[Jimmy Muratt]

As mentioned in the Gil Hanse bunker thread, Mike DeVries definitely deserves to be grouped in the elite architects who are masters of sculpting bunkers.  Check out a few of these pics from the Kingsley Club....

[JakaB]

Is the hairy bunker a fad or what....I don't get where it gets past just being trendy and eye candy.  As a matter of fact the hairyness seems to hide how easy the bunkers appear to hit out of...that being not a difficult carry over the lip.

[Brian_Gracely]

Is the hairy bunker a fad or what....I don't get where it gets past just being trendy and eye candy.  As a matter of fact the hairyness seems to hide how easy the bunkers appear to hit out of...that being not a difficult carry over the lip.

It's been that way at Royal Country Down forever.
.  

At least the new fad is imitating the great works of the past as opposed to the horrors of recent years.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jimmy,

    Mike DeVries is doing some on-going bunker renovation of the Alister Mackenzie nine at St. Charles CC in my home town of Winnipeg, Mb. (Canada). The renovated bunkers are taking on the irregularly-edged look that is similar to the picture you posted at Kingsley #2. Some members love the new look, others like the cleaner edges that had evolved over the years, and at the end of the day it is a matter of taste.

Tyler Kearns

[Doug Sobieski]

Is the hairy bunker a fad or what....I don't get where it gets past just being trendy and eye candy.  As a matter of fact the hairyness seems to hide how easy the bunkers appear to hit out of...that being not a difficult carry over the lip.

John:

Kingsley has some of the most treacherous modern greenside bunkers that most people will ever want to see. As a matter of fact, I looked back at the pictures to make sure, and most of the bunkers below the level of the green are so deep that many players would have a hard time getting the ball on the green! For example, look at #4 and #8, where they are probably deeper than you are tall. Bunkers at Kingsley are certainly not the easy play in most instances!

I guess this supports that everyone will assess a picture differently  

Joe Hancock:

Maybe you can chime in on this!!! I'm sure you can comment on how they really function as hazards based on your experience there.

Later,

Doug

[Joe Hancock]

Doug,

Thanks for the kick in the butt I need to actually post something meaningful. It's not my usual style, as you well know. I'll keep my smart ass remarks for another moment!

After I read JakaB's initial post, I went looking through my Kingsley pictures. I have played the course somewhere around 8 times. I haven't taken as many pictures as one would think.

First, I have to admit that, functional or not, the hairy edged look is very appealing to me. Whether it's a traditional thought (think string trimmer), or just the contrast of color and texture, no matter. I like wispy grasses blowing around the edges of bunkers.

It's been said here many times that photography is a tool, but not always revealing the product in totality. This is the case at Kingsley. For instance, the short #2 has some nasty menacing bunkers that are compounded by the smallish size of the green, particularly at the front. Miss into a bunker short right, and you are facing a wall of sand. Miss middle left, and you'll be in some tight quartered bunkering (if you're lucky!). That is part of the genius at Kingsley. There aren't any common sizes in it's features. One bunker may be difficult because of the slope of the sand, another may be difficult because of lack of slope in the sand. There are even a few bunkers that the slope seems inverted, sort of backwards if you will. Normally we see sand sloping from low to high towards the putting surface. That's not always the case at Kingsley. Number 6, a middle length par 4, has a bunker complex short and left of the green that will most often put you in this "inverted" lie.

Number 9 at Kingsley gets a bad rap due to the difficulty of holding the green with traditional approaches. Yes, it's tough, but it's really tough once you get in the bunkers. And if you think you're in a hole in either of the front bunkers (or left, depending on tees played!), then try the back (or right!) bunker on for size. It may be the first place I've ever witnessed grass being grown on an absolutely vertical surface!

There are many other obvious examples of punishing bunkers at Kingsley, but once again, the genius may be that the greens complexes are so well thought out, that getting out of the bunkers is just a smidgen of the challenge. If there is anything easy about the bunkers at Kingsley, it might be the extracation aspect, but I think anyone would find the rest of the shot execution to be an adequate challenge.

Kingsley is a special course, and I can't help but think the bunkers are just a part of the puzzle that DeVries masterminded here. I would bet that every element was thoroughly planned out to work in harmony with each other....not a lucky shot in the dark. That includes bunker hair too.

Joe

[Doug Sobieski]

Joe:

You are dead on about #9. Regardless of which tees you play, the bunkers absolutely dictate how you can attack the hole (not that there is much chance to "attack"). The possible exception is south tees/flagstick back right up on the plateau. With that combination, it's the size of the plateau that makes you pucker since there are really no worries about carrying anything (unless you hit it fat in the front bunker like I prefer to do  ).

#2, #4, #8, #9, #16 off the top of my head all have bunkers that the typical player will be hard pressed to get the ball up quickly enough. At least that's better than being stuck in the grassy face, as at least one person in a group always seems to do at least once in a round.

I think my favorite is the greenside bunker on #8. From the tee, the hill on the right will cause most people to play left, which of course brings that bunker right into play. If you are cautious at all trying to play away from it, the green has the tendency to repel your ball (or so I'm told  )

Overall, I think the bunkers at Kingsley force players to think as much as just about any modern creation you might compare it to. Combined with the rugged look that I personally enjoy, I think it's a fantastic example of doing things right. And I agree that once you avoid the bunkers, the fun is just beginning.

All the best,

Doug

P.S. What's my best option for getting out to hit balls now that the weather has warmed up? Is Cascade Golf my best bet?

[Joe Hancock]

Doug,

I opened our range last weekend. So your best bet for hitting range balls would be.....




Joe

[Paul Richards]

Great pictures of the amazing front nine!!!!!!

[GeoffreyC]

Jimmy

Thanks for the photos.  To paraphrase the statement of a great man, the Kingsley Club stirs the soul and is a joy to play.  I'd love to have it as my home club.

In addition to the world class front nine, #'s 13 and 15 are great holes and 16 is darn close.

I included Mike Devries in my blurb on the first bunker thread.  TKC has wonderful hazards.

[David Kelly]

As a matter of fact the hairyness seems to hide how easy the bunkers appear to hit out of...that being not a difficult carry over the lip.

Kingsley's bunkers easy to hit out of? No, you guessed wrong.

 

[JakaB]

I have never played Kingsley...but am curious if the bunkers would play any different if they were naired...is the hair anything more than architectural eye candy.   That is why I think the modern hairy bunker is a fad...much like water features of a few years ago.

[Joe Hancock]

JakaB,

I know what you're saying, but there's more to it. The bunkers at Kingsley would be murder to maintain with a flymo (hover mower).

Also, ask Ed Getka or David Kelly about #9, and how those bunkers play. I ended up in the hair on the uphill side of the bunker. I can't remember if it was my second or eighth shot though.  

Joe

P.S. JakaB, you need to schedule a trip up this summer. I'd gladly go to Kingsley with you, as you are on my "must golf with"  list anyway!

[JakaB]

It seems to me that the majority of great courses had much hairier bunkers back in the 30's or so and then continually got cleaner and cleaner.   Does anyone really believe that after a modern club gets its membership ranks full and they age accordingly that the hair won't gradually dissappear to a point where it is no longer a hinderance...maintenance wise and shot wise.   There is a point where the hair actually helps a golfer....average of skill...by keeping the ball out of the bunker and allowing for an easier advance.  That would be with much thinner hair than appears above.   Funny how the taste for architectural eye candy diminishes over time and familiarity...

[Joe Hancock]

 Funny how the taste for architectural eye candy diminishes over time and familiarity...

JakaB,

You may make a case for this if you differentiate between those who can discern and the masses. It would be like fine art. Most would go to the art gallery, think it ok, then go back home to their Redlin and Kincade prints and be glad of it.

Joe

[Dan_Lucas]

Jaka

The bunker shown on #2 is 50 yds. short of the green on a 160 yd. par 3. If you hit it there you don't need more troubles. The back left, and right green side bunkers are both in excess of 8 ft. below the green surface.

The "hairy" look is (as a supt.) very maintenance friendly. With in excess of 130 bunkers it would probably take a full time bunker crew about 1 month per 6 month golf season just to edge them. That saves a LOT of maintenance money. It does create other maintenance problems,but it is much less maintainance intensive than a clean, crisp edge. It also allows much more radical contours on our bunker faces than if we had to mow them.

Beyond that, it adds a feel that we want. I have not been there, but I don't think there are many flymows in the British Isles. Those are the playing conditions we strive for on a daily basis. It also adds a level of intimidation that is different from the normal bunker styles, and can affect depth perception more than you realize.

As far as the grass keeping the ball out of the bunkers, sometimes it will. That also is part of the variability and "rub of the green" mentality (that used to be a larger part of the game) that we believe makes the game more fun. More so on a private course that our members are playing on a regular basis.

[JakaB]

Kingsley is without question a great course..so lets complare it to another great course..Pasatiempo and how its bunkers evolved from an orignally hairy jagged state to their modern clean look today.  I'm not even sure if the bunkers at Cypress aren't cleaner than in the day...I hope Kingsleys can remain as they look now for the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years...but the history of every other club in this country seems to indicate they won't.  A club grows older with its members and they and the bunkers seem to wrinkle in an inverse relationship.

[Joe Hancock]

Kingsley is without question a great course..so lets complare it to another great course..Pasatiempo and how its bunkers evolved from an orignally hairy jagged state to their modern clean look today.  I'm not even sure if the bunkers at Cypress aren't cleaner than in the day...I hope Kingsleys can remain as they look now for the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years...but the history of every other club in this country seems to indicate they won't.  A club grows older with its members and they and the bunkers seem to wrinkle in an inverse relationship.

JakaB,

More often than not, this is true. I find it quite unfortunate.

Joe

[Mike_DeVries]

Hi All,

Much has been said here by Dan Lucas, Kingsley's super, and Joe Hancock, who I grew up with, and what they have said is right on.  

What I want to add is that the look is very much in keeping with feel and rugged style of the course, not just for aesthetic appeal.  There is a minimal maintenance perogative for the course and, as Dan has noted, the bunkers are not maintenance intensive, if fact, they are less so because of the shaggy edges.  The style is not a direct imitation of any one particular bunker style and hence there are many various aspects to the bunkers and the golfers' lie and stance in a bunker.  

It is my hope that the bunkers will retain their appearance over the next 50+ years.  I strongly believe that with the fescues we have there that there will not be a need to "edge" the bunkers, provided that they are raked properly (and not excessively).  I have found that the courses that are most easily "restored" are those where work has not been done to "keep up with the Joneses" but instead has been neglected through lack of funds -- this means there is minimal change and all the features are intact, just maybe a bit different, sizewise.  At Kingsley, we are cognizant of the long grass around the bunkers and in some spots where a sprinkler gets the face, we have to pay attention to the extra growth and adjust a head, but in general, I think they are doing very well and I plan on sticking around and working with Dan to maintain the bunkers' features.

Mike

[Mike_DeVries]

Jimmy,

    Mike DeVries is doing some on-going bunker renovation of the Alister Mackenzie nine at St. Charles CC in my home town of Winnipeg, Mb. (Canada). The renovated bunkers are taking on the irregularly-edged look that is similar to the picture you posted at Kingsley #2. Some members love the new look, others like the cleaner edges that had evolved over the years, and at the end of the day it is a matter of taste.

The MacKenzie bunker restoration at St. Charles has an irregular edge, but is not wooly like Kingsley, and is mowed as regular rough.  We are imitating the style of bunker that is evident in old photos.  The current bunker state is one that has been edged and maintained in typical fashion, thereby generisizing them to not relate to their original designers (MacKenzie, Ross, and a number of architects on the 3rd nine) -- I hope that we can distinguish each nine from the others and bunker styles will help achieve that and showcase their unique situation of having Ross and MacKenzie on the same property.

[Mike_DeVries]

Number 9 at Kingsley gets a bad rap due to the difficulty of holding the green with traditional approaches. Yes, it's tough, but it's really tough once you get in the bunkers. And if you think you're in a hole in either of the front bunkers (or left, depending on tees played!), then try the back (or right!) bunker on for size. It may be the first place I've ever witnessed grass being grown on an absolutely vertical surface!

I often find that being in the small middle bunker on the left (front) is an okay place to be, because you can play it into the hill and bring the ball back to the pin.  Of course, it is no gimme to get out, but it is certainly an easier shot to control than pitching from above the green or behind at times!  And, even though I am comfortable with the shot, I have also had my share of those where I don't get it out or it dribbles back into the long grass (and than you are really in trouble!).

[Forrest Richardson]

I'm a fan of Mike's bunkers. My question to Mike — and all others — is how much of what we see in this body of work is sculpting -vs- texturing. What is the ratio?

I realize the two are somewhat integrated. The full look of a bunker is both its sculpting and the texture of grasses that are initially planted and allowed to whisp...or not whisp as the case may be.

Many consider sculpting to be the second phase of bunker work. The 1st is placement; 2nd is scale and shape — also sculpting; 3rd is texturing (which extends to the setting of maintenance protocols; turfgrasses, etc.)

[Steve Lang]

 

Having played around NMich for 20+ years and at Kingsley last summer, one has to really understand the larger setting there..  those bunker grasses really fit into the natural hills-farmland-forrest-meadows-lakes-sandy edges motif of the NMich environment within 100 miles of Traverse City.   Put that stuff at a manicured housing surrounded course and it doesn't fit..

As Dan Lucas pointed out the picture at #2 doesn't do the real ones surrounding that green any justice..  

p.s. There's also some excellent berry picking there along some of the paths!

[Mike_DeVries]

I'm a fan of Mike's bunkers. My question to Mike — and all others — is how much of what we see in this body of work is sculpting -vs- texturing. What is the ratio?

I realize the two are somewhat integrated. The full look of a bunker is both its sculpting and the texture of grasses that are initially planted and allowed to whisp...or not whisp as the case may be.

Many consider sculpting to be the second phase of bunker work. The 1st is placement; 2nd is scale and shape — also sculpting; 3rd is texturing (which extends to the setting of maintenance protocols; turfgrasses, etc.)

Forrest,

I don't think there is any set ratio.  All the bunkers at Kingsley are built into the landscape features that were already there -- obviously, some may have required more sculpting, but all are integral to the site, as is the native grass of the long rough -- I guess that gives them equal footing?  But bad sculpting with good grass is still a bad bunker, while good sculpting with bad, or bland, grass is still a good bunker, so I say that gives the edge to good sculpting at Kingsley (and with good grass, makes for unique bunkering).

[Ken Fry]

I've played Kingsley a few times and love it more with each round.  I had heard of some possible changes on #9 though.  Any truth to this?

My second time around, we played the left tees on #9 and my ball just trickled off the edge of the green into the right bunker.  Unfortunately, the ball got stuck half way down on a vertical face because it seemed small bushes were planted to try to hold the face together.  It's a treacherous bunker if you get in it, but that was an very unfortunate roll to end up where I did.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()