[wsmorrison]

Rich,

How long does it take for the sand splash to create an observable change in the slopes off greenside bunkers?  Will you benefit from the comeback of the sand splash or your children?  I hope we can hear from some of the superintendents and architects that contribute to this site.

I don't want to speak for Tom, but I am pretty certain he LIKES the evolutionary build-up of the sand splash on Merion 8 and 13.  I do!

[ForkaB]

Wayne

My guess is that frequently viisted bunkers will build up their sand splash in 5-10 years, but I too would like to hear from a super to find out the truth.

Vis a vis Merion, I know TEP likes 8 and 13,  because he told me so when we played the course and he has said so on this thread.  My feeling was that the sxand build-up eliminated some really great front pin positions which could elevate the challenge and interest of those holes.  Maybe the "white faces" look better, but do they play better?

[wsmorrison]

"Back to the point of the thread...would you recommend removing the slope coming off Road bunker (the result of sand build up)?"

Tom MacWood,

The Road Hole bunker and the surrounds have been markedly changed many times over the years and recently (there is a thread on this somewhere back in time), not only by sand splash but more significantly by remodeling.

[wsmorrison]

Rich,

They can get the pins pretty close to the fronts of 8 and 13.  Of course not as close as they would if the slopes weren't there, but they are effectively great because of the interaction of the slope to the relative pin positions.  I like the hidden green front where you have to wait to you get up close to see the result.  Anticipation can be a thrilling emotion.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
When and how has the Road bunker (and it surrounds) changed?

Mark
I thought you said if the naturally evolved feature was not originally intended than it should be removed when restoring a hole...period. I asssume you would recommend all features the result of sand splash should go, but perhaps its not as black and white an issue afterall. You've studied the history of the Old course what would you recommend?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You should read our book and the section on The Road Bunker, then comment.  We had limited space but we talk about the evolution.  

Regarding my black and white comment, yes there are times (in my opinion) when a situation is more black and white.  An example would be like the one I gave where the build up is such that the character and playability of the hole has changed dramatically from what the architect intended.  Again, this has to do only with "restoration".  If you are not trying to "restore" anything, then just do what you think is best.  That seems to be the position some are taking regarding #8 at Merion.  If they think it is better the way it is great.  Leave it like that.  I would argue why didn't Flynn or Wilson build it like that in the first place if it is better that way?  

Natural evolution is great and surely expected by the architect.  But when the original intent is compromised, then you need to look closely at it (IF YOU ARE RESTORING).  In those situations where the build up of sand has had minimal impact on the original intent, you may be better to leave them alone.  Again it is case by case, but you'll probably do more damage trying to adjust things rather then leaving them as is.  

[T_MacWood]

Mark
Since very few architects left a written account of what they intended, if you remove the built up area left by sand splash you are assuming those architects were not aware of the natural process that occures with sand splash. Do you think that is a reasonable conclusion?

[Doug Wright]

One of my clubs, Dornoch, periodically reviews and removes sand splash.  Sometimes I agree with what they do (e.g. allowing for a possible, but very risky, shot to the green from the string of fiarway bunkers to the right of the 3rd fairway).  Sometimes I disagree (e.g. when they emasculated the left greenside bunkers on the 6th).

Rihc,

Would you explain further what Dornoch did to the 3rd fairway and 6th greenside bunkers? I'd like to understand what you believe to be good (3rd) and bad (6th) about the work. Having been in a greenside left bunker at the 6th last fall I certainly didn't find it pleasant...

[ForkaB]

Doug

About 10 years ago, they removed about 12-18" of sand splash from the LH bunkers on 6.  Before then, a successful recovery shot required exquisite technique to get the ball in up and down range, and an average shot would risk rolling off the green to the right.  Now an average shot will get to 5-10 feet.  As BB King once said, "The thrill is gone!"

On the 3rd, they trim the sand splash on the fairway bunkers fairly frequently (last time a year or two ago) and give you the opportunity to try to hit 5-7 iron to the green, if you dare.  When the sand splash is up, all you can do is advance the ball with a sand wedge.  Boring!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I posed the question to Tom Doak or any other living architect who'd like to comment - If for example, you wanted the left side of the green to be hidden, would you hide it now or wait 30 or 40 years till it gets that way from the build up of sand splash?  Let's see how they answer that question?  Personally, I would hide it now.  What would you do?

[Doug Wright]

Doug

About 10 years ago, they removed about 12-18" of sand splash from the LH bunkers on 6.  Before then, a successful recovery shot required exquisite technique to get the ball in up and down range, and an average shot would risk rolling off the green to the right.  Now an average shot will get to 5-10 feet.  As BB King once said, "The thrill is gone!"
On the 3rd, they trim the sand splash on the fairway bunkers fairly frequently (last time a year or two ago) and give you the opportunity to try to hit 5-7 iron to the green, if you dare.  When the sand splash is up, all you can do is advance the ball with a sand wedge.  Boring!

Thanks Rihc! (On 6 I got it to 5-10 feet--on the 2d attempt... )

[T_MacWood]

I look at this subject from a Darwinian point of view - Charles not Bernard.

Natural selection is involved in which bunkers are prone to the effects of sand-splash. The better placed the greenside bunker the more sand-splash, the more sand-plash the more ominous/challenging/interesting the bunker (and it surrounds become) may become. The process of sand-splash build-up is likely to intensify the strategic interest of the bunker and the hole - naturally. The Road bunker is a prime example of this phenomenon.

But all goes back to the original placement of the bunker by the architect, the better placed, the more likely his architecture will continue to evolve and improve naturally...even in his absense.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Good answer, however, I might beg to differ that all well placed bunkers naturally get better over time?  Also, how do you propose handling greens (which usually shrink over time)?  What about fairways that got narrower and trees that were planted and grew,...are these different?  Where do you draw the line on what you restore and what you don't?

One more thought; do you think Ross would "restore" the faces of his grass faced flat bottom bunkers as grass withered away over time or not?  Isn't that part of the natural evolutionary process you are talking about?

[TEPaul]

"Vis a vis Merion, I know TEP likes 8 and 13,  because he told me so when we played the course and he has said so on this thread.  My feeling was that the sand build-up eliminated some really great front pin positions which could elevate the challenge and interest of those holes.  Maybe the "white faces" look better, but do they play better?"

Rich:

I do like Merion's #8 and #13 with their build-up of evolutionary sand splash that can be counted in feet! The reason I like it today is because I feel the virtual "turbo-boosts" on the green space just over the bunker requires a better aerial shot than it used to and there's little question that good players hit the ball higher today than they ever have. So I see that build-up and turbo boost as sort of poetic justice for them. On the other hand that kind of build-up obviously makes the less skilled player struggle more and I'm not necessarily and advocate of that.

But I feel every green is different and has to be looked at from many perspectives to decide what's best to do. Generally, with playability, the same person could probably make a good case either way. Agronomically may be another matter altogether though if a green is so small it's running low on pinnable positions due to evolutionary sand build up and getting more beaten up than it should. If that were the case I guess I'd recommend going back to the way it was with more pinnable space.

As for whether or not any of us should assume that the old architects knew about this extent of evolutionary sand splash build-up I think that's unimportant. None of them ever mentioned that to my knowledge and it's probably logical they never did because for those building in the 1920s, say, they probably never saw much of it anyway. The kind of build-up I've seen on greens like Merion's #8 and #13, GMGC's #8 and #11. PVGC's #17 or LuLu's #15 take many decades to get the way they have (or had--as LuLu removed theirs on #15).

 

[paul cowley]

Wayne....from my personal experience working at Pebble Beach in the early 70's I would say the sand splash effect there was more extreme than most other courses.
As I was the person responsible for the repair of the frequently collapsing lips and from comparing what I saw to photos of the course when it opened, I think that in the bunkers closest to the greens that saw a lot of play [ old #5, #17 etc.], the build up was anywhere from two to three ft+....and this was in a period of a little over 40 years.
I would also guess that the area mown as green had shrunk an average of 30 to 40% from its original size as an additional consequence of the build up.
Pebble is a good example of where do you restore to or try to maintain at when it comes to the evolution of its features.....there is no way I think anyone would enjoy it if it was returned to its original state, or even its 15 to 20 year old appearance or playability.

[wsmorrison]

Thanks, Paul.  I was hoping for some idea of sand splash build-up over time.  So Pebble was about 6-8" per 10 years.  And they got significantly more play than private courses.  What do you think the similar bunker/green combinations get on a course that does 20,000 rounds per 10 years, 3-5"?

[T_MacWood]

Mark
I'm a big fan of recapturing lost fairways and lost green surfaces and knocking down intruding trees for obvious reasons - increasing width, options, and exposing lost features. But I'm also a fan because it can be done relatively cheaply without altering the original fabric of the design.

I advocate preservation of the original architecture whenever possible (even in a evolved state) - as opposed digging up original features and trying re-building or replicate them. Those less evasive measures suit that line of thinking.

Knowing Ross was a frugal and practical man I doubt he'd regrass the faces of a sand hazard....especially if it was bound to happen again. I'm no expert but wouldn't the grass face remain even with sand splash? Kind of like top dressing...the grass is always one step ahead of the realtively slow sand build up.

It is interesting to note that the courses that Ross maintained for decades at Pinehurst appear to have had mostly sand-flashed bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It is interesting to note that the courses that Ross maintained for decades at Pinehurst appear to have had mostly sand-flashed bunkers.

Tom, which of Ross's five golf courses located in Pinehurst have mostly sand flashed bunkers ?

Of the five golf courses are sand flashed bunkers more prevalent at one course versus another ?[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Pat
They all did...at least four did, I don't know anything about #5. Another interesting note if you look at photos of the famous 3rd at Pine Needles it began with grass faced bunkers but by 1937 it too was sand flashed.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It's probably more than an even bet that what Tom MacWood thinks are "sand flashed" bunkers to us are bunkers that are partially grassed down. To me, a real sand flashed bunker (the kind GMGC used to have, and Merion East used to have) is a bunker that very little grass can be seen on the top of the bunker above the sand flashed face when a golfer looks at it from ground level.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

It's hard to imagine a grass faced bunker being covered by splashed sand without the maintainance crew and/or mother nature remediating the situation.

One would think that the conversion would have to have been encouraged, supported and abated by the maintainance crew.

With Ross tinkering with # 2 for 26 years one has to wonder whether this was a product of his doing, benign neglect, or the superintendents efforts.

Bunker conversion is a question worth exploring.

[wsmorrison]

"It's hard to imagine a grass faced bunker being covered by splashed sand without the maintainance crew and/or mother nature remediating the situation."

Is anyone suggesting that grass faced bunkers can become sand faced with sand flashed up the slope due to evolutionary sand splash?  Where has this evolved?  I've never heard of it being done in an evolutionary process.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I'd agree with you.

Edging is more likely the culprit.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I’m not sure what some are suggesting, but sand lines do change over time from maintenance edging, sand splash, golf clubs hacking away, drought,…and so on.  In my question above, I was just asking if someone is going to restore the face of the bunker, why not restore the whole thing?  For example, I’m pretty sure Tillinghast would not want to see high flashed sand bunkers at Somerset Hills like you see at Winged Foot.  If he wanted them that way he’d have designed them that way to begin with.  Again the same goes for sand flash and crowning of the slopes beyond.

For those of you interested, Ron Prichard was kind enough to email me his position on sand flash.  Here is what he had to say -

“Regarding your question regarding the hiding of a portion of the putting surface: Of course you would take care of this as you developed the original work. I doubt any of the small handful of early particularly skilled architects ever anticipated the accumulation of sand on the green side faces and crown of the slopes that we've experienced over so many years. I also feel quite certain none would have counted on such an occurrance to shield a portion of the green's surface.
 
He also told me that he has the Ross drawings and an original as built routing plan of Schuykill Country club's golf course.

Tom Paul told me Ron likes this site and would participate more but just can't type.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()