News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Alternatives to bunkering
« on: February 25, 2002, 03:27:44 PM »
We've been over this subject many times in various ways on this website but the subject of a total alternative, a feature alternative, to bunkering has always intrigued me!

I can certainly see the downside of this idea as bunkering is such a unique vestige of the original type of linksland golf and it is such an odd but traditional holdover that is almost universally prevalent! It is also such an architectural expression for the use of strategy creation and such. It can also be beautiful in many cases.

But the upside is in so many cases bunkering has become a bit of a joke as to it's intended function to create real strategy by avoidance due to serious shot dropping consequences. In many cases the look of some modern bunkering has become a joke in its pristine look and maintenance. Bunkering and sand also just ain't natural in certain areas and otherwise does look site unnatural!

I can see simply preparing the ground with various contours of mounds or hollows, mini ridges or whatever might be interesting and fit in well with a site's overall natural "lines", and just growing some interesting grass on these prepared contours like wispy fescue or whatever. It would seem to be much cheaper to do, much less maintenance etc. It might also allow courses to look far more natural in overall appearance to the "natural aspects" of various sites. There clearly would not be the contrast of sand and grass but I've alway sort of liked making a golfer really search a hole visually to figure out what's going on with it strategically instead of the obvious road-map type route that bunkering sometimes provides. I think it's just more challenging to make a golf look, search and really have to think!

I can see doing this kind of thing on the bodies of holes more easily than at the green-ends though. Bunkerless holes that just use surrounding contouring and the use of grasses of  various heights would be much harder to do but I sure would like to see the concept tried somehow!

I mean really try it out with different things for a while and see how it goes and then if it wasn't working cut some bunkering in but not until or unless it wasn't working!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2002, 03:42:25 PM »
TEPaul:

I think the concept of differing grasses, especially the wispy fescue, would add character to any hole. How does Swinley Forest do it?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2002, 03:57:27 PM »
Tom

I have long been in favor of building bunkers if and only if it was determined that golf balls tended to accumluate in a cretain area (see my "Superfluous Bunkers" thread of more than a year ago).  Nevertheless, I do think the chance of selling this good idea to developers and architects and the great mass of "players" who are hooked on "eye candy" is somewhere between slim and none.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2002, 04:40:07 PM »
Rich:

Eye Candy?! Jesus, I'm not after that crowd--I was just thinking about trying it on a special golf course--I'm not thinking of the idea sweeping the world! Bunkering is definitely here to stay--just thinking about a rare alternative to it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2002, 04:43:28 PM »
Tom

Why is bunkering "here to stay?"  What does it have going for it other than visual appeal to the aesthetically challenged?  You're too young to be an old fogey on this issue! :)

Cheres

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2002, 04:55:26 PM »
Well, I guess I should never say never but bunkering happens to have been an integral part of architecture for about 150 years and I don't see it dimishing one iota. But if it happened to for some reason you probably won't see me bemoaning the fact and if I could ever contribute to some interesting alternative to it, I'd do it!

Just think about it, you would not even be prevented from grounding your club with a bunkerless course--hell I'd even let you touch any hazard--you could even touch, kiss, caress and fondling anything you wanted to for that matter!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2002, 05:17:15 PM »
Tom

Just one minor quibble.  150 years ago there was no such thing as golf course "architecture."  They were just playing a game.  That we should be so lucky.........

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2002, 05:20:48 PM »
Tom - I've got a question for you, and one that you should be able to uniquely discuss. Would the exposed rocks that figure into the bunkers and greensite at Gulph Mills #8 qualify as an alternative hazard?

It is only a wedge in, but the prospect of dropping a shot onto one of those rocks and having it carom into god-knows-where was terrifying.

Do rock outcroppings, which are used in an excellent way on a nymber of great holes, fit into what you are talking about?

I know these are not man made features, but doesnt that make them all the more appealing?

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2002, 09:03:41 PM »
Tom,

I know why your asking, and believe it or not, I have played quite a number of bunkerless courses over the years, and even started on one.  I didn't know they were necessary, and thought only fancy courses had them. :)

A couple of thoughts on what worked...

1) Gravity golf - You probably recall David Eger's term, but if there are places on the property to locate greensites on areas where the overall slope is a bit "iffy' in terms of creating interesting predicaments, FIND them!

2) Greens that are ground level - Think Garden City.  Most of those greens and approaches would be just as interesting and intriguing if not protected by pot bunkers to the side.  If the ground runs away from you at an angle, all the better.  Just forget about the need to elevate greens, or create USGA specs, and let the natural terrain take care of both drainage and challenge.

3) Internal green contours - Think Perry Maxwell and move earth in teaspoons to create interesting "poofs" and swales.  Make sure that half the game begins once the player is "safely" on the green.

4) Mounds, slopes, dropoffs, and man-made shtuff - If you don't find any of the above, call Tom MacWood and I and we'll get our trusty shovels.  I swear we will create stuff that won't look the slightest bit symmetrical, and we'll make Seth Raynor smile in his grave.  If we run out of ideas on how to tie it all in, we'll unashamedly call Archie Struthers, because the guy knows the meaning of the word.

I'm envious, and looking forward to seeing what you have to work with!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2002, 03:09:32 AM »

Quote
...150 years ago there was no such thing as golf course "architecture."  They were just playing a game.  That we should be so lucky.........

Rich

I don't really agree there Rich,

Allan Robertson ( 1815-1859 ) is named as the first golf course architect with the changes he made to the 17th hole at TOC.  He also widened the fairways and started creating the double greens.  Old Tom Morris ( 1821-1908 ) Robertson's protege carried on the work of double greens and widening of the fairways.

Robertson didn't only work with architecture in his last 7 years of his life so architecture has been around for at least 150 years.. ;)

Golf spread to Canada as early as 1872 and onto USA 10 years later.

CB MacDonald laid out the first nine at Chicago golf club in 1892.  He apparently coined the phrase "golf architect".  What a lot of people forget or don't know is that he was born in Canada but reared in Chicago.  

He graduated from St.Andrews University and became known as the father of American golf course architecture.  

So you may not have had architecture 150 years ago in USA but it was just starting a little over 150 years ago on TOC in Scotland....


Brian
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2002, 03:54:33 AM »




TE
Here you go, thanks to Paul Turner's images. Here is the work of a couple of early golf architects in colaboration -- Harry Colt and JF Abercromby -- I think they might have hit on nearly all of Mike's excellent points. I even agree with the aesthetically gifted historically challenged contrarian, Rich Goodale, design the golf course without bunkers creating maximum interest with contour and then add the bunkers after the course has been routed or even grassed and in play. (Rich, I knew you'd come along to the A&C era philosophy) Funny that the anti-architecture fellow is one of the most active contributors to a site devoted to golf architecture - just goes to show variety is the spice of life on web sites just as it is in golf architecture.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2002, 04:00:36 AM »
TE
I'm not sure why the second more recent photo of the 12th at The Addington didn't work - one more try. It be nice if you have something growing nearby like that brown stuff.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2002, 04:01:53 AM »
My bad. I guess it did work. I still like the brownish growth.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2002, 04:10:09 AM »
I probably should have this was the work of Harry Colt and JF Abercromby in colaboration with the Man upstairs.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

NAF

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2002, 04:50:41 AM »
I think the course to really look at here for this thread is Royal Ashdown Forest which because it lies on royal hunting ground can not have any artificial hazards..It has no bunkers.  I have never played it, I think Paul Turner and Ran have and maybe they can comment on it.. I might be able to find an old Links article on it and will post it, if i see it..
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2002, 04:55:03 AM »
Rich:

I was going to answer your post about no architecture 150 years ago by mentioning one Alan Robertson but Brian Phillips beat me to it.

For those of us interesting in the history and evolution of architecture Alan Robertson was apparently the one whom it began with a bit over 150 years ago. Apparently his work on TOC, as Brian mentioned, was the beginning of man-made architecture and according to C&W the "Road Hole" may have been the first and the Road Hole bunker may have been the first man-made bunker as well.

Certainly there was golf long before him but in the context of architecture it was probably just courses played anyway they found the land and later the so-called "lay-out" courses that were actually routed just using the natural features and topographical aspects of the terrain without any architectural enhancment.

SPDB:

Interesting you mention the rock outcroppings in the bunkering on #8 (and #5) at Gulph Mills and interesting that it got your attention. I'm so used to it now I never think of it but that's the kind of thing I do mean.

When I think of much of what's mentioned in this topic I'm thinking of the natural site of Ardrossan Farm that I spent so much time on. Because there's so much topography that could just be used for golf as is it's always made me think of going sans bunkering, certainly on a lot of it. But there is also a bunch of "fieldstone"--very smooth and low level on one natural uphill green site and just enough short of it and off to either side where I think it would work very well. Your ball should not really be over where it is but if it was it would be a problem. I would also cut the fairway right through these fieldstone rock outcroppings.

MikeC:

I've always loved that idea of "gravity golf" and as you know I think mostly about that area of that enormous hole at Ardrossan where it was maximum "gravity golf". It's startling to think of fairway area from a width of almost 130yds and eventually fanning out to about 250yds farther down but it all definitely works because of the "gravitiy" aspect. It really did make sense for golf and maximum options! As to options it also is the best as a golfer could have a choice of taking risks trying to get head-on at the green (length-wise) or for a safer play having to come at it sideways (literally probably a 100+ yds on either side of centerline) and into a very shallow target with "gravity" golf both in front of you and behind you. I even started to call that corner of the second half of that big hole and the par 3 next hole as "gravity corner" since the topography took care of some great "playability" and bunkering only seemed superflous there to me.

Tom MacW:

Basically the whole idea of this bunkerless alternative (on a site like Ardrossan anyway) was the idea of trying to use all the natural aspects of the land without any real enhancement if it wasn't really needed and if you could do such a thing then I figured the golf course (in those areas anyway) could just sort of blend in to the landscape almost as if it wasn't there or wasn't made by man at all. That afterall was one of the dreams of some of the most adventurous of the "Golden Age" architects--that they could just blend the architecture in so as to make it almost indistinguishable! If at all possible I think that would be a wonderful thing to try at least on a few holes!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2002, 05:17:48 AM »
Brian and the 2 Toms

I accept your chastisement.  I knew about Robertson, but I assumed that his "architectural" work at TOC was in the mid-1850's near the end of his life.  Was I wrong?  Also, as OTM really didn't do much of his design work until the 1880's, what happened in the interim.  Sounds like this new art form had a long fallow period before it really began to take off!

PS--TE Paul.  I can't wait to see what Ran has in store for you when you shortly get into quadruple figures.  Perhaps that "Godhood" that we once had will be restored?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2002, 05:23:09 AM »
TE
From your description of the ground at Ardrossan it would be perfect site for such an experiment. And if you need any enhancements as Mike suggested - have shovel will travel, in fact I've also added a pick.

I've also got some new ideas on natural bunker construction enlisting the help of man's best friend. Just follow my simple instructions.

A) Indentify the location and relative size of the bunker.

B) Set up a temporary pen nearby full of hounds.

C) Bury bones in the general location of the bunker and set the hounds free.

D) Repeat step B and C until the required depth is reached.

The greats of the past may have their horse drawn scrapers, you will the K9 constructors. Who said that head injury had effect on my thinking?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2002, 05:40:26 AM »
Another thing to consider in the idea of going bunkerless is again something that seemed to happen on the Ardrossan routing almost by accident. I don't think anyone really thought about it but the course just seemed to get routed in such a way that extreme width became a real possibility. And although there are trees on the site and big enormous ones because the place was long ago planned as a "parkland estate" the trees never really come near the landforms used for golf.

For some reason, although the course itself might not take up all that much land in total the opportunities for the kind of width I've never seen before on a golf course are very possible here and there. It's just amazing what you can create with both interesting topography and extreme width in the way of amazingly meaningful options by splitting up the width with various things such as mentioned here in combination with the topography (slope and contour)!

It's also interesting when you consider this kind of extreme width on the bodies of some holes and how it might be a very inefficient use of land (or overuse for golf holes) but you can really compensate for this overuse by occasionally melding together the borders of extremely wide fairway width into the borders of other holes!

This wouldn't work half so well if the golf hole landforms were flatter--it's really the slopes and the openness (no trees on the golf hole landforms) that make this kind of width work so well--and work so well for interesting options. But always this width of fairway areas need to be broken up somehow, either with slope, some dividing features or just sprinkling things into the interior of it all. And the width of the fairway area I do think would really contribute to creating an overall look of seamlessness that would make the golf course just meld into the overall natural site as many of the holes might appear sort of "borderless".  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

NAF

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2002, 06:30:18 AM »
ROYAL ASHDOWN FOREST: ;D..No bunkers in sight!

Gene Sarazen is generally credited with the invention of an implement used so devastatingly well by the modern proponents of golf, the sand wedge. Whereas the average club golfer harbors a deep-seated dread of seeing his ball end up in sand, most top-class golfers would often prefer to be in that particular kind of hazard rather than in rough around the green.

There is not a solitary bunker on any of the 36 holes at Royal Ashdown Forest Golf Club.  
 
However at one particular club in Olde England the Sarazen invention has no place at all. There is not a solitary bunker on any of the 36 holes at Royal Ashdown Forest Golf Club, a veritable haven of rural tranquillity in the hills of East Sussex, a 30-minute drive from London's Gatwick Airport. Nor will there ever be any because excavations of any kind are forbidden by law in the ancient 6,400-acre forest in which author A.A. Milne set his enchantingly timeless Winnie the Pooh tales.

By a strange quirk of fate a Royal golfer unwittingly contributed to the uniqueness of Ashdown Forest's bunker-free zone. When he acceded to the throne in the 17th century the monarch who had been King James VI of Scotland--and was now King James I of England--brought not only his court, courtiers and retinue south to London from his native Scotland; he also brought golf.

The club became entitled to use the cherished "Royal" prefix a mere five years after being established.  
 
In December 1888 Ashdown Forest and Tunbridge Wells Golf Club was established with the welcome blessing of Earl de la Warr and Buckhurst, Lord of the Manor of Duddeswell and owner of the Forest who became President of the Club. It was through the good offices of the noble Earl that the club became entitled to use the cherished "Royal" prefix, which was awarded a mere five years after being established.

In May 1893 the British Army was on maneuvers in the Forest when the Commander in Chief, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, came to inspect his troops. He was prevailed upon to strike his first-ever golf shot. The Duke, attired in a plumed cocked hat, tight blue coat and breeches, and with his sword in his belt, dismounted from his steed and with a club specially made for him by local professional John Rowe, took his first-ever swing. He not only made contact but propelled the ball 60 yards down the fairway.

The Queen's cousin must have been hooked because, after granting the Royal prefix, he became a member of the club. Within a decade or so the words "Tunbridge Wells" were dropped from the title. Almost from its inception the club has been acutely aware of the local populace, and the artisan section, called the Cantelupe Club, is the second oldest of its type in England, having been formed in 1892. It has spawned many good players, including Alf Padgham, British Open champion in 1936, while another past member has an indelible place in golf's rich history. The figure atop the Ryder Cup trophy is that of Abe Mitchell, an Ashdown artisan who became personal coach to English seed merchant Samuel Ryder, presenter of the trophy which is now so hotly contested by the professionals of Europe and the United States.

In many respects Royal Ashdown Forest is reluctant to shuck its Victorian heritage. The clubhouse, which has commanding views over the ancient forest and heathland, is unashamedly Victorian and none the worse for that. The golf played by the some 500 members is mainly foursomes, i.e., alternate shot or two-ball. That is not to say that four-ball play is prohibited. Every effort is made by secretary David Scrivens and his staff to accommodate visitors more accustomed to the four-ball medal play format of the game.

Because it has none of the long carries over heather and unforgiving rough found on some other British Isles courses, the New Course is ideal for beginners.  
 
There are several unique aspects to Royal Ashdown Forest, not least of which is the shorter New Course. Play there is almost exclusively for visitors and, because it has none of the long carries over heather and unforgiving rough found on some other British Isles courses, is ideal for beginners. It is principally a pay-and-play course which at 5,700 yards is only 777 yards shorter than the Old in distance but plays many shots less than mere distance can tell.

The club is not the easiest place to find without precise instructions from the nearest town, East Grinstead, but once you top the rise and head into the Forest from the village of Forest Row the visitor is greeted with an unforgettable sight. The views across the Weald to the Downs are spectacular. There is none of the intrusive hum of freeway traffic, the air is clear and clean, and even the jumbo jets headed in or out of Gatwick are more like toytown models than goliath people transporters.

The course itself is severely undulating. But do not be deterred. A few uphill treks are referred to by the membership as "coronaries," but they are not nearly as life-threatening as they sound. Laid out over, through, up, down and across a delightful mixture of heath and forest land, it soon becomes apparent that the course has no need for bunkers. Nature itself provides sufficient hazards with heather, rough, mounds, streams, ponds and sloping fairways. There are not all that many flat lies for approach shots, many of which are deceiving.

Scotsman Martyn Landsborough considers himself hugely fortunate to have been professional at Royal Ashdown Forest Golf Club for seven years and describes playing the course as "a unique golfing experience in that as the crow flies it is relatively close to London and its teeming suburbs, but we could be a million miles away here in the heart of the Sussex countryside."

"To me it is heaven on earth," Landsborough says. "Basically the course has not changed for the last 50 years or so, and a large part of the attraction is that very rarely does the player have a level stance. As far as lack of bunkers is concerned, the main problem is that without them it is difficult to gauge depth perception on shots."

The solitary common feature shared by the Old Course at St. Andrews and the Old Course at Royal Ashdown is that the first and 18th holes share a fairway.  
 
The Old Course at St. Andrews is also largely natural, as are many of the bunkers, but the solitary common feature shared by the world's most famous links and the Old Course at Royal Ashdown is that the first and 18th holes share a fairway. The first at Royal Ashdown is a short par-4 of 332 yards. The tee is elevated and the drive has to carry a heathery bank to a fairway which slopes left-to-right. Behind the two-tiered green, down a steep slope, is an out of bounds roadway, so the approach must not be struck too boldly.

The fourth is 356 yards long, straight uphill, and plays longer than its yardage with the second to an elevated green, which means the player rarely sees his approach finish. The fifth is a par-5 of 512 yards from an elevated tee to a wide fairway, but trees on the right can be dangerous. The longer hitter might be tempted to reach the green in two, but a 20-yard-wide stream front and left of the green advises caution.

The sixth, called "the Island," is one of the best-known holes on the course. Only 128 yards, the difficulty on this par-3 is the fact that the green is virtually an upturned saucer. From the front right to the back left is a stream which hugs the two-tiered putting surface, which has a landing area of no more than 10 yards in width. This is a difficult green to hit even with a short iron.

No. 9 is a wonderful little 143-yard hole. It plays from a sheltered tee to a green which slopes back to front and left to right. The safe shot here is to err on the short side. The slopes on this green are so severe that no member concedes a short putt; they have all seen too many missed here.

The 10th is a par-5 of 476 yards with a drinking pool for deer to the left of the green set in a bank. It is difficult to judge distance for either the uphill second for the long hitter or the pitch for the average player as there is a lot of dead ground in front of a flat green.

No. 12 is the longest on the course at 568 yards. This par-5 demands a long carry over a lot of heather. Many people cannot make that carry to a fairway which slopes right to left. It is a fantastic looking hole and generally does not play its full length.

The 16th is possibly one of the best par-4s in golf. Playing 407 yards from the back tee it invariably plays longer to a wide fairway with trees on the left. About 270 yards out there is a belt of cross rough which must be avoided, and this green has as protection a lot of pimply bumps of heather and gorse in front of the putting surface. Again the green is above the player.

The last hole is a gentle 352 yards from a very high tee to the fairway it shares with the first hole, although yet again pressure is applied to the approach by the fact that the green is above the player with a bank at the front right which will throw a ball off the putting surface.

Golf at Royal Ashdown Forest Golf Club is a pleasurably unique experience and one not to be missed. Everything about the place is just a little old-fashioned but it remains a very warm and welcoming place and is, as Martyn Landsborough so rightly says, a little bit of heaven on earth.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Alternatives to bunkering
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2002, 06:57:55 AM »
NAF:

Thanks for the comprehensive and intriguing description of Royal Ashdown Forest. Your description of the extremely interesting natural topography is fascinating for the type of site that could be bunkerless and carry off good golf and your description of the features that alternate for bunkering is too!

Ashdown Forest is lucky that it happened to have those natural aspects that could alternate for bunkering, however, because had it not it still would have had to go bunkerless because of that unusual edict.

My thinking is that sans bunkering would be very much by choice though--and the site needs to be such that it could be done well--I really don't think such a thing would be that easy or practical to do on most sites--it probably would have to be a special place!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »