[Bryan Izatt]

In another thread about bunkerless courses we got to onto a short discusiion of the evolution of bunkers.  I've recaptured those posts here and added one with the Tatler article that Niall Carlton uncovered.  So here's the first post from Tom Paul.

"Is that necessarily a defect, Tom? I understand the attraction of holes being bunkerless, if the land lends itself to it and does not need it per se. But to purposely do it for the sake of not having bunkers seems going overboard as much as an architect that uses too many of them. Most of the great courses are built on sand based soil, and therefore the bunker is an appropriate hazard. I have to agree with Coore on his assesment."


DavidS:

No, I don't think it's a defect at all to have sand bunkering on sites that have never had natural sand within hundreds of miles of their site. On the other hand, I do not necessarily think it's a defect if some courses don't have sand bunkering, given various aspects, ramifications and situations of particular sites (preconstruction).

But I do understand Max Behr's point. I don’t believe he felt sand bunkering on sites that had no natural sand was in any way a defect either, and he said so rather explicitly;

“It seems to me, however, that if architects are right in their contention that no course should appear other than the result of nature, and that such a contention carried to its logical conclusion must result in the ridiculous, we have taken the word Nature too literally. The very fact that sand must be used in locations to which it is not indigenous, together with the civilized aspect of such distinguishing features as the greens, tees and fairgreen, must qualify such a precise understanding of the word (Nature).”
“Naturalness in Golf Architecture,” Max Behr


When Behr implied in one of his essays that sand bunkering on sites that had no indigenous sand but nevertheless used imported sand and that sand bunkering was therefore a sort of an odd vestige of original linksland golf that hung on with all golf architecture he was merely making a point by tracking the history and evolution of golf course architecture back to the original linksland in Scotland and then tracking it forward when it first began to emigrate out of Scotland to inland sites which Behr claimed were ill suited to golf and architecture (and golf’s natural linksland agronomy).

However, and somewhat despite what Behr said above (in fairness to Behr we must recognize WHEN he wrote that) it is apparently true that when golf and architecture first emigrated out of Scotland to inland sites sand bunkering was generally not used. Therefore, we should probably ask ourselves both WHEN it first came to be used prevalently on almost every single golf course in the world, and, in my opinion at least, WHY it came to be used on almost every golf course in the world!

[Bryan Izatt]

.........

However, and somewhat despite what Behr said above (in fairness to Behr we must recognize WHEN he wrote that) it is apparently true that when golf and architecture first emigrated out of Scotland to inland sites sand bunkering was generally not used. Therefore, we should probably ask ourselves both WHEN it first came to be used prevalently on almost every single golf course in the world, and, in my opinion at least, WHY it came to be used on almost every golf course in the world!

Good questions.  Do you have any answers you'd like to propose.  Seems to me that bunkers are a basic part of the course designer's palette. Have they not always been so, since the beginning of formal course design.  Even in the Golden Age, did they not build the courses and then add the bunkers as they saw how the course played?

[Bryan Izatt]

"Do you have any answers you'd like to propose.  Seems to me that bunkers are a basic part of the course designer's palette. Have they not always been so, since the beginning of formal course design.  Even in the Golden Age, did they not build the courses and then add the bunkers as they saw how the course played?"

Bryan:

Yes I certainly do while always recognizing it may not be technically provable.

First of all, I believe by the time the so-called "Golden Age" rolled around (even going all the way back to around the turn of the century) I believe sand bunkering was generally very standard in golf architecture.

What I'm really talking about is some of those very early American courses (1890s) and particularly some of the INLAND GB courses when golf and architecture first began to emigrate out of Scotland (as early as the 1850s and 1860 and for the next couple of decades).

During that time (latter half of the 19th century) the production of those rudimentary INLAND courses actually began to exceed the number of courses in Scotland itself.

My own feeling is that there simply eventually came a time where some of the architects of that early time looked back on the accumulation of that type of rudimentary INLAND type course that was sometimes referred to as "Dark Age" or "Steeplechase" architecture and generally had no sand bunkering of the type we consider bunkering (or Scotland did) and then just said to themselves at that point; "We can definitely do better in the future than all that accumulation of CRAP!").

This is really no different than Macdonald's famous remark in the first decade of the 20th century in America when he looked at on the landscape of what we had over here and said; "It makes the very soul of golf shriek."

I just think at that point when they finally decided they could not only do better but that it was also going to cost a lot more than they had been spending to create those early 19th century courses, essentially the way they went about it was to begin to cast their eyes and minds back towards the originally natural linksland and their natural features including natural sand bunkering (which were never really made by man in the first place) and they said to themselves; "We are going to have to actually begin to make those types of features INLAND that were given to the linksland by Nature."

I think THAT was when the type of sand bunkering most of golf came to expect (and not those things that looked like transitioned "steeplechase" jumps) really began to be a total staple in golf course architecture and I think some of the general things that the Scots said back then not just embarrassed those INLAND architects but motivated them to do better in the future by replicating natural looking linksland sand bunkers. Things most of the Scot linksmen said like that prevalent old linksland saw or knock on INLAND architecture such as "Nae Links, Nae Golf."

I'm sure I don't have to remind you that to the Scots back then "links" golf was almost completely synonymous with "seaside" golf with its naturally occuring sand soil and natural sand type so-called bunkering.

I have always felt, Bryan, that hardly anyone today really appreciates the vast differences to those people back then between seaside (links) golf and architecture and the incipient INLAND golf and architecture of that time. To most of us today it's just all become GOLF and GOLF ARCHITECTURE but to some of them back then (the latter half of the 19th century) the differences between the two was about as different as night is to day!

My point is both why and how they finally decided to do something about trying to bring the two closer together within architecture. I believe the entire history of sand bunkering in architecture is intimately wrapped up in this evolution of linksland vs INLAND and eventually linksland features to inland features, and I think it's the reason sand bunkering became almost a total staple in golf architecture everywhere.

Or perhaps looked at in the converse----eg if for some odd reason early linksland (seaside) golf had never had the natural sand bunkering it did (even pre-man made architecture) I doubt golf would either today anywhere in the world.

[Bryan Izatt]

...............................

Tom,

I've been lately digging about in the archives of some Scottish newspapers for the period of the 1890's and have managed to uncover some course layouts from this period.

Most of the layouts are for inland courses and are for 9 holes only. Bearing in mind Scotland was experiencing its own golf boom at that time (excluding of course the golfing heartlands such as St Andrews and East Lothian where golf had obviously long been established) there was a huge increase in the amount of golf courses. BTW, there was a lot of newspaper comment on whether golf was here to stay or whether it was merely a passing fad !

A lot of these early courses were laid out (the term they used) by leading professionals of the day, notably Old Tom, Willie Fernie, Willie Campbell and Willie Park Jnr, the later two being responsible for laying out a number of courses in the US round about the same time.

What is noteable about most of these layouts is that they simply made use of what was there, eg. fences, hedges, walls, roads etc to give  the "steeplechase" effect that you referred to. I've seen one Old Tom 9 hole layout where he used all of the above plus a railtrack and spoil heap from the local brickworks by way of providing interest to the hole. In a lot of the newspaper reports these hazards are sometimes referred to as "bunkers" which makes it hard to determine at other times whether the reports are specifically referring to sand bunkers or some other form of hazard.

As for when it became standard to put in sand bunkers, its hard to tell. In some instances the intention was to put the bunkers in afterwards, for instance Helensburgh arranged a match with Ben Sayers and a group of other professionals some 4 years after it was first laid out with the intention of getting advice from the pro's on the placement of "bunkers", presumably of the sandy type.

As you say, the early bunkers on links were simply sandy wastes. Trying to recreate this on inland courses in Scotland would have been difficult at the time. Digging a hole and filling it with sand wouldn't have been an option as the hole would have rapidly filled up with water. Building the ground up for the bunker didn't appear to have been thought of from what I have read so far although I could be wrong. The club history for Killermont does include and excerpt from Tatler magazine for 1908 on the bunkers being built at Killermont which suggests that they were cutting edge in the way they were built from ground up.

If I ever master the technology I will post some of the course plans and also the Tatler article for you to see.

Niall

ps you'll be glad to know that golf did indeed catch on in Scotland and is alive and well

[Bryan Izatt]

Now, the Tatler article that Niall referred to:

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

Thanks for posting all that.

What I'm trying to concentrate on and track the beginnings of is the FIRST appearance of sand bunkering on INLAND courses anywhere where sand was not indigenous as it certainly was on most all linksland and seaside courses.

Once we've established that it would be very interesting to see what it was that was FIRST used on INLAND golf courses in lieu of sand bunkering. For the moment most of the old accounts seem to suggest that most anything already existing that was vaguely hazardous to the playing of shots was used-----eg vegetation (whins, rushes, bushes), walls, roads or apparently even some refuse heaps!

I think the Kellermont account is very interesting as it seems to show the initial problems with using sand in bunkering (it had to be installed on earthen creations that were above ground).

I'd like to track it all back to the very FIRST known example of sand bunkering INLAND (or on the first site where sand was not indigenous and had to be imported for this purpose). As for now Kellermont seems to be remarkably late for that kind of thing INLAND, but perhaps not.

I suppose once we've done all that we could begin to try to determine WHY sand bunkering eventually became almost universally necessary on all golf course architecture everywhere.

At the moment I have a hunch it might've had something to do with that prevalent old knock on courses back then that were not seaside or linksland------eg "Nae links, nae golf."

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Given the lack of clarity on the other threads on more current events such as the last bunker at St Andrews and the first rake, I think you're on a bit of a quixotic quest here for the "FIRST appearance of sand bunkering on INLAND courses anywhere where sand was not indigenous".

Why not also explore the first man-made bunker (links course or otherwise).  Wouldn't that be the beginning of the inclusion of bunkering as an artificial (not naturally occurring) artifact in the design process? 

To further the discussion, here is another of Niall's old newspaper finds from 1894. No mention of bunkers at all, but plenty of other "hazards" - dykes, hedges and bings of refuse.  Another question to add to the hopper - How and when did "bings" devolve from the design palette? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()