courses with tall rough grown wild in fairway hollows, Burnham & Berrow springs to mind. My first reaction was "I don't care for this", but on reflection it isn't really different from a bunker and I get a practice swing!
I can understand Mr. Daley's point about walls etc., but the use of the wall on The Pit at North Berwick is a stroke of genius. On the same note, I am not keen on the wall for the 3rd hole. Also, the drive a #17 of TOC would not be nearly as much fun without the risk of clattering the hotel.
Ciao
Sean
-
How about visual hazards?
The first hole of the Blue Course at Penn State always fascinated me because the tee box pointed down the right side of the fairway. The tee box was parallel to the fairway, but just slightly offset.
If you let the tee box line you up, you brought a small bunker more into play, but you were still aiming down the fairway. Subtle things like that gave the hole some character... and I always smiled when I saw people drop one straight into the bunker because they thought the tee pointed the way.
-
RJ:
I very much hear what you say there and I completely understand your reasoning.
However, the thought of anyone on here actually saying that they firmly believe that no tree should be used on ANY golf course ANYWHERE in a strategic sense simply because somewhere they may be misused is not only a revolting thought to hear--to me it really is one that's doctrinaireism to the extreme, in my opinion.
This isn't all that different to me than these multi threads I started last week on "purists". The reason I started them was only an attempt to get those who refer to themselves as "purists" on here (I called them "so-called purist" and that ultra-sensitive contributor David Moriarty seemed to take such personal or philosophic umbrage over it that he started another thread simply to bait me into explaining why I even used the words "so-called" with the term purist!) to more fully and intelligently explain what they mean by a what "purity" is in, say, a restoration project of a classic course.
Can they explain and discuss that and answer intelligent and realistic questions? Not even close, in my opinion. And why not? Probably because the whole thing has just gotten to be a massive form of "me-tooism" in which they don't even know how to answer intelligent real-world question of restoration projects or they just don't want to for reasons that seem obvious to me.
And when I said I, myself, am probably an architectural "purist" MacWood shot back that I was probably a purist somewhere between Goodale and Fazio! What does he mean by that? Well, I'd like to know but of course he has no thought of answering! I guess he thinks all he needs to do is put a "smiley" face behind a remark like that or just tell me I'm over reacting when I ask him to explain himself. Of course I probably shoudnt have called him a piece of S... but I removed that.
I'd like to see him discuss what he means in a real world sense, though, instead of just retorting with additional questions or not responding at all. But I have a feeling he never will intelligently respond! I don't think Moriaty will either. It was a mini-victory today to get him to answer two of my questions on here. His answer to both was "NO". That's an answer but not much of a discussion! ;)
-
Tom, I asked for both. Yours and his.
Since the thread is about new hazards, I'll throw out the convex bunker with grass fingers on the fifth at Wildhorse as the newest tpe of hazard I have seen.
Of course it was only new for a day or two, until we drove past it's natural inspiration, near the roadsides on the way to SHGC. ;)
-
Adam
I am having difficulty envisioning a convex bunker. How does the sand stay in place?
Ciao
Sean
-
Sean, it's really a mound of sand that's well maintained... you can also use certain plants to keep the sand in place with the roots.
-
Kyle
Does this bunker require loads of watering?
Ciao
Sean
-
Sean, Aren't you familiar with Wildhorse at all?
For one, overwatering and WH do not compute.
To answer your first question to me, I suppose the fingers of grass assist in keeping the sand in the bunkers. I also suspect that the sand, which is so plentiful, is not costly to re-fill, if needed, and. is perhaps heavy enough to stay put. After all that's what it's done for milenia.
-
Adam
Nope, never heard of Wildhorse except by folks on here. The vast majority of US courses you folks write about are just words to me. Very slim chance that I will ever play any of them! Some of them sound like they may be worth a bit of a sojourn.
Ciao
Sean
-
Tom Doak,
If you think trees are "underutilized" as hazards today, you need to take some time away from designing and get out and see a few more courses ;)
Whether or not they are used correctly is another question but they sure are being used as hazards and to direct the line of play.
Mark
-
"The National Greenkeeper, November 1930, discusses the first Hole at Merion Cricket Club as having a "pocket of sand in a mound at the back of the Green punishes an overplayed approach".
This really wasn't a bunker, but certainly a hazard, and a difficult one at that. Hitting from an elevated mound from sand to a downslope run to the cup."
Bill,
Shallow sand pits were also added to mounds behind the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 14th greens between 1916 and 1924. And you pointed out that the bunker behind the 7th green on the West Course used to be a shallow pit in a mound above green level.
There obviously was a systematic effort to incorporate this hazard at Merion. I know you agree, these features were much more effective when they were shallow pits above green level and with the green sloping away. I'd like to see these interesting features used in today's designs.
-
Tom Doak,
Very interesting post. I like the use of trees in their natural environment. There are a number of examples in Flynn's designs, some of the best happen to be NLE--just a coincidence. Today, one of the best remaining examples is the 11th hole at Huntingdon Valley. Do you recall his use of native trees here? I'll get some photos posted so that some on this site might see past their blinders 8)
Tom Paul mentioned, as did Linc Roden, that there was another strategic tree, this one on the right side off the upper 4th tee at Huntingdon Valley.
-
And then there’s the question of what could replace them, what a “new” hazard feature could be, as Evan asked? There’re a number of them, some very well known. Would you like me to relate some of the fundamental points Behr made on this subject Evan?
Yes Tom, I would appreciate it if you would
-
Evan
The National Greenkeeper, November 1930, discusses the first Hole at Merion Cricket Club as having a "pocket of sand in a mound at the back of the Green punishes an overplayed approach".
This really wasn't a bunker, but certainly a hazard, and a difficult one at that. Hitting from an elevated mound from sand to a downslope run to the cup.
Thats interesting Willie- i am trying to picture it, sounds to me almost like the mound is a "snow capped peak", but with sand. Probably a tough hazard to maintain i would think.
-
"they dont really seem to fit in naturally in a sterile tree-lined parkland setting in the same way they do in a dunes setting."
How don't they fit? Is it because designers are too busy trying to make them look too maintained? Pick-up any book of English Heathland courses and tell me how trees don't work with sand hazards as fitting in the image of how they should look.
Look at some of those images of Boston Golf Club, Walton Heath and tell me that bunkers don't fit in naturally. How does links benefit more from the relationship?
Questions-questions-questions...Always questions.....
Tommy-
No doubt bunkers fit very well on English heathland courses, but I did say STERILE parkland setting- whereas those English courses are hardly sterile.
I was speaking of the "Augusta-like" type of bunker that so many have tried to copy in terms of design and maintenance.
-
Courses in the coal region of PA (Pottsville area specifically) have been known to use fly ash (half burned coal) and coal slag in hazards.
It's indigenous to the area and quite unique. One of my favorite courses, Mountain Valley Golf Club in Mahanoy City, PA has employed both to some success, and it plays remarkbly like sand.
Kyle-
I believe Nicklaus did something similar at his course in MT Old Works.
The black "sand" there is definately different looking from the pictures I have- i havent played it so I cant attest to what it plays like versus hitting out of a tradiditonal sand bunker, but you seem to suggest it plays similar to sand.
-
Convex hazards as far as I know require some considerable watering to aid the sand reaching optimum compaction. Then they are raked lightly a few times a week so it plays less like hardpan and more like sand.
As for trees being underutilized, I believe that are in a strategic sense. Sure, you have treelined fairways, but how many times do you see one or two trees as the chief hazard for the hole? In lieu of bunkers or water, et al.
-
Slopes can be used as hazards to give the player a challengin lie - sidehil, uphill, downhill. At Harbour Town 80% of the hazards are trees.
At Teeth of the dog, Dye built small grass mounds and put a hollow of sand on top of the mound.
-
I think grassy hollows are much more penal than bunkers as hazards but I think the real problem we will continue to face with "discovering a new hazard" is contrast. Sand has been and will be the main material used for contrast in golf holes. I just don't know if most golfers will accept other hazards unless they can bring to the pallette of the golf course what sand does. Also, I do think that the vertical slope can be an extremely useful form of strategy to replace bunkers. It would not be a hazard according to the rules. If particular arras of a green complex are protected by extremely vertical shoulders melding into short grass chipping areas recovery is much more difficult than bunkering in the same area.
IMHO
-
Pete Dyes extreme somewhat convex bunkering along right side of #4 FW Whistling Straits. They could sculpt out a few more sand pockets and then you'd get to what "the boys" did at Wild Horse below.
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/342%3B578723232%7Ffp64%3Dot%3E232%3B%3D8%3A%3A%3D77%3A%3DXROQDF%3E23235%3A344%3B566ot1lsi)
Wild Horses 5th greenside convex bunker:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/342%3B578723232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3B%3D8%3A%3A%3D77%3A%3DXROQDF%3E2323774%3C6%3A%3B%3B7ot1lsi)
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/342%3B578723232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3B%3D8%3A%3A%3D77%3A%3DXROQDF%3E2323774%3C6%3C486ot1lsi)
-
Dick, Did Josh alter the fingers since I was there? Hard to tell from the pictures' angle, but the fingers do appear less linear than I recall.
Kyle, Hopefully Josh Mahar will see this post and chime in on how he maintains the above New hazard.
-
8)
I like a good old ancient sea bed as a new hazard.. for forced carry and errant shots
(http://www.blackmesagolfclub.com/images/600x400_16th_wide.jpg)
-
I guess it's safe for those of us who enjoy select, strategic specimen trees affecting strategy,causing the need for creating shots, or(God Forbid) inflicting penalty-to come out of hiding-
Mr. Doak has given the seal of approval to trees as hazards on on a golf course-only 1 negative rant so far,if it'd been anyone else we'd be on page 5 now of this thread with the suggestion of trees being a good thing dismissed as the whimsical thoughts of a naive newby.
I'm pretty sure a tree left when constructing a hole is "natural",probably more natural than most so called "native grass"
Mark Fine-Of course many courses are overtreed,it doesn't mean those trees originally there were poor hazards-Trees and natural areas require maintenance,just like bunkers and rough.Imagine what a bunker would look like if it was untouched for 40 years.
Long Cove (where I formerly worked and Mr. Doak helped build)has some wonderful uses of trees as hazards,yet those trees have to be periodically maintained ,something which until recently wasn't done enough at Harbor Town.