Bunkers, and Hurdzan, and Fry, oh my!

[Mike_Cirba]

Last week there was a topic by Rick Shefchik which described his wife's predicament in a steep, sheer bunker wall (woll?) courtesy of Hurdzan & Fry.

As someone who has bemoaned the "neutering" of bunkers over time, and who believes they should play as hazards (without the risk of serious consequences, there is no "risk/reward", and consequently, no "strategy") consistent with their historical purpose, I did some "field work" yesterday with a couple of other GCA'ers at H&F's Hamilton Farm GC in New Jersey.

The bunkering on the course is clearly meant to be classically inspired and evocative, with lots of the type of detail edging one sees in the early Herbert Fowler pics that were also posted last week, and the type of random, edgy, capes and bays popularlized by Mackenzie and Thomas.

In some ways, they might be criticized fairly as overly fussy in that regard, and it is certainly also a subjective matter as to how closely and artistically they emulate the works that inspired them.  But, what really set them apart for me as interesting bunkers is their DEPTH and steepness.  Many greens were built up on sloping terrain, and the "low side" bunkers probably averaged from 8-20 feet deep!!

I can see someone calling them "eye candy", that is, until they end up in one of those suckers!  

It made me wonder...despite obvious stylistic differences , are Hurdzan and Fry (and not Pete Dye), the new Charles Banks of bunker design??  

STEEP and DEEP....what a concept!  

[SPDB1]

Mike - did you find that Ham Farm's bunkers differed substantially in their difficulty and "playability" than the bunkers found today at Merion?

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Well said.

Hamilton Farm is blessed for a location since it's on some of the most scenic and rolling terrain in all of New Jersey. They don't have the practice grounds for the US Equestrian team there for nothing!

I agree about the bunkering and believe you also see the same issue with many of the fairway bunkers. Think of demanding the fairway bunkers play on the dog-leg right 4th hole, to name just one example. Land too far to one side and the recovery is nothing more than a pitch out.

The 6th is also a tremendous hole as you must decide how close to play your tee shot to the fairway bunker that guards the left side. The only pedestrian hole on the front is likely the 8th.

How about the closing par-5 9th? I've played the hole on both occasions when the pin is dead right and the front tree can be a major influencer particularly when you attempt to go for the green in two shots.

The back nine is also a solid challenge with plenty of change of pace holes. How about the depth of the greenside bunkers at the par-3 17th? And, the closing hole is nicely done with the estate serving as the back-drop.

Mike, one last thing -- Did you get an opportunity to play the superb short course? It's quite a treat indeed.

[Mike_Cirba]

SPDB1;

Good question!  I'll answer it in a couple of ways.

1) The bunkers at Hamilton Farm are generally deeper than anything at Merion, but they are also larger.  Thus, although they are also probably just as steep in rapid elevation change, they don't play quite so steeply as you have more room in many cases to loft your ball.

On the other hand, I can't think of any bunkers at Merion where you need to loft your ball 25 feet to escape, and there are a few of those at Hamilton Farm!!

2) Merion's new bunkers also differ in that while the bottom is bowled, each now has almost a vertical wall of thick blue grass "facing", which is quite different from anything I've seen anywhere and changes the contour of the face rather abruptly, rather than blending and integrating on the same "curve" into the bunker surrounds as they had prior.  Last time I played Merion, one of our group almost lost their ball on the first hole, and after about 2 minutes of looking, I located it lodged in the grass facing about 2 and a half feet down the vertical wall.    

3) Merion's bunkers used to be consistently inconsistent, which gave better players fits.  Now, they seem to be much more consistent, and slightly deeper.  Interestingly, I believe the former provides much more chance of true penalty for the better player, especially wielding 60 degree wedges.  In other words, if the intent was to make them play tougher for major competitions, I would think the fairway bunkers play tougher, but not the greenside ones, generally.  However, I'm not sure that was the intent, but merely the unexpected result.

It seems from a recent Tom Paul post on the Herbert Fowler thread that there were any number of "unexpected results" with that work.  

4) Aesthetically and functionally, give me the look and playability of the former Merion bunkers any day.  In fact, give me the Hamilton Farm look, which is a bit too frilly for my tastes, but still blends better with the surrounds than do the new Merion bunkers, in my opinion.  
    

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt;

Yes, there are quite a few really good things going on at Hamilton Farm, and the holes you mentioned are very memorable indeed.  I should not have neglected to mention the fairway bunkering, and one of my favorites in that regard is the par five 14th, which is an awesome hole with great strategic, staggered bunkering patterns, as well.  The foreshorted bunker which blinds the golfer on the approach is a thing of beauty!

Unfortunately, time did not permit the playing of the par three course, which our host graciously took us around for a look.  It seems that it would be a blast, with even deeper bunkering and smaller, more undulating greens than the regulation course!

[Paul_Turner]

Yes, they certainly were hazards-no putting put of those!   The steepest, sand flashed bunker faces I've ever seen.   I thought the ones that were the most unkempt looked the best to my eye.  

The course takes in some dramatic terrain and I thought the back 9 was clearly the stronger, with a good finishing stretch.

[Rick Shefchik]

Mike --

I haven't played Hamilton Farms, but it sounds as though H&F have used some of the same bunker design ideas at Hamilton Farms as they have at Troy Burne in Wisconsin (a course I like very much, by the way, despite my wife risking toppling to her death from the rim of their steepest bunker.)

Here's what I'm wondering: do those Hamilton Farms bunkers look natural, like the steepest bunkers at Sand Hills, or do they look as though they need some space-age stickum material like Bunker-woll (sp?) to keep the sand in place? The latter is how the Troy Burne bunkers looked to me, and as I mentioned, several of them had washed out and were in the process of being rebuilt.

Given that there aren't many courses beside Sand Hills where the steepest bunkers could possibly look natural, I'm wondering how steep is too steep when you set out to build one?

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

I think we, on this website, and others, should recognize something when it comes to bunkering (certainly a subject we're all interested in)!

We clearly want to see bunkering be again the "functional" expression of any architect to create strategy! To do that bunkering has to get any player's attention and not just visually! There has to be some very good reason to inspire a player to avoid bunkers for bunkering to serve their architectural function to CREATE STRATEGY!

Basically, as I see it, there are two distinct ways for bunkers to be effective and functional to create strategic effect!

1. To have the interior of them have surfaces (sand surfaces) that are "iffy", possibly somewhat unkempt etc!

2. To have their designs be ARCHITECTURALLY penal in some way! Steepness, and such is surely such a way!

To advocte #1, as we do, is probably a losing battle today! But to advocate #2 is definitely mostly acceptable today--particularly to better players!

Basically either (#1 and #2) accomplishes about the same purpose and end result--to create real functional strategy! The only real difference is the whole idea of the "heroic" bunker recovery shot may have to be reanalyzed to some extent with #2!

Merion's bunkers, incidentally and interestingly have transitioned in their difficutly factor from #1 to #2 in the last two years!

But the effect is probably overall somewhat the same or maybe even harder today--(with #2)!

[Matt_Ward]

Rich:

To answer your question -- the bunkers at Hamilton Farm are not in the same league as those you find at Sand Hills. Clearly man's hand is at work at the Jersey site compared to what God / Mother Nature did at the layout in Mullen.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

BPB more than any other course I've seen, including Steamshovel Bank's courses represent what you've stated about slope and depth.

The scale is so enormous, and a golfer seems so puny in those deep, steep sloped monstrous bunkers.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're getting to the land of understanding it would seem! You might be getting there at a snail's pace but you're headed in the right direction!

It seems that you've scratched the surface of what some of the best architects were really up to!

It wasn't about penalizing shots or even making shots formulaicly challenging to golfers!!

Even before any golfer really considered what happened to his last shot or what might happen to his next shot it was all about making that golfer feel PUNY!

If you think about it that was a necessary thing for any good architect to do as when any golfer hit that heroic shot it was more likely he would say to himself; "Holy smokes, I'm a big strong clever man again!"

[Mike_Cirba]

Rick;

Matt is correct.  Despite the impressive size and scale of the bunkers at Hamilton Farm, and despite their punitive nature, they are most clearly not of the aesthetic ilk of bunkers at Sand Hills.

Still, for an inland site not built among dunes, they did a fine job creating interesting hazards, albeit somewhat excessively frilly in an attempt to look like something that Mackenzie or Thomas might have built, but with slightly less artistry.  

That's not a strong criticism, by the way.  How many people can get that "look" just right?  I applaud their attempt.

Tom Paul;

I hear you loud and clear, and I think you have stated the changing state of the bunkers at Merion in terms of playability and challenge exactly right.  I would not argue that the bunkers have lost their effectiveness as hazards...I just wish they looked more congruent to their historical status and elegance.

By the way, what are the bunkers like at Hurdzan/Fry's Fieldstone?  I've yet to get over to their new course at Philly Cricket, but I'll be curious to see how closely they've emulated something on the Tillinghast scale, as well.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I've often said on here (sometimes facetiously) that I can't play a course and analyze its architecture at the same time very well! (Not unless I happen to be with people like Dave Miller and Ed Baker at Charles River simply because playing that course with them is an on-going educational experience in architecture because they can point so many things out!). Apparently that's true to some degree of me though! Maybe it also means I can't chewing gum and walk at the same time! All I can say is, be that as it may!

To really take in architecture I have to walk the golf course just with the architecture in mind!

I've been to Fieldstone about four times--twice to interview the club for GAP membership, once to play the course and once to officiate the Patterson Cup! I guess I just had other things on my mind and to answer your questions properly I probably need to walk the course again just to look at the architecture!

Things like the bunker grassing lines and such I just can't recall very well. I do know though that H&f are what I would call "large scale" architects in most everything they do architecturally!

Generally, I feel Hurzdan and Fry are very consistent architects and very comprehensive architects. Their courses are very identifiable to me too. They're very accomplished earth-movers and tend to create golf courses that might be what I would call "microcosm" courses. In other words, their courses tend to be somewhat of a large scale experience in visuals, somewhat at odds with the overall sites in which their courses are in, in my opinion!

They seem to do their own kind of "lines" on their courses despite where the site is! Maybe they feel their "lines" meld well with the overall specific sites but I'm not sure I do.

They're a team that has done a few things that are quite revolutionary in architecture, I'm sure. They may be the best out there in creating overall architectural "lines" that use shadow and light in interesting and dramatic ways! To see a H&F golf course like Fieldstone in the early morning or late afternoon is quite a visual impact!

And I also think that H&F are very good at creating strategy albeit in somewhat of a modern architectural way! I think their courses are both fun and interesting to play and certainly can be demanding. They sort of touch all bases in an architectural sense. Quite a lot of tee shot strategy, second shot same, some interesting greens in both a playable and visual way! They also do some things I really like such as the 11th and 12th and 14th hole at Fieldstone (big melded fairway between #12 & #14 with an old ruin in the middle)! #11 is just a very interesting and multi-optional short par 4! #15, 16 and 17 are quite interesting too!

But many of the entire landforms of other holes are sort of "shelved" into the landscape if you know what I mean! And I find that to be a bit of a company trait!

As for Philly Cricket's Militia Hill course it's somewhat the same idea! Strategic (and certainly plenty of bunkering that makes it so), large scale, some very interesting holes for a variety of reasons (#2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #11, #12 etc) with a standard tough elevated #18 green somewhat reminiscent in difficutly of Rees's Lookaway #18!

I think Hurzdan & Fry have their own unique niche  in architecture right now! They do things that are, again, very identifiable, much good and some not, in my opinion.

They are also extremely comprehensive in their product, I'm told. Mike Hurzdan, apparently has a real interest in the history of architecture, has studied it, collected it and written about it!

I've also been told that both of them are very good people, hard working, great guys, great to work with and their clients seem to be very happy with what they do for them.

By the way, I believe the instructions for the Militia Hill course was NOT to do something in the character and style of Tillinghast or the Wissahickon course! But to do something different.

Many people think that Tillinghast designed 36 holes at Philly C.C. (which he did) and that the Wissahickon course is just one of the two courses of the 36 hole design. That's not true! When they told Tillinghast not to build 36 holes he designed the Wissachickon course entirely different from either of his 36 hole courses!

That's the primary reason why Hurzdan and Fry never could have used Tillinghast's plan for the second course!

I also heard that H&F may have just specifically hired a really good bunker man, so who knows what might be about to come from them!

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- Perhaps you meant in a visual sense but I believe the bunkers at Sand Hills are/were the work of "Man's" Hands. They were just made not to look that way.

[Fred Gray]

I belong to a Hurdzan/Fry designed club, The Ledges in Huntsville, Alabama. Some of TEPaul's comments are true on that course. The one difference is that we are lucky enough to have a large scale site so their "large scale" design works well.

The bunkers on the course are not a strong visual element but the site has an overload of visual elements so it would be hard for any bunkers to stand out. It is on top of a mountain about 1000 feet above town giving views on 11 holes. Because of the site about 1/3 of the bunkers are lost ball prevention, the rest are stratigic.

We have had a number of regional events and everyone who has come has been impressed.

The course plays different than it looks. On first view, avoiding the cliffs and woods seem to be the main problem but in reality the landing areas are generous once the intimidation is past. The real problem is finding the correct combination of lie and angle to the green. There are a lot of little sloops and hollows in the fairways and the greens are "exciting". Placing your tee ball where you can hit an approach that will be accepted is a much bigger problem than avoiding the obvious cliffs.

Fred  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

That's very interesting what you say about Philly Cricket's course not being either of the two original 18 hole courses he laid out, but, in effect, a third course that probably wouldn't have been possible given the land use considerations of 36.  I never thought of that before.

As far as Hurdzan & Fry, I'm hoping to see both Fieldstone and Militia Hill before too long.  You certainly did a very credible job in summarizing their style for someone who can't pick up architecture while playing!

They are not minimalist by any means, and they do tend to prefer wide scale landscaping as you described well.  Whether their courses fit into their surrounds well, or whether they tend to have that "airlifted" look is a matter of debate to some extent, because I've seen them do both.  However, from a philosophical standpoint, they seem to have little aversion to shaping features as they deem necessary to achieve their ends.

Somewhat interestingly, both the 6th and 16th at Hamilton Farm were probably the two holes with the least amount of earthmoving, and each looked stunningly like something you might find at Stonewall.  Personally, I'd like to see them a little less eager to use the dozers and I think their courses might benefit, because as you pointed out...they tend to do a lot of other things very well.

Adam;

The bunkers at Sand Hills are as much nature as man.  One can't make the drive from North Platte without noticing that thousands of natural bunkers line the route.  

In fact, on the drive east from Denver, much of northeast Colorado shares the same type of dunesy landforms.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Check out the latest issue (I believe it's the October one) of Golf Journal (USGA) and you'll see a section in the very back of the magazine entitled, "A Great Golf Hole." They've featured the 2nd hole at Fieldstone the long downhill par-5.

I played the course about two years ago and the land Fieldstone occupies is simply awesome stuff. It is completely rolling countryside akin to what you would find in SE Pennsy or in the hills of Maryland. Certainly not flat by any stretch.

What you'll find at Fieldstone is artfully created bunkers by Dana Fry. The bunkers certainly have an array of shapes and dimensions and Fry clearly knows how to incorporate bunkers that make the player elevate his or her shotmaking. The course may be a bit too severe in its topography to some, but I really believe it takes you through a wonderful ebb and flow of holes. But one thing you will notice Mike -- the bulldozer does play a major role in taming the land and getting the kind of golf hole look that Fry is fully capable in achieving. As I'm sure you know Dana previously worked for the Fazio group.

The question is how obvious does the tandem of H&H go in shaping courses? Clearly, if you play their design at Devil's Pulpit in Toronto you will see quality holes, but the role of man's hand is clearly there to be seen. They have a tendency to paint the landscape with a distinct and certain look. With th eright piece of property that type of style can work -- as it does with Hamilton Farm, but overdosing can be an issue as well as mindless repetition.

The question becomes how well does the architect mesh the naturalness of a site with the bunkering style they employ? I think H&H do a solid job -- look at their success at Sand Barrens which blends dead-flat boring land with a wonderful mixture of bunkers that work in harmony with the pinelands nature of the area.

One last thing about Fieldstone -- I believe a good case can be made that the design is the best in the state. I'm not a fan of Wilmington / South although some people see it the other way around.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who's played Calusa Pines in Naples -- the reports I've heard say it's really a superb piece of architecture in Florida which sayd plenty.

Adam:

I don't doubt your point -- but at Sand Hills the work of man was nothing more than tweaking what was already there. There's no doubt the fingerprints of man have clearly touched the landscape in Gladstone, NJ.

[Craig_Rokke]

It's interesting how the function of the bunkering can very
throughout the architect's courses. I wouldn't characterize
Hurdzan's Pilgrim's Oak as having particularly steep or difficult bunkers, and there aren't a whole lot of them for that matter.
Many are just off the fairway, directing traffic. The 75 yard
long waste bunker guarding the inside of a slight dogleg on the par 5 15th (?) is the one that always seems to get me.  
But I can usually escape with enough distance to still assure
a shot at par. Despite some ho-hum holes, a good place to play.

[Tom Doak]

I've never seen Fieldstone, or even the site, but I was sent a topo map of it years ago when they were interviewing architects.  I thought it was too steep to build a really good course!

Mike and Dana would certainly not feel that way, and I'm sure they did well with it.

We really would have loved to do the Militia Hill course at Philly Cricket Club, and that was a great motivator for the second 18 at Stonewall.

[Will E]

Matt,
Calusa Pines makes my short list of Florida's best. That said, I'm glad that I don't have to take care of the bunkers. They are incredible, and with the heavy rains Naples get they must cost an small fortune to maintain. I understand this course was all Dana Fry, with no input from Hurdazn. Even with all of the artifical creation, (a limestone mountain, fill ponds, push up greens, overdone bunker work, bright white sand,) the course has a wonderful flow and blends with the setting amongst the pines. It is a must play and Dana Fry should be proud of what he's created.

[Jeff Goldman]

They have also done two interesting courses near Chicago (sort of).  In Peoria, Weaverridge, which is a house course in part, but they were not obtrusive when I was there last.  Huge elevation changes for Illinois - a little too much I think, using high tee shots for high-tee-shot sake.  Nice use of a few ravines (I had a hole in 3 on 17 after putting my tee shot in the ravine, re-teeing and knocking it in the hole.  Had to tell the folks waiting on 18 that it wasn't a hole in 1).  Also had a couple of holes that were very penal - unless you hit the ball in an exact place, you were toast.

I think Blackthorn in South Bend was also done by them.  Less dramatic land, but maybe better for golf because of more small undulations.  The bunkering is more noticeable here too, expecially on the par-5s.  Used ravines mostly as stuff to shoot over rather than around or laterally.

                 Jeff Goldman

[SPDB]

A while back i played Annbriar near St. Louis. The 11th was one of the more beautiful holes i have seen, anywhere. Played from an elevated tee to a fairway set in a natural bowl, it crosses a creek twice. and then to a green that sits in a hollow.  It's quite breathtaking from the tee.