[Philippe Binette]

Ok

I worked on the Duke's course and was responsible (with the rest of the team approving) for the bunker of the first picture.

This is what we were trying to do.
the golf course was originally built by TWP in 1993 or so took a soft long sloped inland scottish piece of ground and try to turn it into a links-looking land by building thousands of symetric mounds and pottish bunkers....

We were trying to give a flashed-up look bunkering similar to the natural sandy scratches visible in some links land and also some inland type sandy land.

as for the 12th, the original was a not so good looking green that from 200 yards into the wind and that false front was almost impossible to use as run-up shot.

the bunker you see short of the green is in fact 60 yards short looks mre like 20 yards short from the tee) and the front of the green has been reshaped, to play better with some subtle details into it.
 

[Philippe Binette]

I would like to say
 
If you've only look at pictures of the original design, you're missing a big part of the point...
It (the original shaping and design) would be the first course to be absolutely demolished by this website for looking contrived, ugly, overshaped and artificial looking etc....

[paul cowley]

Good for you Phillippe.....I was hoping someone would come in and speak for your group.
 
.....all hype with no counter makes THIS group a dull boy......

[TEPaul]

What happened on that course I doubt was an attempt to educate Scots. It may've been a situation where the Scots were trying to educate Liddy (and crew). It appears to me that the new bunker look must have been a simple misunderstanding. It looks to me like what must have happened was Liddy (and crew) were sitting in a bar one night with some local Scots and Liddy (and crew) were talking about architecture but they also started talking about how they'd been freezing their asses off up there in that raw Scottish weather. The local Scots probably told Liddy (and crew) about how the Scots "cut" and "mine" peat to burn in their "peat stoves" and Liddy (and crew) probably had too much to drink and began cutting sod and making bunkers in the same manner the Scots told them they cut and mine peat up there. I sort of like that odd new bunker look (I'd call it the "Cut and Mine Peat Look") but the real question is whether Liddy (and crew) continued to freeze their asses off when they redid that course? As I see it that golf course has two choices---eg first, they can just go with the new "Cut and Mine Peat Look" on their bunkers or, second, they can use those chunky surrounds in their peat stoves to stay warm in the coming winters.

Form follows function, laddies.

[Brian Phillips]

Philippe,

Thanks for your response.  This is a discussion that I have with Graeme my partner all the time.  I am a fan of blowout type bunkers and so is Graeme.  Where we differ is that he does not believe they can be used on an inland course where there are no existing blow outs or pockets of sandy waste areas.

The main problem that I have with the bunkering in these photos are that the blow outs are created with no relation to any existing sandy waste areas so they look a little alien to the site.

The bunkering on the 18th looks (from the photo and in my very humble opinion) very alien and does not seem to 'sit' well in that Capability Brown or Repton type landscape.

I also had a similar discussion with David Kidd when he showed me pictures of his bunkering at Queenwood.  They had created bunkering with beautiful heather around the edges of the bunkers but the heather just stopped on the bunkers and did not look intergrated in with the landscape. He has now changed this and apparently the heather drifts from the bunker to the outskirts of the course much like the original heather courses like Sunningdale, etc

In my opinion a 'blow out' bunker is supposed to look natural, almost as if it had evolved there and at present it is probably too early to judge your bunkers.  Over time with wind and rain erosion they will probably look much, much better.

I like your work but just not sure if it fits yet in with that landscape.

Brian

[Brian_Ewen]

Phillipe
Thanks for your reply and I welcome your points .

If at anytime I am missing the point with any of these posts , then please educate me . I never forget the fact  that while I post here , ""I am hacker with too much time on my hands"" .

I pretty much could repeat again what Brian Phillips has posted , and that seems to be the early thoughts of us paying golfers who have played the course as well .

I would like to pick up on a point you make , that the original design was links looking .

This is a pic. I took 3 years ago of the short par4 5th .


Do other people here think these look link-ish in style ? . If TWP had revetted these bunkers , then I might be decrying them as out of place as much as the new ones , but too be honest I always felt they had a Braid look about them , and I would expect to see similar on many of the inland Braid courses I play in our area .

I curse I do not have an 'after' photo to go along with this one , but we were too busy looking for balls in the rough .

Was all this thick gnarly rough part of the new design plan ? .

I also missed the bunkering that existed in the middle of the 4th fairway before . Again I dont think these just belonged on a links course .


Phillipe , please dont think I am sniping , and I really appreciate your comments .

Best Regards
Brian

[John Kavanaugh]

I came out years ago against this style of bunkering.  I'm glad to see you guys are catching up...

[paul cowley]

Golly....lets go back and look at the first picture;

TP says its similar to peat mining.....well if you're at all Irish and you're planning to use it as fuel, its 'turf' and harvested not in the manner shown but more in a fashion Raynor might have approved of [although if, as TP theorises, Liddy and crew were in their cups,...well that's a plausibility too].

JohnK says he has spoken out about this bunker before...but if the several island chunks were removed and the sand raked up the faces, the effect could just as well be MacKenzie in Oz.


I don't feel this style has to be restricted to links or sand based environments to be effective.....as a look at Chechessee or any number of C&C, Doak, Hanse and  ;)thers have proven in semi-clay based areas....

[Philippe Binette]

I was thinking about something today

people are talking about how the sand splashes, wild and flashy look that we did doesn't fit on clay soil because it doesn't connect to some existing element etc...

well, to be honest, any bunker style on a clay site is an abberation since it's a totally man-made feature with no link to the site...

the pot-bunkers of TWP doesn't make more or less sense that ours since no sheep could have dug it on the Duke's course site...

if we pushed the general reflection further: does it mean that clay sites must stay away from any artistic effort in bunkering... can somebody tell me what type of bunkering should be done on a clay site and why...(the way this websie is going as a general opinion, it would mean that somebody would have to propose that clay sites must have what's considered ugly looking bunkers)

I think we're bunkered

[Brian_Ewen]

Philippe
Considering that bunkers really belong only on links sites , how about a bunkerless course , using natural elements as hazards .

I would love to see someone make a modern attempt of this .

Unfortunately , I think the paying public would find it as controversial as the ones you have built at the Dukes .

Brian

[paul cowley]

Phillipe....you might well be bunkered but I think you stand a good chance to get it up and down from the looks of your lie .

Your point is well taken and something we also debate.

Regardless of the shaping or form of a clay based bunker, what really looks artificial is the addition of sand to this same environment, but without sand there is no playability so............we try to create an acceptable 'look' to help us in an effort to make things appear more 'natural' [take a quick look at Chechessee by C&C or Monterey Peninsula's Shore Course by Strantz and Fezler, in the courses by country feature to the left]....both were built in clay environments and I think represent what can be done to create a natural look that works well with the addition of sand.

Or you can just ignore trying to be natural and go the route Raynor et al did at times....and maybe this is one of the base factors why they didn't try to make their features look more natural......they opted instead for a maintainable but still strategic model that they could use in many differing soil types without having to bother to look natural, while focusing on play strategies first.

The answer to which approach or style is the better one can be found in TPaul's Big World Theory.....along with the answer to your course as well.

I am working on a course now that has parallels to my point here.....it's called Ricefields after four holes built along side the river marsh where we created 60 acres of faux ricefields in an attempt to naturalize the golf holes to their environment.
...although I find that wondrously clever, what is even more so is our creation of the many 'gully bunkers' we are building on the other 14 holes in an attempt to emulate the many erosion gullies found naturally on the semi-clay based site.

Forrest Fezler is working with us on the course and it has been fun to date [if this is your idea of fun ].

....the only thing I can say with any certainty is that some here will love it and some won't.

[T_MacWood]

Phillipe
I wouldn't worry too much about the criticism I'm sure there were critics of Simpson, Colt and MacKenzie's free form inland bunkering as well. You are in good company.

If I had any advice it would be to lose the ultra-white alien sand...it kind of works against the naturalistic/errosion look you're going for.

[TEPaul]

As an example, although the par 3 3rd before and after look vastly different from each other I think both look pretty nice. I suppose if I belonged to that club, though, I'd question if there was enough of a problem "before" to spend the money to change it to the "after". I guess the same might be said for the whole golf course.

[Sean Walsh]

First of all thanks Phillipe for your contributions to this thread.  It has been an interesting read.

When I first looked at the original picture I must admit that the look of the bunkers jarred a little and preferred the before shots of the hole.

I have just had another look at the photo and now think I understand why the bunkers looked out of place on this hole.

I think the bunkers rather than looking links-like actually look more like desert formations or even erosion in a dry climate.  Therefore the reason I believe the picture doesn't look right is all the lush growth behind the hole.  

[Tony_Muldoon]

Phillipe
I wouldn't worry too much about the criticism I'm sure there were critics of Simpson, Colt and MacKenzie's free form inland bunkering as well. You are in good company.

If I had any advice it would be to lose the ultra-white alien sand...it kind of works against the naturalistic/errosion look you're going for.

Welcome back Tom.

[Philippe Binette]

about maintenance on those bunkers at the Duke's:
it was planned to let the wind (and players) do the job and to rake them only once a week..

about the first picture of the bunker... on thing missing is the grass on the edges, it has growned yet... I built the edges extra bold on purpose so when the shaggy grass would grow, we will still see part of it, but the weather hasn't allowed the grass to grow yet..

I am not too worried about the bunker, in a couple of years it would be just fine., the optical illusion will work  

[Brian_Ewen]

Philippe
Thanks for the explanation .

Brian

PS..........""the weather hasn't allowed the grass to grow yet.""[/b]

Hey , no problems on other parts of the course  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Brian,
Go look in any old book that shows Scottish and British Inlandand Highland links and you will see rough and rugged bunkering most everytime.

Could it be perhaps you've been Lethem Granged to death, one too many times in your lifetime?

But I think you bring up an interesting point, and I thank you for that, because the only cons on the course and it's photos are usually the ones that despise rough and rugged bunkering in the name of contrarianism. You know the Usual Suspects!

I've seen but haven't played the Dukes Course, and personally, I thought it was a complete waste of time to even want to go play it. In fact, I think my B&B I stayed at was closer to the Dukes then it was to the Old Course. what I saw was on a par with a rank muni course here in the States. Judging from the images, it looks like Phillipe, Kye Goalby, Dan Proctor and others got the job done. I think the bunkers look like hazards, which I would like to remind you--that in nature, weather and erosion probably fit this bunker style perfectly. But in the Big World theory, that's a good thing.

Also, I might ask, do you think the current bunker scheme fits the Old Course? Personally, I think it sucks, and would rather see the rough and rugged nature of a sand hazard returned to being what it is--a hazard.

Congratulations to Tim Liddy and crew. It looks like on the next trip to Scotland, a revisit to the Dukes will be in store. At least it looks good enough for a visit.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Brian,
Just got done looking at Horace Hutchinson's British Golf Links, and if you look in there, you'll see plenty of examples of rough and rugged inland golf holes that show that type of bunkering.

Courses like Scarbourough which you can click on here USGA Archives and enter the keywords, British Golf Links. You can gawk over there, make copies and influence your fellow countrymen that they are the root of Great Golf Architecture, and that they should act like it!

[ForkaB]

Brian,
Just got done looking at Horace Hutchinson's British Golf Links, and if you look in there, you'll see plenty of examples of rough and rugged inland golf holes that show that type of bunkering.

Courses like Scarbourough which you can click on here USGA Archives and enter the keywords, British Golf Links. You can gawk over there, make copies and influence your fellow countrymen that they are the root of Great Golf Architecture, and that they should act like it!

Dear Wholly Roman Emperor

What Hutchinson calls "Scarborough" is in fact what is today called "Ganton."  It is effectively linksland (having once been seaside), so it's gnarly bunkering is appropriate.

Rich

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Interesting Rich, I knew it was close to Ganton, but didn't know it was in fact, Ganton. However, if you check out many of the other inland courses which are in the book and feature the same raggy-edged bunkering, you'll see that I'm right. One in particular, at Chislehurst, which featured a bunker that looked as if it was filled with enough white powder, that Tony Montana would have easily played for it.

Also, what about Sunningdale? While it's a Heathlands, it's surrroundings could easily be called inland parklands. Not far from Londontown either. Now I know it was probably formed by glacial featurees left over from the ice age, mind you the entire planet was once covered in water, or so they say.



I don't buy into Brian's critique at all, and it's typical of guys like you, John K. and Bill "Vee" to pass it off as gimmicky mumbo jumbo.

Just because the body of this website has embraced that look for many years now and you guys take great pride in being different. But for all of Bill "Vee's" harsh critique of Friar's Head in another recent thread and Coore & Crenshaw in general, I wish I had a nickle for everytime he called me up when I was there, begging to come and play. I would probably be able to afford to buy a house in Hampton Bays with all of the money.

There are times I wish I could be like Billy Mummy in The Twilight Zone and wish you all into a cornfield (RTJ's Hazeltine) for all eternity. The fact is I'll take these beautiful rugged, bunkers over the Thommo bunkers that used to exist there and that looked more like he was inspired by Ted Robinson. (sans water feature)

[ForkaB]

Your highness.  I haven't said anything about the bunkering at the Dukes, nor will I.  I was just saying that your example of "Scarborough" was under-researched and overhyped. Shame on you!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Yes, probably so. For that, I will omit any fruit cup from my meal tonight!

[Brian Phillips]

The heathlands is nothing like a parkland site.  Parkland sites in Britain are normally made up of old farmland which was often and still is a heavy soil.  Heathland areas are made up soils with a very high sand content not even close to a farmland type soil.

Just because a course does not have gnarly bunkers does not make it inferior to a course with gnarly bunkers.  I have never seen the Dukes course in person and I am only commenting on what was shown in the photos.  

Again, in my personal opinion they do not 'sit' quite right in the landscape yet.

Can you please let me know of a scottish inland golf course from the old days with gnarly bunkers...that looked good.

Do you think the two Gleneagles courses would look better with gnarly bunkers or as it is today?

Brian

[TEPaul]

Rich:

When I was over there for the Walker Cup at Ganton in 2003 we played a pretty old course called Scarborough North Cliff. It wasn't all that far from Ganton G.C but it certainly wasn't Ganton G.C. It was notable for the number of agricultural "rolls" in some of the fairways.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()