Ross Bunkers - Up Against the (Back) Wall

[TEPaul]

"Come on guys.  DR had no idea how most of the bunkers turned out on his 400 golf courses.  Look at his green complex drawings and you can see that the top view of the bunkers had some wave at sometimes but when you look at the cross sections it seems to me that most had a subtle back lip..however how was he to know how each farmer would build his bunkers on each of his courses.  I still say he was a macro designer not a micro thus most of what we see is the results of a supt or a club over time...."


MikeY:

I don't think there's any question but that what you said there is true; perhaps not in every case but seemingly in many cases. My own club (Gulph Mills G.C., Philadelphia, 1916) was very much that way. Matter of fact, we do have some documentation on how Ross recommended the new club steal the best greenkeeper in town and make him the construction foreman to do the on-ground interpretations of a number of features such as bunkers. Interestingly, however, the job fell to a member by the name of Weston Hibbs who essentially oversaw the day to day construction for a couple of years.

Ross did, however, come back ten years later and make very much more specific recommendations about how the bunkers should be regrassed and should look. Interestingly, he recommended some internal bunker grassing such as the clumps in some bunkers that Merion had either then or later.

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby:

There's  a good reason why Ross' bunkers probably could never have originally had the rather short and clean look we see above that had nothing really to do with architecture but rather with maintenance methods.

The fact is, in Ross's day they never had the kind of mowing equipment for rolled down bunker surrounds we do now. If Ross's bunkers were rolled down like those above (which perhaps they originally were) the rolled down grass faces would've inevitably had to have been longer and shaggier because a scythe was the best and perhaps only way they could've cut them at that time.

By this I in no sense mean to say they should not look like they do above. I'm just making an observation on maintenance methods back then I believe is historically accurate.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

That's my read as well. Lord knows there might be pictures of Ross bunkers from the 1920's with a similar tumescent look to them. I doubt it, but I don't know for certain. It's the old proving a negative problem.   

But for sure they would have presented difficult maintenance issues, something Ross was always very sensitive to. These days those maintenance issues - even with modern equipment - are challenging and expensive enough. I can only imagine those sorts of bunkers would have been much bigger maintenance headaches with the equipment available in the Golden Age.

I keep returning to the "restoration" label. I like the look of the course, but to call it a restoration seems off the mark. Perhaps it is more accurately described as, to paraphrase Brahms, a modern architect's variation on a theme by Ross.

Bob

[john_stiles]

Bob,

One of the few sketches by Ross, not associated with any of this courses, is a sketch of many bunkers styles that were used.  And that single sketch probably is not all inclusive and certainly reflects a style at 'one point' in time, discounting any evolution or change in style.   Anyway, the original bunker sketch is in the Tufts Archives.  The point is that there were many styles and Ross took the time to sketch out a few as examples. 

From looking at the many old photographs,  even though many people were employed by Ross, you can tell that there was some style and thought to much of the work.    Have to believe that where Ross was responsible for construction,  there was some expectation of the quality and to a great extent, the appearance of the work.

Look at the old photos of Seminole, Salem, Oakland Hills, Holston Hills, etc, to see some of the results.  Oakland Hills and Seminole had amazing large flashed up sanded bunker faces.   Salem had almost a rolled down face and Holston had semi-rolled down faces.

Today I think the ideas of the architect with the desires input by club officials (presidents, supers, pros, committee) is today's result.    One aspect is often the clubs desire somewhat more difficult, deeper bunkers.   The trend is also definitely towards less flashed up sand which many say results in less maintenance, as mentioned above. 

As to the back wall aspect..............Today I think the trend is towards deeper bunkers, and in many bunker locations, given the terrain, the only way to economically do that results in a steeper and deeper back face.    This is especially true when you have smaller bunkers, tight against the green.   

Another result of this is that the bunker floor sand is often not as visible from the fairway or tee, which is a shame,  but I guess you always know the bunker is there by the mounding.

Compounding the back wall aspect, is what I think is a trend towards firmer sand, which with firmer turfed faces, the firm sand results in balls rolling against the abrupt back faces.   You just have to work the sand up just a little bit on the faces, keep it firm so the ball might roll a little back from the face.    To help even more,   rake the sand as much as was done with softer sands, you can lessen the amount of the ball rolling around in the bunker.

Overall,  the YAGs bunkering is very pleasing.     The only exception are the issues with those deeper bunkers where you sometimes have 'back wall issues.'  This can be alleviated by a little TLC maintenance.

[Dunlop_White]

TEP,

YOU SHOULD HAVE ASKED RON PRICHARD ABOUT THIS AT YOUR HOUSE.  I ENJOYED THE Q & A!  NO SERIOUSLY, RON ONCE TOLD A GROUP OF US THAT THESE IRREGULAR ROLLS AND WAVES, THESE SPINES, THIS BONEY OR MUSCULAR LOOK THAT IS BEING QUESTIONED HERE -- BEST REPRESENTS THE HAND CRAFTSMANSHIP OF ROSS'S DAY. TODAY'S SHOVEL AND SCOOP, WHICH CUTS A MUCH CLEANER EDGE, DOES NOT LOOK AS AUTHENTIC TO HIM (OR ME)!

ALSO, IN HIS FIELD NOTES, AS SPENCE POINTS OUT, ROSS OFTEN USED THE WORD "IRREGULAR" TO DESCRIBE BUNKER FACE PROFILES. ROSS ALSO DESCRIBED BUNKER EDGES WITH "NATURAL DIVERGENCE OF CONTOUR". WHY? WELL THEY ARE CERTAINLY MORE IMPOSING VISUALLY, AND THEY DO BREAK UP THE HORIZON LINE OF A GREEN COMPLEX VISUALLY.

YOU ARE ALL RIGHT IN THAT THIS WAS ONE STYLE OR THEME OF MANY -- THAT TODAY'S RESTORATION ARCHITECTS HAVE PERHAPS MORE READILY EMBRACED.

[TEPaul]

Dunlop:

What would you like me to specifically ask Ron Prichard about what he said in his talk last Wednesday? Ron sure does like the idea of GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com and he sure does read it. Only trouble is Ron doesn't like to post on here because he doesn't have a lot of time anyway and he says he's a terrible typer. The other night he actually told me specifically why.

But he does read this site and I know he'll be reading this thread so ask away and he'll probably send me (or one of the other guys) an email with a good answer for you.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich, while many adjectives have been used to describe Carolina over the years, I don't recall "eye-candy" ever being one of them!  Seriously, I can't speak to maintenance costs.  But I would expect that any bunker that is 60 yards or so in length will be more costly to maintain than a smaller one.  There is only one other bunker at Carolina of similar length.  The rest are much smaller (and the waves almost imperceptible).  So in the scheme of things I doubt there is a significant maintenance issue.  As for strategy, this may be the MOST strategic bunker on the course.

Thanks, Ed

I was talking about the "wavy gravy" bunkers edges, not the placement nor depth of the bunkers.  Clean edges are far easier to maintain, are they not?  If so, why complicate the maintenance task by designing the waves in?

Rich

[TEPaul]

Richard The Intellectually Challenged Grass Mower:

Why do you assume it would be any more difficult maintenance-wise to mow "wavy-gravy" shaped bunker surrounds than bunker surrounds that are not "wavy gravy" in shape?

Do you even have an inkling about what is used or how to mow bunker surrounds like those above whether they be of the "wavy gravy" variety or not? 

You're the same guy who saw no difference between the bunkers of Merion East and Applebrook, right? And you're the same guy who's little daughter was doing some really imaginative sand work in a GMGC bunker, right?

My suggestion to you, if you want to even begin to understand bunkers, is to see your daugther first for a primer course.

[Adam Sherer]

Here is an original Ross bunker that I have posted on some other threads (I don't think its ever really been touched)