Ian

You're likely aware of this anyway.  But take a look at Colt's plan for the 6th at Hamilton.  He wanted two huge "torn out" bunkers in that bank 20 yards forward of the green.  From what he drew, he planned bunkers as huge as this one at SGH (40-50 yds deep), but they never got built.  He'd just finished SGH, before leaving for his second N.America trip.

Can you imagine how awesome that hole would be!

TEPaul,

Are you sure those aren't steps ?

Yes Paul,we are and it is.

See reply #13. Can't see SGH going into liquidation too quickly

In that case those steps along both sides of that bunker tell me just how steep that bunker (and the sand in it) was. Interestingly, the only bunkering I can recall that has some steps on either side of it like that one is what fronts the 2nd and 18th green at PVGC---and we know what happened to those basically vertical sand faces decades ago. Perhaps SGH did have that bunker with up-swept sand for many decades but it certainly would be interesting to hear from the club what it took to maintain that up-swept sand face and how many times they had to redo it after wash-downs. It very well be that reason alone that persuaded the club to redesign those two bunkers to ones that have a sod and grass vertical faces instead of sand. We all may love the look of it but after-all they're the ones who have to pay to maintain it and it would be interesting to know, at least, what that entailed. The use of a massive application of a bunker-wol product on a basically vertical sand face like that would certainly serve to stablize the sand upsweep, one would think.

"My theory is that it had very little to do with maintainance.  And that maintainance may have been a minimal, peripheral or camoflaging reason.
But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Patrick, I've noticed over the years you say 'I could be wrong' about 98% of the time. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say?  

That's true, the course is built on very sandy loam.  

The "steps" are just natural erosion from feet.  They aren't wooden.

The photos tell the story and I've seen others too.  The bunker survived for many decades as Colt designed it.   I can't believe it was regularly washed out to the point of destruction (like the 2nd at PV ) otherwise it would never have lasted so long:  English clubs are cheap.  I'm sure it had to have some level of maintenance, probably more than other bunkers on the course.  But that's a v poor reason in my opinion, and why were other bunkers done in the same style eventhough these were not on steep banks.  The huge cross bunker on the 5th has been messed up too...and the greenside bunkers in the 13th.

It wouldn't be difficult to restore.  

Has anyone asked the club?

A look at the front page of the SGH website reveals this statement from their captain.

"It is a pleasure for me to introduce our Club to you.
We at St George’s Hill Golf Club consider ourselves to be extremely fortunate. Fate has located us in one of the most beautiful parts of Surrey provided by Nature, and this has been moulded into a challenging golf course through the genius of our architect, Harry S Colt. That creative work was done 91 years ago, and we have tried to remain true to his principles. Testimony to this is a course which has remained virtually unchanged from the original design."

Has something been lost in mist of time perhaps.

Here's a link to the site.
 
http://www.stgeorgeshillgolfclub.co.uk/

I think it certainly is a very good question why the look of those undeniably impressive sand swept-up faced bunkers on Hole #8 of SGH have changed in look so dramatically in recent years (as it does appear they were maintained with those huge swept-up sand faces for so many decades). Is there anyone on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com who lives in the vicinity of SGH who'd be willing to call the club and ask them why the look of those bunkers changed so dramatically in perhaps the last 10-20 years? Whatever the reasons are I at least hope they're aware of the reasons.  

I don't think I want to see this thread or others like it on here turn into some attack on the club like the multiple Merion bunker threads did but I can tell you this---if one called Merion and asked them politely why they decided to change the look of their famous bunkers they were definitely willing to provide their reasons.

Marc,

What a brilliant idea!  But don't forget the preservation orders that will be placed on every single tree......

Mark.

Tell me about it. When I was course manager at Camberley Heath many years ago we got a tree preservation order slapped on the entire course. I even got an on course meeting set up with the council, myself and the heathland trust who were very keen to open up spaces for heather regeneration. Despite our best efforts the council and their TPO won the day.

Marc,

Camberley Heath!  So near yet so far!  You must tell me about it one day - not in the public domaine.

I know I started this, but I'm in the wrong country, it's down to the UK GCAers!

Not much chance that the club will have heard of Hunter's book.

That statement by the club is typical.  It's the same at Tandridge, ignoring the details and just looking at the general routing, bunker placement etc.

Colt would not be happy with the state of his bunkers!