News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bunkering After Grow-in - Evolution in Thought
« on: March 31, 2019, 12:26:56 PM »
I think one of the most surprising things many of us learned in some of the historical threads here is the early prevailing thinking that it was viewed as best practice to route and grow-in a golf course and then place and build the majority of bunkering after some time spent studiously observing play.

The idea was that only through careful study would one best be able to identify exact positioning of bunkers, which makes some sense on the face of it.   This approach was used at most all of the great early courses including Myopia Hunt, Garden City, Merion East, Oakmont, and even National Golf Links of America.

But as golf architecture grew more rapidly with the popularization of the game, such a time commitment and associated disruption of the golf course was deemed impractical.   By  1927 George Thomas wrote in his book Golf Architecture in America - Its Strategy And Construction:

"In years past hazards were made after the fairway was in grass, the theory being that they were often misplaced otherwise, and that the course should be tried before their final positions were chosen.

Nowadays, it is found more desirable, for many reasons, to do grading, including trapping, before seeding, and the good sense of such practice is plainly apparent.   First, it is a finished and not a patched job, and the drainage is more easily mapped as a whole if done at one time.   Sand may be placed on the ground as the hazards are built, and it is not necessary to bring this in afterwards.   Most important of all, the new fairways will not be cut up, bruised and soiled by the unavoidable tramping of teams, and the dragging of implements across them if hazards are made before seeding, while the completion of the course by one operation is more economical, and to play it after it is finished more pleasing.   

If change tees have been provided, and optional hazards with open fairways for the short player arranged, hazards will seldom be wrongly placed.   Incidentally, it is much easier to fill up a hazard, or portion of a hazard, and call it ground under repair, than it is to construct new hazards."
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Peter Pallotta

Re: Bunkering After Grow-in - Evolution in Thought
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2019, 01:25:17 PM »
Mike -
 
good topic.
One difference between then and now, perhaps: then, they waited to bunker the course so as to learn where golfers *did* hit the ball; now, bunkers go in right away because architects already know where golfers *don't* hit the ball.

Peter

PS
Very different kind of 'average golfer' then and now, obviously; but more interesting: very different notions about the relationship between hazards and strategies.

For me, that's one of the reasons I find it hard to understand folks (today) when they try to explain what the architects (back then) meant by lines of instinct and lines of charm, i.e. because those old architects, if they waited to place bunkers until later on, gained some real/practical insights into golfers' actual instincts, and only *then* finalized their designs.   
 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2019, 01:38:46 PM by Peter Pallotta »

John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bunkering After Grow-in - Evolution in Thought
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2019, 03:51:10 PM »
Being that we nowadays have a huge data set (years of golfers golfing) to determine ball tendencies, doing it along with construction seems to be most practical.  Not to mention the drawing/mapping technology we have from GPS to CAD makes this process much easier too.
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bunkering After Grow-in - Evolution in Thought
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2019, 04:09:59 PM »
Can anyone tell me what the ball tendencies will be in 2030? I know the ball tendencies today are not what they were in 1980....in terms of distance and, maybe more importantly, trajectory. Basing bunker placement on current trends will be another temporary endeavor.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bunkering After Grow-in - Evolution in Thought
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2019, 02:01:02 PM »
Mike

Thomas must have been talking about ancient history in golf design (relatively speaking) by referring to putting the bunkers in afterwards. Did anyone do that much after the turn of the century ? I'm sure there were probably a few "backward" architects but I suspect by then most had the confidence and knowledge to not have to wait until the divots appeared before picking the proper spot for a bunker.

Niall

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bunkering After Grow-in - Evolution in Thought
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2019, 02:23:42 PM »
Niall,

Actually, it was bit later than that.

Merion East was virtually bunkerless until about 1916.   Ditto Cobb's Creek.

In 1910 it was stated that National Golf Links only had the bunkers that were needed for the template holes in question and that much study was needed to place the others.   

I believe the practice ended around World War I, with the decline of the "Amateur Architect" who could afford to spend considerable time tinkering and getting things right and the rise of the "Professional Architect", best exhibited in the states at that time by Donald Ross, A.W. Tillinghast, and eventually Walter Travis and others.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back