Scenes From Over The Stonewall--II

[Tommy_Naccarato]

[Matt_Davenport]

WOW! That's a great looking bunker, Tommy.  Thanks for the photo update.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tommy: For those of us who will admit to their ignorance and those who will not, will you give us some information about Stonewall-II?

[TEPaul]

I've been out there a few times and can tell you those bunker formations look really good!! And the bunkering at French Creek across the street looks really great too!

[Tim Weiman]

Jerry K:

This is the second course at Stonewall, a private club located in Elverson, Pa about an hour outside of Philadelphia. Even without the second course, Stonewall is well worth going out of your way to see both because of the course itself and the overall ambiance of the club.

A couple weeks ago I spoke with Bruce Hepner who offered the view that the second course would turn out better than the first. If Tom Doak and his guys can pull that off, I'll tip my hat to them. It would make the club pretty special and make me wish I lived in Philly so I could justify being a member.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Now for some more descriptive images.

[mike d]

any clue if this bunker work is the hand of don placek?  He is the fellow who did the work at Pacific.  Whoever, whatever, i guess what does it matter.  It seems the doak and his crew have tapped into the Mackenzie magic

[allysmith]

As a huge McKenzie admirer I cannot for one minute see where a monstrosity of a bunker as shown likens to the great mans creations.

The bunkers shown are NOT typical of McKenzie creations.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Ally

I tend to agree with you, although I should qualify that by saying that I have only played a half-dozen or so McKenzie courses.  You should understand, however, that these bunkers are VERY typical of the work of the neo-McKenzie-ite school of design (Doak, Devries, Eckenrode, etc.) which is in so much fashion on this website, and elsewhere in the world of GCA.  Restraint is not one of the key hallmarks of this school...........

Cheers

Rich

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Ally
How so? Which courses best reflect the MacKenzie look?

[TEPaul]

Ally;

Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion but why call the partially done bunkers you see in those photos at Stonewll2 "monstrosities"?

In my opinion one of the finest examples of MacKenzie bunkering is (or was) Cypress Point and the bunkering you see in the photos on this thread are vaguely reminiscient of MacKenzie bunkering at best--if at all!

But why call Stonewall2's bunkers "monstrosities"? In scale they aren't even as large as Cypress's although they might have a good deal more earthwork in their random capes and bays than MacKenzie's bunkering at Cypress or anywhere else ever had!

The bunkers at Stonewall2 are truly magnificent in my opinion and quite unique--not much like what I've seen from Doak elsewhere and distinct from what I've seen from Eckenrode and DeVries too!

They have the benefit of mostly being set into upslopes (as the golfer approaches) by far the best place to place bunkering and they have a very unique "verticality" to some of them and parts of them that is very reminiscent of some of the old bunkering at St George's Hill and even the unique "vertical" bunkering at a few holes of old Pasatiempo that no longer exist!!

The verticality of some of the Stonewall2 bunkering is more deceptive than actual which makes me apprectiate the construction and workmanship of it to this point even more!

These photos look like they're on the hole #11-17 stretch at Stonewall2 and having been out there a number of times either all of them or most of them are the work of Kye Goalby with a trackhoe!

Goalby is not trying to copy MacKenzie at all just to do some work that he feels fits the site of Stonewall2--and apparently the work you see has been approved by Doak--or I sure hope it has--because personally I think it some of the best work I've seen!

But some you geniuses who have never even been there have proclaimed it a MacKenzie copy and even a monstrosity at that! That would probably very much amuse Kye Goaby and Doak and the rest of the Stonewall2 crew which is quite a crew in Doak's opinion.

The early opinions on here of the partially done bunkers at Stonewall2 certainly amuses me!!

[Michael Dugger]

Tis I who chimed in that the bunker work reminds me of Mac.  Mostly, however, it reminds me of those early, opening day photos of Cypress in Shackleford's book.  The rugged edges, the white faces (I assume they will be white) shooting up but looking different from every angle of play.  I agree with TEPaul 1000%.  They look great, already.  It is damn hard to come up with anything now days that is new and unique.  I feel it is a stretch to even claim that of these bunkers, but they have do have an originality to them.        

[Tim Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

I'm interested in your comment about architects like Mike DeVries not showing "restraint". Can you give a couple examples from Mike's work?

FYI, when Mike showed us around Kingsley - clearly his most prominent work - what I saw was a couple greens where "restraint" was perhaps lacking, but I saw no evidence of that when it came to bunkers.

Did you see it differently? If so, where?

I'm also wondering about the same question as it pertains to Doak and Pacific Dunes. Where was "restraint" missing?

By the way, what is "restraint" when it comes to bunkers? Is it about size? Shape? Frequency? Ability to execute shot from? Style?

[Grandpa]

Who is responsible for the work? Because it seems to remind me of the work recently done at Merion. The jagged bunker lips match the jig-saw puzzles at Merion. I was wondering if the same shapers were involved in the projects.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tim

I've not had the pleasure of playing any of Mike Devries' work.  I have seen a little of the work he is doing on the ground at the Meadow Club and it was impressive.  I included him in the "gang of three" due to respect, as I think he and Doak and Eckenrode are among the best we have out there building and restoring golf courses.  I also based it on the pictures I have seen of the Kingsley Club, which, you may remember, I used (along with Whistling Straits--which I have not played either) as poster children for "superfluous bunkering" in a thread I started about 2 years ago, hoping to raise the issue of what bunker ought to be.

Then, and now, my own predilection is for courses with fewer  bunkers, and ones which are less "artsy-craftsy" than the McKenzie style.  This should be nothing new to anybody who has read my posts on this topic since I've been on GCA.  I recognise that the majority of people on this site, perhaps even the overwhelming majority, do not agree with me, but so be it.  We all have our likes and dislikes.  Fashions come and fashions go......

In terms of PD, some of the bunkers I think are OTT are:  the ones in the middle of the 3rd fairway; the big one to the left of the 6th green; the ones surrounding the 11th.  Functionally, they are fine--I just don't like their shapes and/or proportions in relation to the holes.  Very much what I have said about the Merion bunkers.  Its a matter of esthetic perference.  I'd tell the same to Tom if he asked me, Just as I told Todd E a similar opinion when I played Barona.

By "restraint" I mean--using bunkers to influence golfers' strategy rather than as "eye candy."  In the latter regard, I think that Dr. McK. gives us a bad influence.  I think of the 4th at CPC, which my good friend Gib loves, but I see as a "natural" hole that doesn't need all the superfluous bunkering "camouflaging" the land forms that McK spreads out in front of you.  Camouflage is a great concept, but what good does it do to dress the Venus de Milo in Army fatigues?

As for the Stonewall II pictures, I just look at them and see great technical achievement from Doak and his shapers, but I ask "Why?"  Does they really add to the quality of how the course plays, or are they just tours de force, built to satirsfy the needs of the architect, rather than the needs of the consumers of his craft?

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

Grandpa:

I will absolutely gaurantee you that the shapers who are doing the work on those bunker shapes at Stonewall2 are about as different from MacDonald & Co as one could get!

At least give the Stonewall2 bunkers a chance to get the sand in them and grass on them before you say something like that! They will look very different when they're finished with sand and grass anyway.

I agree with mdugger that there is a bit of a MacKenzie look to them although the Stonewall2 bunkers will have more of and a larger earthen (and eventually grass) look to their capes than the delicate almost fragile look of the original Cypress bunker capes.

There is a definite difference in the three vs two dimensionality of the these Stonewall2 vs the Merion bunkers too, and that might have a lot to do with why some of the Stonewall2 bunkers are already showing evidence of that really interesting but somewhat deceptive "verticality" to parts of them!

[allysmith]

My comments on 'the monstrosity are perhaps hastily chosen. I am of the opinion, and I include Cypress point that the inherrent subtelty of a McKenzie Bunker is missing from the bunker displayed

I do not for one minute wish to sugest that the bunkers shown are not well constructed but their intricacy and indeed 'artificial verticality' obviate them as being truly McKenzie like.

I feell that courses such as Lahinch, Royal Melbourne and Dornoch show the penal qualities of McKenzies design while Cypress Point and perhaps to some extent Augusta national display a more artistic bent while none the less retaining a 'thorn in the golfers side' approach.

Muli cornering of bunkers or the 'multi petal' design is an amplification and I'm not sure that the Good Doctor would entirely approve.

May I quote him from his views on an ideal course:

the greens and fairways should be undulating, without steep hills for the golfer to climb
there should be a minimum of blind approach shots
the emphasis should be placed on natural beauty, not on artificial features

Among MacKenzie's many admiring architects, and influenced by him, is Steve Smyers who said

"The thing that stands out for me is his spectacular bunkering. In both aesthetics and positioning, he was a master - absolutely brilliant. He used few bunkers, but he positioned them in such a way that they were in the line of play and in the line of sight, so they could scare and excite you, and thrill you with the risk/reward possibilities, but always he left a route that would let you play around them. MacKenzie tried to create excitement in a round, but he always provided options for every class of golfer and always gave you a chance to recover after a missed shot."

I do appologise for going on a bit but while a fine example of a well designed and constructed green I do not feel it is in the true Mackenzie genre

[TEPaul]

Ally:

Congratulations--you may be the first person (including me) in the history of Golfclubatlas who has even remotely changed their postion following something they may have read later.

Have you met Pat Mucci yet? If not, you should! I think you could really do him good.

But you don't admire MacKenzie's bunkering at Cypress? My God, that surprises me as I think they could be some of the most beautiful man-made bunkers ever! Have you been hanging around with that contrarian Goodale again?

But it is odd that you describe the bunkering being made at Stonewall2 as "monstrosities" and then cite MacKenzie and Steve Smyers in the same thread. My understanding is that Smyers is known for his use of such extraordinary amounts and sizes of bunkers (monstrosities) that it's hard for some golfers to find grass among them.

I was once driving by Smyers's Blue Herron East course with Coore and I asked him if he thought Smyers's bunkers there were architecturally penal and he said he didn't know about that but how would I like to have to hit a shot from the middle of one of them--it could be a full 9 iron!

[Tim Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

As for style preference, to each his own. Life is short. Play the stuff you like.

I'll take the "neo Mackenzie" style any day.

We are on a different page with respect to either Kingsley or Pacific Dunes, but I seem to recall wondering about a few bunkers at Cypress Point, though I think they were on #5 rather than #4. I remember wondering whether one or two were really necessary.

Tom Paul:

I got a kick out of Grandpa's question, but it does bring up a good point. Not many people have seen bunkers in the construction stage or have the ability to visualize what they will look like once sand is put in and the grass grow in takes place. Based on some a Tommy's pictures, I can see where someone might get a distorted idea.

But, I can't imagine the Renaissance guys producing anything like what is found today at Merion.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I'll tell you right now if Kye Goalby created some bunkering at Stonewall2 (which he is and is what you see in those photos) and anyone at all refers to them as looking like MacDonald bunkers, my worry is he'd probably quit the business!

The bunkers at Stonewall2 don't look now and won't when they're done much of anything like MacDonald's bunkers at Merion or what was there before MacDonald either!

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Again, my only point is that most people only have experience with "finished product" and can easily be mislead by photos of work in progress. Assuming our friend Grandpa was sincere, I have to believe that is what happened.

I'm sure there are many products where you have to be careful about showing them before they are ready. I'm currently working on a software product where the user interface is the last thing we are worrying about. Not because it is unimportant. Actually, it's critical. However, we have more important technical tasks to complete first. The only downside is that if people are only looking for pretty, you really can't do a demo before the product is ready for prime time.

But, this case is kind of funny. I'm quite sure Tommy never imagined people thinking Kye & Co's work resembled the McDonald/Merion stuff.

[allysmith]

Tom,

Thanks for the boost.

I am aware that ones views are often one sided but having learned from others more qualified than myself surely it is not wrong to ammend those views in the light of further knowlege.

My point on Cypress Point was that it is an excellent example of 'subtle' bunkering and indeed the antithesis of the apparently ornate bunker displayed. I thnk that sometimes 'typicalities or fingerprints of the great architects are picked up and caricatured by others. This is indeed a shame. Mimicry is the greatest form of flattery but over indulgence can ruin a good thing dont you hink?

I cited Steve Smyers as an excellent quote to back up my argument rather than an example of a typical McKenzie type architect

Im off to check out the Blue Herron East Coast and will get back to you on that one. Inorance is Bliss!!

[SL_Solow]

Good point Tim.  When we did our work at Briarwood returning the bunkers to a C.H. Allison scale, the work in the ground prior to the addition of sand and grassing the surrounding areas was misperceived by many.  All in alll and subject to the limitations of photos, the work looks quite interesting.  Thanks Tommy

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tim

I'm not on any page vis a vis KC.  As I said, I haven't been there.  AS for PD, I'm on record as saying it is a seriously good golf course.  It's just not perfect, just like any other golf course, just, perhaps, a little more imperfect than the best of the best.

Rich

PS--It must be hell for you spending so such time at sparsely bunkered Ballybunion with nary a single neo-McKenzie style one (that I can remember) on that gorgeous property!

[grandpa]

I didn't mean to critize the work at Stonewall or Merion. It was a sincere question and I'm sorry if it was taken out of context. I don't spend as much time on this site or studing architecture. I think the bunkers at Merion are nice. But could some of you please explain what is good bunklering. Why are the bunkers at one course considered better then others. Is there some specific elements that you look for and if so could you pleaser elaborate on these elements. I haven't had the fortune to play many great courses so could you not give examples of different clubs. And limit it to the written word.