Not to totally flog the dead horse, but something else comes to mind. I was reading Finegan's Blasted Heath (or whatever his Scotland book is called) and he is describing Machrie. He say the course only has 5 bunkers.  

As dramatic and undulating as the course is supposed to be, I assume it must have numerous natural collections areas. If so, why would the theory of ever-expanding divots not apply here?  Conversely, are there no rabbits/sheep in need of shelter at Machrie?

So, after all this, I am left to ponder:
1. The Machrie conundrum
2. What it means that Balfour said St Andrews was studded with bunkers early on.  

Mark, from what Finegan wrote, I am not at all sure heavy play ever commenced at Machrie, though your point on divot replacement is a fair one.

I remain intrigued by Balfour's comment. I suspect that is a hugely interesting area waiting to be mined--were the bunkers that 'studded' the mid-1800s course the same ones that would later become strategic when the course was widened? Were the old bunkers filled in and new ones added when the course was widened? etc.

Wouldn't narrowness have concentrated play through corridors?  And wouldn't that in turn have increased the likelihood of repeated play from a spot?

That seems reasonable, to an extent.  However, look again at #3 at the Old Course:


If the preponderance of bunkers came from those that 'studded' the course back in the narrow-corridor days, I would expect most bunkers to be clustered in the middle of the course. But that does not seem to be the case.  

At this point, I am not even sure what I think happened or what my point is!  

Heh, good point. I had assumed the old narrow course was in the area between the current front and back nines, so anything on the 'edges' such as those 5 bunkers you allude to would have been outside the playable course then.  But in reality, I have no idea if that is true.

But if the possibility you raise is true, then wouldn't the entire hole to the left of number 3, number 16, have been outside the course?

Maybe you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

The sand was always there - in vast waste areas and the close cropped fescues would presumably have been in the sheltered areas where rabbits collected. Over the years the golfers would have encouraged the grass to grow by whatever means, and the areas that didn’t grow would have remained as sand.

Photos of Hell’s Bunker through the ages appears to show that it has diminished in size.

So the bunkers came first and the fairways and greens followed?

John, maybe. Either way, it doesn't preclude the possibility of Wethered and Simpson's contention, does it?

Forrest, I'm not sure I understand your point in relation to the likelihood that man created bunkers via repeated play to a spot.

But your post did get me to think about the likelihood that golfers would have teed off from a concentrated area, increasing the probability that balls would have come to rest in the same spots.

The first rule of the Honorable Company of Edinburgh Golfers' 13 rules of golf, circa 1744, reads:
1. You must Tee your Ball within a Club's length of the Hole.

I would guess the movement of the holes, and therefore the tees, was rather limited.  So from day to day, there likely was a smaller dispersion of shots than today (with all the different tees and the daily repositioning of the hole). But more importantly, the teeing area would have been smaller back then than today.  So, on any given day, in the olden days there likely was a smaller dispersion of where shots came to rest versus today.

In other words, in ancient times it was more likely that balls came to rest in the same spot -- enough to generate the repeated play necessary to wear out the turf!

Mark

Thinking that bunkers came to be in the 17th, 18th or even the 19th century because so many balls came to rest in the same spot is a quaint notion that is only that until one starts to think how preposterous a notion it really is.  

"For example, the Road Hole Bunker was widened and deepened by townsfolk digging out shells, but how was it originally created?"

I have no real idea where it came from or how it may've been documented (if in fact it ever has been) but I've seen it said (written) a number of times that the Road Hole green and the Road Hole bunker were perhaps the FIRST dedicated expression of man-made golf architecture. Attribution for them has apparently always been given to Alan Robertson who has often been called the very first golf course architect.

Bob:

If one carefully analyzes some of the earliest drawings of golf and even some of the earliest photographs of linksland courses one can see bunker features et al that sure do look to me like primarily the work of Nature rather than the dedicated hand of man (man-made architecture). This is certainly not to say that there seem to be any of those far more common "revetted" bunkers and pot bunkers and such in those very early drawings and early photos that became so commonly seen in linksland and GB golf architecture later.

Or you could flip the problem over. If bunkers at TOC were formed by natural forces, then one would expect to see the same natural forces at work at all other older links courses. Afterall, those other courses are subject to the same natural forces. But you don't.

Bob, I think that is exactly right---the same thought that made me mention Machrie and its 5 bunkers.  Though I am not sure that all old links would have had rabbit farms or sheep and whatnot running about...

Do you take Balfour at his word that the Old Course was studded with bunkers just before the widening? I do, though what 'studded' might mean to him I do not know. But if it was, I have a hard time imagining golfers intentionally creating all those bunkers at that time.

?????

Sure, you had to bring it back--looks like the rabbits have gotten to work on that course  

Strange the divots all appear to be up on the hill rather than in the lower, flatter area.  

No! The angle is looking down a slope into a collection area.

Then there's this....



Ken