8th at St George's Hill

[Paul_Turner]

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]

Paul:

I wonder if those are dozer tracks I spy on either side of that bunker on SGH's #8 in your post #24?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Are you sure those aren't steps ?

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Dozer tracks??  Patrick is right, just steps.

Are the British architects or greenkeepers aware of these new fangled products like bunkerwol?  Is it very expensive?

[Marc Haring]

Yes Paul,we are and it is.

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

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

How can a man who mistakes simple steps for a single bulldozer track/tread understand orientation of angles of attack and spacial relationships between architectural features ?

Now do you understand why he's the Ray Charles of GCA.com ?

If you don't write it out for him, he's lost.

But, I promised his folks that I'd look after him.

Even St Jude had easier tasks

[TEPaul]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Perhaps the question to ask the club is, if the bunker worked so well, for so many years, what changed about the bunker to cause the club to alter it.

Rain and gravity are universals which didn't just happen along in the 90's.

Something had to occur that caused the club to significantly alter those bunkers.

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.

[TEPaul]

"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?  

[Marc Haring]

SGH is built on the same belt of sand that runs through a good bit of Surrey and Berkshire. There are many courses with the same sub soil, The Berkshire, Sunningdale, Swinley, Camberley Heath, the three W’s at Woking. This sand is very fine, almost silty, it is stable and many metres deep. I would therefore suggest that washouts are not a problem. In fact if you look next to the bulldozer tracks, or steps as we like to call them, in post #24 you can see where erosion has revealed the underlying sand.

The question is, what do we think of the new bunkers compared to the old ones and could they have reproduced the originals. My personal opinion would be, not a lot and yes.

[Paul_Turner]

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.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Marc Haring,

I'm with you.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Has anyone asked the club?

[TEPaul]

If I had a hole that's appeared for the last 78 years on the cover of one of the greatest books on golf architecture ever written I think I might try to do everything possible to keep it looking like it did in that photo in perhaps 1926.

[Marc Haring]

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/

[Mark_Rowlinson]

This is turning out to be a very good thread.  I'm enjoying looking on from the safety of the sidelines and learning a lot as I do so.  As I keep saying, you can learn so much about British courses from people living on the other side of the Atlantic (and further afield, too).

[TEPaul]

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 Haring]

Mark.

I think the captain’s statement has rather opened the doors for criticism. Frankly it is an appalling piece of restoration, not only the famous 8th but Paul Turners picture of what I believe is the 4th. I mean if ever there was a case for the listing of golf courses?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Marc,

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

[TEPaul]

I'm no big fan of Bunker-wol products (Sand Trapper et al) but if maintenance headaches and excessive cost and such was the reason the look of those bunkers was changed so dramatically recently, the club definitely should be made aware of the benefits of a Bunker-Wol product on huge up-swept sand faces like those on hole #8 definitely were. If they'd consider that for the purposes of restorign that look the best idea is to only install the product on the up-swept sand faces where the golf ball is unlikely to remain! I feel it's eventually always dangerous and a very poor idea to install that product underneath sand areas where a golf ball is likely to come to rest. Eventually that seems to create problems that may be as bad as continuously fixing washed-down sand faces that don't have the stabilizing effect from a Bunker-Wol product.

[Marc Haring]

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 Haring]

Tom Paul.

You’re dead right, we need to ask SGH what is going on. Any volunteers?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Marc,

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

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul.
You’re dead right, we need to ask SGH what is going on. Any volunteers?"

Marc:

Don't give me any of this "we" stuff!   You're over there aren't you? If so, I think I just heard you volunteer to call them and ask them why they messed up their famous bunkers on #8 (and perhaps the rest of the course) and what they plan to do about it! Tell them GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is watching them like a hawk and waiting for an answer but that GOLFCLUBATLAS.com isn't going to wait much longer before all hell breaks loose!  

[Paul_Turner]

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!