[T_MacWood]

In the past some golf-architects promoted the idea of adding bunkers after a season or two, it was easier to determine the most strategic locations after observing numerous rounds. It may not be practical, but wouldn't it force the designer to create a layout based completely on the interesting features/undulations of the ground?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The disruption of play, construction costs, and damage to the golf course would seem to be the practical reasons not to add bunkers after two (2) seasons.

Wouldn't you think the designer of the original bunkerless course lacked vision ?

[ForkaB]

Tom

You are right and Patrick is wrong.  No golf course architect is as prescient as Mr. Mucci.

For a very current example, there are at least 2 places at Pacific Dunes where bunkers will be required, very soon, due to the fact that balls naturally collect there and the turf that is there is already being hacked to bits.

All courses worth their salt change, both through nature and by the hand of man.  IMO.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

I've only watched one golf course being built: Sand Ridge.

The third hole has more than twenty bunkers, but still I think Fazio got the placement of some wrong.  That feeling comes from my own playing experience, watching others play and discussions with maintenance personnel.

Unfortunately, I don't think the "fix" would be real easy because I wouldn't want to just change the placement of a couple bunkers, I'd want to also change the entire green complex.

As Patrick suggests, that would be expensive and it would probably be impossible to secure member's support, though every time I explain to a playing partner my idea, they always seem to agree.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

If I'm wrong, so is every modern day architect.

Name a course built without bunkers, where the bunkers were added three years later.

How could you justify the added costs, damage to the course, and disruption of play to the members or paying public ?

[Lou_Duran]

When we were planning a daily fee golf course a few years back, our thought was to have some 30 bunkers, then add some through time as experience and funds dictated.  Adding three or four bunkers per year using the maintenance staff during the off season would not be very disruptive. And as part of an ongoing course improvement program, it is a good way to enhance value for the investors.  I have seen a few low budget courses such as Hillcrest in Findlay, Ohio develop over time into nice golf properties.

Concerning Pacific Dunes, I hate to think that they would build bunkers where well hit shots naturally end up.  I have a hard enough time finding the short grass when hazards are placed on the periphery of the fairways.

[Ed_Baker]

Christ, I'm gonna sound like Clinton.

I agree with everybody!

For a daily fee or resort course adding bunkers with Lou's methodology would work and ultimately might improve the course.

To Patricks point,the politics at a private course would kill you. Memberships hate change of any kind,let alone course changes that to them,would make the course more difficult. Besides tree encroachment,what's the most difficult part of restoration? To find the locations of all the original bunkers that the goddamn membership filled in!

[T_MacWood]

In the old days, they would observe the course during the seasons of Spring, Summer and Fall, and possibly Winter, to see how the course played under differing conditions. The membership would be aware that the newly constructed course that they were playing was a work in progress and the bunkering would complete the design later during that first year. Very similar to how GCGC, NGLA and other courses evolved.

Would this method help maximize thoughtful bunkering? And most importantly would courses benefit from being designed initially only based on existing natural features and interesting contours?

[ForkaB]

Patrick

I was being slightly flip, and of course I should have said you "might" be wrong .

I was never talking about completely re-bunkering a bunkerless course, just adding some new bunkers to an existing course in places which were appropriate (for strategy or playability) or necessary (due to wear).  This sort of thing happens fairly regularly at the courses with which I am familiar, and is done piecemeal and/or during the winter months so as to not to significantly affect play.

[Matt_Ward]

Golf courses are evolutionary elements. Adding bunkers in my opinion is entirely appropriate to deal with playing habits that maybe were not fully contemplated during the actual construction of the course.

In addition, advances in technology are also a factor in keeping key holes from being rendered obsolete because players are able to take advantage of situations that need greater emphasis or clarity.

Done with proper care I see no problem in doing this. I agree w Tom Macwood that courses "are works in progress." They are not static or worse yet -- to gather dust like so many art pieces in a museum.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I would agree that bunkers get added and removed after construction, based on a number of factors.

Tom MacWood,

I think the evolutionary process today differs greatly from that of yesteryear, when mostly nature was the driving force.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
A work in progress in the sense that the design process would extend through that first year -- the bunkers could be introduced after a season of monitoring play and then design would be complete. I'm not advocating the continual toughening up that you appear to desire. This method would hopefully produce interesting courses and as opposed to simply challenging courses.

I'm exploring ways to assist those who's designs have become stagnent and tired, by emphasising interesting contours as the dominant design feature. Hopefully they wouldn't need to continually add artificial means of toughening up the course every-other year to appease those overly focused on length and difficulty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Who would determine where the bunkers go ?

Would this not send a signal to the membership that it is permissable to alter design, in the domino sense.

How do you protect the integrity of the original design on an ongoing basis ?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

When bunkers are added they are included for strategic reasons. Where did I say anything about "toughening up?" Clearly, bunkers are added in response to how players actually play. It is possible that holes originally intended to play one way by the architect actually play quite differently when play is monitored and evaluated. New bunkers will clearly influence play from all types of players.

You also cannot dismiss the advances of technology in this equation.

When you say interesting courses I see little difference when the word challenging is included. To me -- both words are part and parcel of the same thing. Courses that are interesting are also challenging and vice versa.

I'm not advocating that each course be some monster with 140 plus slopes and 75 or better course ratings Tom. Adding bunkering at a later date is clearly an element that can be done, but one that should be followed only with due diligence for the long term impact it will create.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
The architect would add the bunkers, in effect completing the design. But the bunkers position would be a result of studying the play of the membership and their imput would be invaluable, so although the architect would be reponsible for their position, the members would view themselves as colaborators and would be very unlikely to alter their own work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Your idea is perfectly logical and practical,
Therefore it will never work,
especially at a private club with 300+ egos.

[TEPaul]

If you want to talk about the egos of members and disruption of their play and some of the other cost things mentioned that's fine but it only relates to the egos of members and the disruption of their play and those other cost things mentioned.

But if you want to talk about the question of "adding bunkers later" in an architectural context alone that's another thing. Maybe adding bunkers later isn't even practical at public or even some private facilities but again that's not much of a strict architectural answer.

For a strict architectural answer to this question it might be good to analyze exactly what William Flynn meant to say when he recommended this exact technique!

And to go on and say that to do such a thing as adding bunkers later is completely unacceptable would be to say that Flynn, William Fownes (Oakmont) and Herbert Leeds (Myopia) were complete idiots! It would also say that even Donald Ross was wrong when he came back to my course ten years after opening and recommended the addition of a few bunkers.

As far as what kind of message that sends to memberships and green committees about adding bunkers on their own--that's a pretty simple answer too. Point to Ross and many of the others when they said (in writing) that the best policy is to depend for such things on your architect!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()