Sleepers--A question of liability or coolness?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Personally, nothing gets me going better then seeing a picture of Royal North Devon (Westward Ho!) and its huge mammoth trap bulheaded with railroad ties. I just love that look.

But many architects don't want to use sleepers because of the liability issues of a ball ricocheting-off and coming back into the player. In my opinion, the less of interesting bulkheading have diminished the Grand Vision of the scarry hazard. The type of hazard to be avoided at all costs.

So, name some examples where an architect has utilized bulkheading and if it has poised a liability or not.

[Dustin Knight]

There is a course out here in Australia called Hunter Valley
country club which on half a dozen or more bunkers around the course uses bulkheading but strictly in the fairway bunkers only. They look amazing, they don't cause any safety
 issues due to the slight angle of the bunker faces. In fact if you thin one with a low iron you actually can get some pretty good kicks. They have definately been used purely for cosmetics
 and not for intimidation

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dustin,
You bring up a great point. Many of these sleepers have been added to where they don't come into play at all. I kow of two courses here in SoCal, Montebello and Friendly Hills where it has been done. The only problem for me is that it looks too neat and clean.  We both know a "true" sleepered sand hazard should look imposing, menacing, dangerous.  All to work on the mind and mettle of the golfer.

[Dustin Knight]

Tony,

I'm hoping to head out there this weekend, i'll take a few pics
and post them here.

[moth]

I think most architects avoid railway sleepers not because of liability issues but due to the "Dye Family" overuse of the things in years gone by, their use has become passe and kitch. Countless railways have died to bring us Dye Design golf courses.

A course here in Singapore used sleepers extensively and had to import antique used sleepers from Canada at the behest of the designer (from said family)...new sleepers were not acceptable (at a cost of about 3 million bucks - a hell of a lot of sleepers). Now while the look of these lovely old sleepers was very nice and rustic, they rotted in the tropical heat and conditions in about 5 years or so and have now been replaced with concrete look-a-likes (or rather not look-a-likes).

Personally I will use them for bunker revetting when C&C /Tom Doak use them and not before!

[James Edwards]

Tommy,

The stabilization of the famous bunker on the 4th at Royal St Georges, Kent, England is a good example of a dramatic sleepered bunker which shouldn't cause any 'liability' problems.  This is partly due to its height above the players line of sight --

...but the argument in this particular case has always been, If you are trying to move the ball forward, you are effectively hitting at the sleepers which are some 3metres above you on the shot angle so to speak!  It is fair to say though that it shouldnt cause the golfer any safety concerns, just shot result concerns..

I was impressed with the sleepered bunkers on the 8th hole?? at PGA West. They are angled away from the golfer presenting no safety problems so in effect they should move the ball forward in the case of a 'thinned' shot..

[Mark_Rowlinson]

There are several sleepered bunkers at Royal West Norfolk.  They seem totally appropriate there, chiming in with the wooden groins on the beaches and salt marshes of the north Norfolk coast.

[TEPaul]

As Brett Mogg said, I doubt we'd see "sleepers" in golf today if it wasn't for the use of them in the modern age by Pete Dye.

It's no secret that when Pete and Alice Dye took that extended trip to the Old Country to study that architecture near the beginning of their careers they didn't just become fascinated be the rugged old natural features of the old courses they also became fascinated by some of the super rudimentary man-made features that went along with some of those super natural old courses.

Sleepers (railroad ties or other wooden bolstering) was the most visible of those rudimentary old man-made features connected to those old courses' architecture.

Personally, I never liked it much although it does interest me in the historical context of golf architecture's interesting evolution.

NGLA's wonderful little "Short" (#6) used to have wooden sleepers" supporting the fronting bunkers but they were removed eons ago! That was a feature I certainly don't think they should ever consider restoring!

[Neil Regan]

From Prestwick's Website
(thanks, Mark)

[Mark_Fine]

From Robert Hunter - "It is rather amusing to sometimes see on inland courses heavy timbers used to support the obdurate clay banks of a bunker, or lyme grass planted to hold together the most retentive soil.  Where these protective features serve a real need they are impressive and sometimes beautiful; but where there is no need for them, they appear as a silly affectation."

He goes on to say - "On seaside courses the greens are frequently found in swales and hollows.  They were placed there before the watering of greens became customary.  The best turf grew in the sheltered spots and in the hollows the moisture held the longest.  Timbers in bunkers, marram-grasses and greens in hollows can hardly be considered desirable features in golf-course construction.  They are the result of necessity and not of choice".  

Interesting comments.  Any thoughts?
Mark

[ForkaB]

Tommy

It's neither liability nor coolness.  It is practicality.  In the old days this was the only way to economically stabilize bunker faces.  Today sleepers are not needed but some architects (e.g. Dye) see an aesthetic and marketing benefit to mirroring the "olde" past.

[A_Clay_Man]

But many architects don't want to use sleepers because of the liability issues of a ball ricocheting-off and coming back into the player.

So, name some examples where an architect has utilized bulkheading and if it has poised a liability or not.

The first sentence above really goes to the crux of what's not only wrong with gca, but the rest of life here in the Litigeous States of America. Truely a Pity. In others words, If I cause my own injuries, who's left to blame but the archie?

Charles Clarke, from Troon Scotland, built the "El Campeon" in Howey-in-the-hills Florida, in 1926. His use of Railroad ties was a re-occuring motiff that I found fascinating.  While no one will ever confuse this course with a links. It's easy to think about one former insurance salesman, while golfing.

[John_Cullum]

Can anyone name a case in which a plaintiff successfully recovered from an alleged injury caused by such a feature on a golf course?

[BCrosby]

John -

Just to scratch my own curiosity about golf architect liablity, I dug out what reported cases I could find a couple of years ago. I was surprised at how few there were. As I recall, about 10. And in most of those the architect prevailed, with only the course operator or owner paying damages. If damages were awarded at all. (Remember, though, that many cases are settled and many are not reported in the case books. There may be some doozies out there that I missed. But I doubt it.)

I don't recall seeing any cases involving sleepers.

Clearly architects need to be aware of safety concerns. But my sense is that the profession is a little over-wrought about liability issues. Judges and juries seem to understand that people hit errant shots and that a golfer assumes that risk when he walks on to a course.  

Bob

[A_Clay_Man]

 Today sleepers are not needed but some architects (e.g. Dye) see an aesthetic and marketing benefit to mirroring the "olde" past.

Rihc- Not necessarily true. Baxter's nine here at Riverview(1999), has the par 3 15th and it wasn't designed with the almost Devil's Paintbrush type boarding-up of the greenside edge of a steep bunker. They were added after, in-house, to help support the turf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

I think Brett makes a valid point in that sleepers in the 60's and early 70's were strictly in the domain of the Dye's, and as such got "type cast" as a Dye feature.

In addition to Harbor Town, I believe a par 3 at Crooked Stick had some sleepers, but not in a bunker, but, my memory could be hazy on that one.

The angle of the sleepers is the critical safety issue.

Garden City Golf Club had sleepers in the bunkers.
I don't know when they were removed, but the pictures of those old bunkers sure are neat.

I seem to recall that Baltusrol Lower's 18th had a deep bunker with sleepers that was later removed.  I believe Rick Wolfe could fill you in on that. (no pun intended).

When we ask why modern day architects don't copy special, classic holes, I think the same applies to sleepers.  My view is that it would be deemed "unoriginal" and a "Dye" feature, and I doubt that only a few architects, those that worked for Pete, would venture to introduce them via their designs.

[ForkaB]

Adam

Sounds like bad engineering design.  Sorry to hear that as from what I have seen, Baxter has done some good stuff, golf wise that is.

[A_Clay_Man]

That's a bit of leap, and would seem to be more connected to the shaper than the archie. Also the soil make-up in this fluid sandy region, maybe the biggest factor.

It certainly discourages people from exiting the bunker on the high side, which aslo could've been justification/cause for the boarding.

[blasbe1]

So, name some examples where an architect has utilized bulkheading and if it has poised a liability or not.

Tommy:

At The Seawane Club, our renovated #5 had a large bunker with railroad ties.  5 is a challenging and fairly long par3 (205 from the back tees).  This bunker is about 30 yards short of the green so it was really only in play for the less skilled player but was very visually intimidating off the tee and made depth perception difficult.  

Anyhow, it wasn't an actual liability so much as a "preceived liability."  #5 was renovated during the first year of what will be a 5 year project and that bunker was our first, and pretty much only, casualty to membership complaint.  About 2/3's through its first summer, an older female member hit it into the ties of the bunker and ended up looking like J. Maggert at ANCC.  Nothing serious because the ball was hardly moving, but that was that.    

The bunker is still there and ties are now fescue, depth perception is easier but still an issue.

BTW, my favorite complaint that I can't imagine being topped is when someone complained that there was "no more shade on the course" to escape the blistering sun because all the trees were torn out (that one still kills me when I think about it)          

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Tell that member to carry his umbrella when it rains, and when it's sunny.

[blasbe1]

Jason,

Tell that member to carry his umbrella when it rains, and when it's sunny.

Pat:

She doesn't play when it's too much of either!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Royal West Norfolk #18  How cool is this! OR Is this a liability?

Great to see some of these posts.

Mark, the Hunter quote is a very appropriate one.

[RJ_Daley]

How is it that Raynor, Banks, Langford and other archies were able to manufacture such steep earthworks greensites like the redans and knoll holes and such, and not resort to sleepers for stability of the soil?  I hate RR ties, brick walls, stone walls, and most of all, artificial cement walls.  You'll see the obligatory use of the RR ties at the 11th at Whistling STraits about 30-50 yards short left of the green forming a rough land grassy hollow.  That Hunter was a smart fellow...

[Bob_Huntley]

Does anyone remember the railroad ties in the middle of the 12th FAIRWAY at Carmel Valley Ranch?

[JSlonis]

Stephen Kay has used this type of bunker and look at Scotland Run Golf Club.(Williamstown,NJ)

http://www.scotlandrun.com/

The course was built on the site of an old sand quarry and has some very good holes.

The picture below is of a cross bunker short of the green on the par 5, 10th hole.  The angle of the picture is somewhat deceptive, but the large bunker actually fronts the entire approach to the green.