Vandalism-This is what happens when you allow Tom Fazio on your golf course

[peter_p]

Tommy,
  At least he didn't put a waterfall in the creek on the 5th

[BarnyF]

I have strongly considered leaving this site because I feel like the elf that just wants to be a dentist.  While the very good people of this site are interested doing Santa's bidding and concentrate on toys, all I can think of is teeth.  Sure I can go to the island of misfits while the abomdible snowman (Fazio) torments all that is well and good.  But dammit Burl Ives is dead and there's that ugly rumor about me and Jack-in-the-box.  So what do I do...Fossets balloon is down so I can't torment his web site...The Duke of Wellington won't pay for my ice...and this damn ankle bracelet the county makes me wear limits my ability travel as I would like.  My best option is to stop forgetting my meds and try to make intelligent observations as they relate to GCA.  This I promise I will do with the understanding that I can only be as intelligent as the post I am responding too.  I think I met that standard in the response to "Vandalism-This is what happens when you allow Tom Fazio on your golf course"...I could have played Barry Manilow's Mandy out of my ass and had more credibility than Tommy had with that statement.  Please understand when you are dealing with an idiot such as myself our logic is not always on the surface...When intelligent people like Tommy lower themselves to idiocy we approach anarchy...When an idiot lifts himself, even for a brief moment, he approaches salvation...When the status quo is all we stive towards we become a religion.  So let me in your Reindeer games if for anything if you wake up one morning and see Barn looking back at you in the mirror take your meds, kiss your kids and pray that its all just a dream.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dr. Katz has left the building....RUNNING.  

BarneyF,

Please, please, please tell us what you think of the bunkers from an architectural and aesthetic perspective.  

Yukon Cornelius spent his time in the fruitless pursuit of material wealth and even the Abominable one turned out to be quite the misunderstood chap, so perhaps you can work that strange dichotomy into your assessment, as well.

Stick around...you're the only person who I think was ever able to piss off the ever-optimistic Tom Paul (which takes A LOT!), so perhaps your presence will at least silence those mysterious, anonymous critics of this site who claim we simply spend our time happily agreeing and backslapping with ourselves.

[jglenn]

It is interesting that the comments reflect an evaluation (although "evaluation" might be a generous way of putting it) based on the way these bunkers "look", rather than how they "play".  This from those who preach the opposite.

At any rate, not wishing the stir the pot, I don't think that the bunker shown on the top picture merits such comments as "are you kidding???"

For one thing, these bunkers are certainly not typical Fazio bunkers, which means that he and his staff obviously researched what they thought the Merion bunkers may have looked like many years ago, and tried to restore them, rather than impose their own style onto the course.

In fact, these bunkers are not typical of anything modern at all, which would certainly go a way to explaining why our initial reaction to this work would be puzzlement and shock.

Rather, these bunkers seem to be typical of shaping that one would do if one wanted a powerful bunker, but did not have much earthmoving capacity.  Deep, with sharp edges, and rather crude earthworks to support the feature.

Although I have not personnaly seen Merion's bunkers back in the Golden Age - and I doubt any here have either - I would not be surprised if many "Golden Age" bunkers had common caracteristics with what was done here.

That pictures gives it quite a different "look", doesn't it?

In fact, looking at the top picture (of Merion) on page 87 (Merion's 9th hole) in Thomas's "Golf Architecture in America", I find that the edging of the furthest bunker on the left side to be very similar to what Fazio's team has done.

While there is obviously a prejudice against Fazio in here, I believe it is only fair that we find out WHY that bunker was built like that before jumping to any conclusions.

Cheers,

[Mike O'Neill]

BarnyF,

I think it is good for you to stick around. You're post regarding the musical, although it lacked meter and one could not dance to it, did at least shine a little sunlight on my home state of Nebraska. For that I am pleased.

Just give us a little golf architecture whenever you can so that Ran does not have to delete your threads. So far, so good.

Tommy, I have never been to Merion I'm sorry to say, but from looking at the photo on page 70 of Geoff's Golden Age book, it looks like those bunkers and the first photo are in the same ball park. I can even find the bunker in the photo with the golfers walking and it looks close to the shape of the old bunker shown on page 68 of Geoff's book middle of the page. I must assume that what was there last year must be significantly better than what has currently been put in place by Fazio.

Signed,
Never been there

[Mike_Cirba]

I guess what some see is not what others see.

Mike O'Neill,

The bunker in the second picture is of the second hole, and the corresponding picture in Geoff's book shows that bunker on the far left side middle, just under what looks like a little damage to the picture.  Do you really see all the fussy little, clean-edge nooks and crannies in the aerial?

Similarly, the picture of the 12th in Geoff's book...well, perhaps that is what someone should do.  Take a picture of that same scene as it exists post-recreation, and then let's see how close they are.  I've seen that bunker firsthand, and think a picture might be illuminating.  

I do know that I need eyeglasses, but...

Jeremy,

Just so you know, the work on the bunkers WAS done using modern equipment and not the handwork you claim they look like.  Also, the bunker is the one that exists on the right-hand side of the 14th fairway, and the orientation is from the left side.  In other words, the exit out of that bunker towards the green is to the left.  That fact might provide a different impression to your impression of the depth and playability.  Anyone who ever drove up Golf House Road would have remembered that bunker as being one of those with love grass, cut into the hillside.  It never had the kind of mouding that exists post-Fazio.    

I like your black and white photo idea, but it clearly masks the fact that a different, darker shade of grass (bluegrass) was used on the bunker surrounds that really doesn't blend at all with the rest of the course.  What the thick grass DOES do however, is provide a consistency and uniformity that hadn't existed in the previous bunker surrounds.

Some applaud that, while others cringe.  

[Mike O'Neill]

Mike Cirba,

It is difficult to see. There is at least some edginess to the picture on page 68. Certainly that exists in the picture on page 70. I don't want to pretend to have an opinion on this. I haven't been there. I'm more or less asking for clarification.

[T_MacWood]

Darren
The only thing those bunkers have in common with with Cuscowila is an irregular outline, they lack any three demensional interest or natural randomness. They'd look great at AAC, but they are replacing the irreplaceable.

And you are offended by Tommy's comments, Fazio=Satan incarnate? When was that said, a year ago? On the other hand you entertain the idea of defacing one of the world's great golf courses.

Since when is posting a crime scene photo considered Fazio bashing?

BarneyF
I'd also write in criptic riddles if I were stuck in Southern Illinois and had to choose between a cow pasture/golf course and befriending a sheep. It must be a particularly difficult time to be a Fazio apolgist.

Jeremy
I'm not surprised by your opinion, the bunkering is very similar to Cooke's new work. Thanks for explaining the importance of how the bunker plays, I'm sure Hugh Wilson will appreciate your appreciation of his placement of the bunker. An architect who says the look doesn't matter is an engineer.

John Connely
Thank you for explaining the rational for this latest crime and exploring Rich Goodale's tennis game. How did you like Regetta Bay?

[Willie_Dow]

Jeremy Glenn
Concur with your observation that this old bunker, being a greenside bunker. It is somewhat typical of that era.
But would you put this as a fairway bunker?
This is everywhere!

[Robin Hood]

Oh Maid Marian, what have they done to you darling? Surely this is "Nottingham" in the best interests of the game?

Talking about "Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor", I may have gone too far this time!

Oh Friah, do stop it ...

[TEPaul]

Jeremy Glenn and Mike O'Neill:

Your photographic observations and questions are really good ones and if properly and very accurately pursued can yield some interesting answers, in my opinion!

At the very least, in an architectural sense, you're on the right track, you're looking at the right material and this is why Golfclubatlas can often be a very valuable place for those interested in doing good research and doing good restorations.

Geoff's book alone can yield some interesting answers about the bunkering at Merion, and about their evolution. And I'm certain that Merion, the golf club, and its green committee has many more old aerials to analyze.

All this research material is great stuff and armed it with it is the way to go for a golf club trying to do some good restoration (of bunkers).

But having the material and analyzing it correctly is important as hell too! I think I agree with you that the photo above does look similar to SOME of the photos you see in Geoff's book, particularly the aerial photo of Merion on p. 68. I might even say that the bunker on this thread above (new bunker) would look better than any of the bunkers on p. 68 if it was photographed from about 2000ft (as was p. 68).

But then you have to look at the date of the photo on p. 68. It says 1924! And further you should be darn sure (for accurate  evolutionary evaluation) that the date on the photo is correct! There are simple ballpark ways of doing that like looking at the size of surrounding trees and such.

Now, go to the photo on p. 68 in Geoff's book and concentrate on the right greenside bunker on hole #12. You will see that in the photo on p. 68 that particular bunker is quite simplistic in its shape and maturation and detail and you can detect just the beginnings of a cape on the fairway side.

Again, I might say that if the new bunker on that hole was photographed from about 2000ft. (as was the one on p. 68) that the new one (Fazio's) might even look better.

Now go to the photo on p. 70 of Geoff's book and look at the differences between it and the photo on p. 68 and the new Fazio bunker that is there now. You will see that the photo on p. 70 shows a bunker that has matured beautifully and has likely had its shape and grasses carefully tended to over a period of years (from the photo on p. 68) by Joe Valentine. The detailing on p. 70 is beautiful and most likely somewhat evolutionary. Note too how significantly the cape has grown. Why and how do you think that was?

You might further notice that the caption to the photo on p. 70 mentions the year 1924 again. That might lead someone to assume that the photos on p. 68 and P. 70 are the same year. You can tell they aren't the same year by analyzing the size of the trees behind the green and on the other side of Ardmore Ave, and if you want to get crazy you can even note the difference in the telephone polls on Ardmore Ave. behind the green). It might even lead someone to assume that since they are same year that Fazio should use either one. Let's just say that he uses the one on p. 68 to copy. Would that be a mistake, or what, if you are really truthful and discriminating about which bunker really looks the best?

Now go back to the photo on p. 70 and tell me, in your professional opinion, if a bunker that looks like that can be done (restored) using primarily machinery. And then look again at the new bunker above and tell me, in your professional opinion, if that bunker can be created using primarily machinery. I can tell you that I think the latter can, because I'm quite certain that it just was.  

You might even conclude that the new bunkers by Fazio need the time to mature and grow in their evolutionary detail like the differences between p. 68 and p. 70. That might very well be true. But I think then that you have to seriously consider if that can really happen with bunkers that are machine made (new ones) and those that were not (p. 68 originals were primarily handmade). Can they end up really looking like they are in the same ballpark (except on aerials from 2000ft)? You can also see that the new bunkers (above) have a far more rounded, puffy and upholstered look to them (the result of machine creation) than the ones on p. 68 or 70 ever had. And to get even deeper into it you can see then that there may be a difference in what some people call three dimensionality and two dimensionality between the one on p. 70 compared to p. 68 and the new one.

I believe you're on the right track in what you ask and I think that these questions make up most of what's at issue here between some people.

So, all of this leads some people to wonder and to ask if Merion got what they wanted in this project. Because if, for some reason, they feel that they did not get what they wanted then obviously they are going to conclude that something went wrong somehow--or worst of all it might lead them to conclude that maybe they shouldn't have ever touched those old evolutionary surrounds in the first place.

I have no real idea what Merion thinks about what they've now got except that quite a few members (but not all) seem pleased with them. I certainly hope that they are pleased with them ultimately because the work is done now and afterall, it is their golf course, and no one elses!

I think I did say a while ago that I wouldn't talk anymore on the Internet about the Merion bunker project. I guess I didn't exactly stick to that but I didn't post this to say anything at all about the Merion bunker project. I posted it only because I'm impressed by the questions and observations of Jeremy Glenn and Mike O'Neill and Mike Cirba. I think those questions and observations are valuable generally and shows how good some of the detailed architectural questions and discussions can get on golfclubatlas. So this post doesn't really apply to Merion, it applies to any golf course interested in doing really good restoration and the people interested in doing it, like my own golf course or maybe even Oakmont.

[TEPaul]

BarnyF:

There you go again, man! You fascinate me! The Duke of Wellington, Santa, Burl Ives and Barry Manilow's Mandy!?! If all that has one single thing to do with golf architecture, how about cluing us all in?

Are you sure you weren't looking for a site on creative writing or art or literature? I'll be glad to search the web for you if you were.

But who am I to talk? Fireball Roberts definitely was less connected to golf architecture than Mandy, I'm sure! It's a little hazy now but I do recall that there once was some connection between Mandy and Arnie!

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes, Tom Paul, I've stopped talking about the Merion bunker project, as well.  

I think you hit it right on the head with your description of the work as "rounded, puffy and upholstered".  That's EXACTLY it.  

Makes one wonder how many rounded, puffy, and upholstered things are found in nature....perhaps a Himalayan Cat.

I'm also no longer talking about Merion, but I have to ask this question of all those folks who argue that the bunkers are just going to erode and evolve naturally once again over time.  

When wall to wall synthetic bunker woll defines the perimeter of the bunker at its foundation, how is that going to erode?  

The bluegrass sod surrounds has been literally stapled into place, as well.  These bunkers were not built to evolve.  They were built to look just as synthetic and upholstered in 50 years as they do today.  

Astroturf would evolve quicker.

That information was provided as general info for any clubs considering doing bunker revision or recreation to new, modern, madder methods.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Dave W, great point about 'saving par' as a meaningless endeavor.

Jeremy, Ditto on how it 'plays' as opposed to how it 'looks' perspective.

BarnyF, Enigmatic meanderings only bewilder.  I think I get your intention of using more questions to take us somewhere but I have a hard time locating the points.  Ever been to http://www.spoonbill.org   ?  Pure obscure poetic madness.  
A foray there might bring you back here realizing that these GCAgents are real people with real interests in golf architecture and its periphery and not playing a game of 'Battleship' with misdirection plays and verbal camoflage. I believe most of them are attempting to be as clear as possible with their diverse beliefs.  Hang 'round and teach us yours.  I'll try to be more smarter.

[TEPaul]

There is a pretty interesting fundamental that appears to be emerging in this whole bunker project discussion. And that is that when and if a golf club gets into repairing or restoring their bunkers, there is very definitely at least two distinct parts to the question and the project. One is the issue of drainage and sanding and the other issue is one of the surrounds (grasses, lips, profiles, etc, etc,).

It appears that many people and possibly clubs and green committees assume that if you do one you have to do the other. It might be becoming clear that is not necessarily so. Particularly if you're out to preserve something quite complex like the rugged evolutionary look of bunkers like Merion's. As mentioned before, Merion's bunkers are famous as could be but there are plenty around that are very similar in look to them.

Although I'm learning a ton, I'm no professional, but I'm sure some of them on here could comment on that very specifically. So the danger may be the assumption that if you do one thing or anything you have to do it all. And further, another dangerous assumption is that if you do it all any architect and contractor is going to give you exactly what you were hoping for. It seems pretty clear by now that because of vastly differing methods of construction, style, whatever, that is something that cannot be assumed.

A really good reporter called me who is apparently going to do an article on this subject. This reporter is good and does good research for his articles. He didn't ask for my opinion specifically (which I might keep to myself anyway until sometime in the future-and I told him that), he asked if I could explain to him why there is all this furor on Golfclubatlas. I think I've been around here long enough to probably do that without being unfair or particularly critical of anyone.

In my opinion now, this should get away from simple subjectivity (and outright bashing and finger pointing) and start to concentrate on simple facts, or at least if there are any!

This reporter, who does know his golf, did not seem aware at first that there even could be distinct parts to bunker restorations (as cited above). I hope I'm right that there are and await the opinions of some of the good professionals and others on here. If I'm wrong about that, then I am and my mistake!

Some may try to kill me for even talking to him and mentioning these things, but what the hell, I'm not trying to bash anybody at all, just trying to get to the bottom of some architectural facts and questions. That's all any of us on here or elsewhere should be trying to do, in my opinion.

And I should say again that through all this furor, Merion and particularly its Green Chairman has been extremely hospitable, open and forthcoming with me. About three years ago I got to know him because of this and I distinctly remember saying to him that given the large membership and likely the diverse opinions within it that there was going to be plenty of criticism to come--and further that given the fame of Merion's bunkers the world would be watching and that likely he would really be on the firing line no matter what! That redoing the bunkers of Merion was not exactly the same as redoing the bunkers at Gulph Mills. I really don't think he needed me to tell him that--he seemed well aware of the atmosphere.

So let's just see how it goes for the club and for others. Obviously no one has to wait any particular amount of time to offer opinions since although there may be specific facts involved a lot of this does boil down to subjective judgement in the end. But the facts and the architectural questions are very important to know--they are really the same questions (probably involving the same facts) that have been asked on here for a very long time.

If it turns out the way Merion wanted it then great for them. If it turns out not the way others wanted it then much has probably been learned from all this. And in the end that should be a help to others and other clubs and that should be a good thing for everyone and their understanding of the details involved in golf course architecture.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom Paul, I haven't said much about this bunker work because I couldn't come up with the right words to describe it.  But, I also think you have hit the nail on the head with the description of "rounded, puffy, upholstered look".  The first picture depicts that in spades.  It seems to me that on most new golf course designs the "look" would draw oos and ahhs.  The bunkerwoll material to allow for flashing up of the sand with less water erosion, and then the material I assume they spray on the rounded upholstered lips to keep it from crumbling and allow the sod to be stapled in place for the rounded look is simply the application of many years of construction people trying all different techniques to perfect the "look".  So now we seem to have the situation where Fazio's crew are employing the most up-to-date techniques combined with newest materials to achieve what is thought to be an emmulation of the rounded puffy look that tries to make everything that was old, new again.  Pity, but it doesn't work!  In looking at the 4 color pictures above, the rounded puffy look on pic 1, is simply an over the top interpretation of what was the evolved result of the Merion look.  I must say that in pic 2, the bunker above the rearview mirror appears to be the best of the lot and from that distance looks very much like the pic in Geoff's book.  Infact, I'm not sure that bunker isn't one of the bunkers not remodeled.  The 3rd pic isn't close enough to see what is going on.  But the 4th pic really shows well the critical stage of the process.  Drain line remnants are there. The bunkerwoll seems to be in place, I'm guessing that the barrels contained stuff they applied to the rounded lips to firm them up with the big puffy look with plastic in place to protect the lips until they can staple sod upholtery around the lips.  

I'd really like to hear in some detail how Tom Doak's guys or Dave and Dan would tackle this problem.  But then we can't expect them to reveal trade secrets can we.  I've watched Mike O'Neil build bunkers in a different medium.  But, the way he was doing it seems like more of how the originals at Merion would have been done and then evolved with maintenance by a master superintendent for years.  Could we just hear some technique comments by the bunkermeisters?

[RJ_Daley]

 http://www.usga.org/green/ndx.asp?content=coned/

Here is a short course on the subject. Particularly "remodleing sand bunkers" a case study on a Chandler Egan restore job.

[Mike O'Neill]

Dick,

I wish I would have been there when Dan and Dave restored the bunkers at Riviera. One thing that was interesting was how they were able at times to unearth some of the original bunker edges that had been buried over the years from sand shots. Sometimes you can get lucky and discover old irrigation remnants. It can be like archeology, taking away an inch at a time. I don't see that happening with a dozer or a backhoe even. I think what you need is a short sod shovel worn down from years and years of use so that it feels right (mine has a hickory handle   ), hands that are meant to get dirty fine tuning the edges and an "eye" for what is to be done. If you are going to use a backhoe or a dozer to rough something out, you need to stop short and finish up with hand work. That's true whether the bunker is new or renovated. The Merion bunkers were probably treated that way. Whether or not someone had the "eye" for what needed to be done is for someone other than myself to judge. I will say that it would take a master to get on a dozer and replicate a bunker and its surrounds without a great deal of hand work. You have to assume that you only get the subtle stuff with handraking and the like. You don't restore a famous painting with a blast from a garden hose.

Oh, to be building a bunker today!

[Mike_Cirba]

Hmmm...HANDWORK...proceeding an inch at at time...carefully looking for clues only a trained-eye can see.

Mike,

Do you think it would be possible for 120 large, complex bunkers to be "recreated" using this method in less than a year in the vagaries of northeastern weather?

Methinks the method you described was what was being done previously by Kittleman and Hanse and deemed as "too slow".  

[Peter Galea]

90% of the quality is accomplished by the last 10% of the work. And, that is done by hand.

[TEPaul]

Mike and Pete:

Thank you very much! It seems like some of the answers to long sought bunker restoration technique questions are finally getting answered--at the very least the right questions are being asked.

Forget about Merion's project for the time being, my club will be doing bunker restoration soon and those are questions and answers I've very much wanted to know.

Our bunkers and their restoration may not need the care and planning that Merion's do, but still, this is very good to know because it definitely may affect not just how it's done but who you get to do it! Personally, I'm real comfortable with who we have. I've seen what they do and I have no doubt it will work well for us. But still there is never a good time to stop learning!

[Brian Phillips]

Tom Paul,

Just to give you an idea on the sort of man hours that should be put in on construction of a golf according to what my company has just built here are a few numbers to think about:

The total budget for the course is 11 million kroner which is 137000 dollars (if not mistaken) for nine holes on clay land.

We have used over 220 man hours (on rakes and weeding by hand etc) PER HOLE to try and get the finishing as good as we could.  These hours are just the finishing work on bunker/green surrounds etc.

I feel it is easier to work from nothing than it is restoration...how many hours have been put in at Merion I don't know...?

Of course I could have used less manhours and my company would have made more money but now we are starting to reap the benfits as people are coming to us to build their courses and asking for the same quality as this last course.  The problem now is that I have to give two prices for different finishing standards machine or hand.  How often do you think the client takes the lower price!!

My finishing foreman once said to me:

'Brian, I don't give a shit what has been done up to the surface its NOW we start the real work, as the client and players only see the finish and grass and that is all they are really interested in.  Give me all the men I need to give the best finsih possible'

I gave him what he needed and watched the money dissappear out of my profitmargin but result is awesome...is it worth it...Damn Right...!!

My boss asked me why I had done it...I replied that my name is on that course and being only 32 years old I still have at least 40 years to go in this business and my reputation depends on the next job.

If Fazio is as bad as Tommy says he is then WHY...WHY...WHY do clubs still use him!!!!

Can someone please tell me that.

[TEPaul]

Brian:

Pretty simple really why TommyN says that about Fazio. I believe that TommyN sees a guy who probably really does have the talent and certainly does have the clients who have the money to do almost anything. So TommyN is wondering why he doesn't use that demand and fame and popularity to take some chances that may produce some really interesting and thoughtful new golf courses.

TommyN wonders why Fazio keeps on producing golf courses that cost a fortune and seem particularly geared towards producing the same photogenic aura that may be pretty as hell but curiously devoid of elemental naturalness, ruggedness etc that TommyN views as good for golf and golfers. I think he feels that Tom Fazio is sort of failing to challenge and educate today's golfer to better things about the game and its challenges when his fame and popularity just might allow him to do that.

I think TommyN thinks that golfers may have gotten sort of lazy about some of the good old things about golf and it's up to a guy like Fazio to try to inspire them back to those things and reeducate them. But instead Fazio seems into a formula which is sort of what he thinks they want now and he's certainly not into creating anything that may be controversial.

I think TommyN thinks that Fazio has no real interest or even much respect for the classic golf course and its correct and proper restoration. So he can't figure out why Fazio insists in taking on all these classic restoration jobs--and taking them on for no fee. He doesn't understand why he does that and does some jobs that aren't really true to looks and such that are original.

He probably feels that if the guy can get all these bigtime clients and restoration clients too like ANGC and such that when it comes to something like classic bunker restoration why Fazio doesn't just go find some of the best handworking bunker makers in the world. If he has these big clients and apparently all this money why doesn't he do that, thinks TommyN?

I think TommyN feels that it's because Fazio might not even understand the difference with all his access to anything or worse yet that maybe he does understand and really doesn't give a damn. I think this kind of thing just really pisses TommyN off!

So why do clubs keep hiring Tom Fazio? Because they don't know much either or worse yet for TommyN they really don't give a damn. I guess he expects a guy like Fazio, in his position, to educate golfers and since he doesn't seem to do it the whole thing is sort of a vicious cycle that never seems to end and it all frustrates TommyN.

[Brian Phillips]

Tom Paul,

Good post, that sums up what Tommy and me have discussed before about other subjects.

To everyone else,

Tommy just loves his architecture and he really does get annoyed by these guys not doing their job that's all.

And he dislikes ASGCA....

[Mike_Cirba]

I think I think what Tommy thinks too.  

I'm not sure I've heard the thinking of someone described so well in the second person.  That person was thinking too and it's almost as if that person thinks what Tommy thinks too.  

Too bad another Tom doesn't have many of the same thoughts because it appears he's going to be responsible for a lot of what happens to our greatest courses in the next decade or so, and thinking about that makes my head hurt.