Does this hole in New Jersey still exist?

[Paul_Turner]

And who designed it?  Alison?

Thanks

[TEPaul]

Paul:

It's a good question if it still exists as it was in that photo. I have no problem at all with "greens within a green" but I can pretty much tell just looking at that photo that with nearly a doubling of green speed between the time that green was built and today a ball coming from the top tier would basically not stop until it got near the line on the bottom half where those two men are standing together. That might mean the club would not pin between those men and the top tier and that might be unacceptable for some clubs.

[Sean_A]

Nevermind the green - thats fairly standard stuff.  What is the story with the left bunker facing toward the green?  Now that is unusual.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Which bunker are you referring to and what is it about it you think is unusual?

The bunker that interests me is the fronting bunker and how well the angle of repose or just the angle on the upswept sand surface functions within the overall context of the "coefficient of friction".

Frankly, the overall subject of the "angle of respose" in physical golf architecture involving various materials as well as the "coefficient of friction" between two surfaces such as any area of a golf course and the surface of a golf ball is a subject that probably needs a ton more attention and consideration these days for a ton of reasons, not the least being its effects on playability.

[Marty Bonnar]

If this is it, doesn't look to have changed much:



FBD.

Golflink, ehm, link (attributes to Travis):

http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.asp?course=733345

[Bill_McBride]

Sean:

Which bunker are you referring to and what is it about it you think is unusual?

The bunker that interests me is the fronting bunker and how well the angle of repose or just the angle on the upswept sand surface functions within the overall context of the "coefficient of friction".

Frankly, the overall subject of the "angle of respose" in physical golf architecture involving various materials as well as the "coefficient of friction" between two surfaces such as any area of a golf course and the surface of a golf ball is a subject that probably needs a ton more attention and consideration these days for a ton of reasons, not the least being its effects on playability.

Tom, interesting you would use the term, "Angle of Repose."  That's also the title of one of my favorite books, by Wallace Stegner, a sweeping novel of engineering and growth of the Western U.S.  Not much if any golf that I can recall however.

[TEPaul]

Bill:

For the structural integrity of various aspects of golf course architecture, particularly the upswept sand surfaces of various bunkers, the "angle of repose" (as well as the coefficient of friction), is massively important and very likely one of the fundamental aspects of the endurance of features like that.

The thing that occurs to me is that many of the early architects, and particularly some of the most dramatic and respected of the earlier architects, may not have had any idea of the limitations of it if they were even aware of it at all.

Put in "angle of respose" into the search feature of GOLFCLUBATLAS and you will find around Sept 2004 that in that argument I had with Tom MacWood over the bunker restoration of Aronimink that the "angle of respose" was an important topic of the discussion and one that a guy like MacWood probably had little idea about or little idea about the significance of it.

All he did is keep harping on the fact that the bunker sand upsweeps did not look the same on the restoration by Prichard as they did back when the course was first built. He just kept saying they should look the same as those old photos but did he even consider the maintenance aspects and the cost of maintaining that look?

I very much doubt it. However, I don't think that was the problem in our argument about the bunker restoration of Aronimink. I think the problem was he was relying on the type of early photographs that did not show the reality of those old bunkers and the other problem was he'd never even bothered to go to Aronimink to look at the bunkers of the Prichard restoration project as the rest of us had.

A good example is the green fronting bunkers Crump designed on the 2nd, 10th and 18th holes at Pine Valley. There was no way in the world those sand faces could endure since the sand surfaces on the upswept areas were so far beyond the angle of repose and the coefficient of friction. Matter of fact, on one or two of them they were so excessive when they collapsed they took a significant portion of the front of the green down with them.

MacWood was all for original aesthetic purity and restoration and such but I doubt the guy had the slightest idea of some of the physics problems ("angle of repose" and "coefficient of fricton") involved in the look of some of that old architecture. Either that or he just didn't care. Well, golf clubs and their maintenance departments sure as hell care.

[igrowgrass]

If this is it, doesn't look to have changed much:



FBD.

Golflink, ehm, link (attributes to Travis):

http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.asp?course=733345

The hole pictured here is #7 South.  This picture is out of date, many trees in that photo have been cut down (I was on the good end of a chainsaw for a few of them.)   A new tee has also been added to this hole since the photo. 
To answer your question about the original photo that started the post.  That hole does not exist.  It was destroyed many moons ago.  The picture can also be found in the club history book, located at the club.  The South Course had great character before its many redesigns.  The fourth hole of the South Course is still a par 3, but is nothing of the challenge this hole would be. 
Where did you get this picture? 

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Which bunker are you referring to and what is it about it you think is unusual?

The front left bunker (as seen in the photo) which appears to have a guy raking it.  That bunker opens toward the green - very strange.

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Tom Paul, if you ever want to see a bunker where the "angle of repose" was completely ignored, go play True Blue in Myrtle Beach and take a look at the front right bunker on the par 3 #16.  The bunker face is very close to vertical!  Maybe I can find a photo.........

Couldn't find a photo.  Actually, I think the bunker face is more than vertical, not sure how they could do that and keep sand on the face, but there it is.

[TEPaul]

"Actually, I think the bunker face is more than vertical, not sure how they could do that and keep sand on the face, but there it is."

Hmmm, that's hard to imagine. It seems like Strantz was into the novel, to say the least. I've only SEEN one Strantz course and at first the massive shaping in an atmosphere that was naturally pretty flat sort of made us wince, but on close inspection of a couple of the holes it sure looked like they played pretty neat.

[Peter Pallotta]

For the structural integrity of various aspects of golf course architecture, particularly the upswept sand surfaces of various bunkers, the "angle of repose" (as well as the coefficient of friction), is massively important and very likely one of the fundamental aspects of the endurance of features like that.

The thing that occurs to me is that many of the early architects, and particularly some of the most dramatic and respected of the earlier architects, may not have had any idea of the limitations of it if they were even aware of it at all. 

TE - can you expand on this, i.e. give me a sense of which architects might not have a good understanding of those limitiations, and which of them did?

Thanks
Peter