In thinking about my other thread on bunkers, I asked myself about the interrelationship between maintainance and design.

In GENERAL, are bunkers today being built far shallower then say the "golden age" or "classic" course bunkers because of the mechanical rake, the Sand Pro, and potential liability issues ?

At GCGC, NGLA, PV and many other courses bunker depth is such that hand raking is THE only maintainance method available.

Do today's architect shy away from generally deep bunkers in favor or shallower bunkers, ones that permit access and egress by riding equipment such as the Sand Pro ?

Is their design configured to specifically allow for access by riding rakes ?

Patrick,

Additionally, I do know that some architects consider the turning radius of the mechanical bunker rakes, and design the bays of their bunkers accordingly. It really boils down to the maintenance practices of the future superintendent. If they don't mind hand-raking, some guidelines can be ignored, but ultimately, why design features that will not be maintained in the future or lead to unanticipated higher maintenance costs? The superintendent should really be consulted during the design process if possible, because they have the ability to maintain the course in a manner which is suitable for the design (ex. green speeds & designed contours).

TK

Pat,
I think you are correct in your assumption.  
IMHO bunkers were never flashed to begin with.  The original flashed bunkers were built in a sandy terrain and the flashed edges were just the exposed native material.  Today when we try to copy that style of bunker into clay or other soils we create maintenance problems. If we built bunkers such as you describe here in Ga they would wash away and do.  

During the 80's I was a volunteer on the greens crew during the Masters for several years.  Myself and several other others had to walk the course each morning and handrake the bunkers (54 I think) in two directions, make sure no sand crept up on the cut edge and then rake an even edge around each bunker before clipping any stragglers with the shears.  And if it rained as it did several years, we had shovels to throw the sand back up .  To my initial surprise The very steep faces were covered in a hardened fiberglas cloth that was colored to match the sand and you could not tell the difference from 50 feet.  This acheived the look needed as well as it kept balls from satying on the face.
Personally I do not like the look of sand after a mechanical rake is used.  And I think if the sand is flat a wide wooden handrake can be just as fast.
Therefore, IMHO bunkers should be built to fit the soil conditions as well as weather.  There are plenty of architects and shapers out there that can build aesthetically pleasing 3D multifaceted bunkers but they may not fit most projects.  
Mike

Tyler,

One superintendent's likes might be anothers dislikes.
And, clubs have been known to replace superintendents from time to time.  But, in general, I think it's an idea with merit.

Homogenizing bunker design seems like a bad idea.
It would seem to eliminate creativity and uniqueness.

And, if another, bigger, wider, more efficient sand groomer comes along that requires larger lanes, turning radii and gentler slopes, should bunkers become more cookie cutter in nature ?

A maintained bunker is not a bunker, its a garden feature. Garden features don't belong on golf courses.....

Homogenizing bunker design seems like a bad idea.
It would seem to eliminate creativity and uniqueness.

Pat,

I could not agree with you more, unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. I probably gave too much credit to the wishes of the superintendent, when in reality the owners/membership will dictate to what level the course should be maintained, and hire accordingly.

TK

I think I know where Tommy is coming from with his comment.  However, this comment from Mike Strantz is worth thinking about - I remember him stating this about his bunkers at Tobacco Road.  He said something like, "It takes a lot of work to make these bunkers and waste areas look like they are NOT maintained".  

Tommy,
I guess my point is that sometimes these "natural areas" that look unmaintained, are pretty maintained!  Pine Valley for example spends a lot of money maintaining their "natural" hazard areas.
Mark

It seems to me in modern times maintenance of sand surfaces has marched in lock step with the ever increasing demand for good or even consistent lies in sand bunkers on any golf course. Anything less seems to be looked at today as "shabby" maintenance practices on a golf course.

Unfortunately, the one last American holdout to the fairly "unmaintained" sand area (at least the extensive one) that I was aware of---the World's #1 course, PVGC, has even finally given in to this trend. And in a way, at PVGC this is a big change. The course just may've had more sand area in play than any course I've ever seen and that alone may've been one of the primary reasons it didn't much maintain "some" of it's sand bunkers and sand areas---eg there was simply too much of it. But the sandpro has apparently taken care of that. Previously, the bunkers around greens and some of the individual fairway bunkers appeared to be "fairly" well raked (the course has never had rakes on course for players or caddie and probably never will) but the more massive sand areas like #16 or HHA never really were raked or apparently infrequently. In those areas there always were thousands of footprints, but not any more.

This constant striving throughout golf for consistent lies in sand driven by consistent playability of lie (fairness?) in sand has even begun to enter into the Rules of Golf or it will shortly. The reason for that is there are some courses today--new courses---that also have massive stretches of sand----generally created, that are perhaps too much for the maintenance crews to maintain on a daily basis for consistency of lie in sand and so they've now been labeled "waste areas" in which "local rules" provide that the golfer can ground his club (obviously to protect that demand for fairness and some form of consistency of lie in sand).

But if this design practice of creating "waste areas" becomes prevalent enough the actual "RULES" of golf (the book) will have to address this relatively recent architectural inclusion in golf---the "waste area".

Of course what the actual Rules of Golf (R&A/USGA) will probably do eventually is make it allowable (within the actual "rules") to ground one's club in these rough sand areas (that are that way simply because they're too extensive to maintain with rakes, manual or otherwise) and another fundamental priniciple of the rules of golf will begin to be minimized!

....and TomP, if the governing bodies do come up with a rule for waste areas, it surely would be ironic in that all bunkers originally were just that.....little ruleless areas of sand one encountered while making ones way to the hole....

Tom.....at times I feel we are ready to design and build a new 'old' course.....but then I usually passout and wake up to find a new day.

This is a great idea which has two significant problems:

1.  How are you going to get prima donna architects to accept that all their beautifully designed and crafted bunkers ought to be left to the vagaries of nature and player abuse?
2.  How are you going to convince the average golfer, for whom the game is hard enough already, that hazards which are almost impossible to extricate oneself from without extreme skill or luck are good for his game?

To me the resolution of the second problem involves two 2-word answers:

a.  Xtreme Sports.  Market golf as a game that it not just for Mr. and Mrs. Havermeyer.  Make it fun and exciting, rather than......oh well, we all know what it can be and too often is......

b.  Unplayable Lie.  If you are going to get bunkers that look like a sand castle competition for the small-muscle-coordination-challenged, allow for (one shot penalty) drops outside the hazard.

There is another upside, TE Paul, who has not been in a bunker since 1964, would be favorite for next year's Open.

As for the first problem, fortunately we know, from this website, that all golf course architects live in a hubris-free zone.

b. Unplayable Lie.  If you are going to get bunkers that look like a sand castle competition for the small-muscle-coordination-challenged, allow for (one shot penalty) drops outside the hazard.

Rich,
already covered by Rule 28, Shurely (and stop calling me Shurely...)

FBD.