News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restoration
« on: August 15, 2002, 07:47:54 PM »
The differences of the bunker restoration of Lancaster vs the bunker restorations of Merion, Bethpage, Riviera, Rolling Green etc are so obvious to me at this point as to be about the same difference as night and day!

Having said that, I'm fully prepared to admit that some members, maybe many members, maybe even the vast majority of members at these clubs prefer the Fazio/MacDonald style bunker restoration over the Hanse type restoration!

And, I, for one, am certainly not willing to hold that against them--although, at the same time, I just can't help but saying there's a bit of a tragedy in that preference!

In my opinion, when it comes to the restoration of Flynn, Tillinghast, probably Thomas (and others) style bunkering and playability, the outfit of MacDonald & Co basically doesn't have a chance at real restoration of those architects' bunker styles and playability! When they (MacDonald) get into the styles of Ross or even Oakmont's Fownes they do have a chance at some kind of sympathetic restoration of the style and playability of those bunkers.

It's interesting how this plays out but it's gotten totally obvious to me what the distinctions are (and aren't!).

Again, if those clubs that want the true restored look and playability of Flynn, Tillinghast, Thomas (and some others) they really should not go with MacDonald & Co!

If they want something different in look and playability than the styles of those particular old guys, particularly if that's what they had--then fine--but they should fully understand the differences and distinctions before starting a bunker project!

What all any of them should understand is what the distinctions really are--and unfortunately they're very significant!

Somebody told me the other day that MacDonald & Co may now have the contract to restore Shinnecock's bunkering! I sure as hell hope not because they don't have a chance of restoring it the way it should look and play! Not a chance in Hell--because if the club, the USGA or anyone else involved would just look at the aerials (or even the original plans) of those Shinnecock bunkers and what MacDonald & Co has done on those other classic courses by Flynn, Tillinghast, Thomas (and others) they can't help but notice the differences and distinctions!

If that's what those members really want--fine--but I can't help but thinking it just another tragedy. They will be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to have them restored by MacDonald & Co and the double tragedy is--if they don't like them and they want them to be the way they were originally designed and designed to play they will have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to change them back again!

So please understand what you have and who does what and who doesn't with restoration!

And, I'm more than willing to admit that I may not be very good at all this stuff and I probaby wouldn't have understood these differences and distinctions if I hadn't seen the restored bunkering of Lancaster C.C.

The next thing, for another thread and topic, is, I sure was blown away by the fantastic greens of Lancaster C.C. too--and I was not remotely the only one!

Just fantastic old Flynn greens, I thought! Except they too were all lasered and completely rebuilt and restored by Hanse too! Just go look at them-they won't disappoint anyone!

Not even Flynn!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2002, 10:06:41 PM »
Tom;

If it wasn't so late, I'd try to respond in more detail.  

I just got home, however, and would like to say one thing in response.

If that isn't the most "intellectually honest" post in the history of GCA, then I don't know what is!!

Thanks for having both brains and courage of your convictions!  I know there are others who will claim that ultimate responsibility for restoration work lies with the club officials in charge, but we both KNOW, having seen a lot of this "restoration" work in recent years, that there is simply a MASSIVE DEGREE of difference in attitude, talent, conviction, and intelligence that produces the ultimate and final result, irrespective of "directions" from the architect or club offcials.

I'm glad to hear you call 'em as you see 'em.   Hopefully, your advice will be heeded somewhere, someday.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick Hitt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2002, 03:23:15 AM »
I don't know how much responsibility for the final product the builder should have. I am dissapointed in much of the work that MacDonald has been involved in but I will give the example that Tom Paul alludes to - Aronimink - as an example of their ability to follow the direction of the architect. I believe that the architect MUST be the designer of record when it comes to the final shaped and grassed product. I was fortunate enough to see Ron Pritchard's restored bunkers at Skokie CC go from detailed drawings to painted lines to finished shapes. Ron drew each bunker and its surrounds , approved every finish grade before it was grassed, and has been back to insure that his work has grown in as intended. I met Ron at Aronimink last year while their restoration was in progress. With the SAME MacDonald crew that had just finished the job at Merion, Ron seemed pleased with their ability to create his bunker shapes.
Tom seems to imply that the crew can emulate one architect better than another - my argument would be that the architect is the MOST important piece of the restoration puzzle - just as it is in building a new course. Hanse, Doak, Pritchard, and others have proven that a thoughtful restoration is very possible. I blame the architects for inferior work at our great old courses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

Bye

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2002, 03:38:44 AM »
It's the architect ......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2002, 04:15:35 AM »
Patrick Hitt:

If I'm reading your post correctly what architects are you talking about as far as what MacDonald & Co can emulate and follow the exact direction of or not?

Are you talking about Ron Prichard or architects such as Flynn, Tillinghast, Thomas etc vs architects such as Ross and even Fownes?

It's beginning to look to me like MacDonald & Co are pretty damn good at emulating the original look (and playability) of Ross's bunkers, particularly at Aronimink. But it's also beginning to look like they aren't that good at emulating the original look and playability of the various styles of bunkering of Flynn, Tillinghast and Thomas. The reasons, in my opinion, has almost everything to do with the differences and distinctions in the styles of Flynn, Tillinghast, Thomas et al vs the style of Ross (and even some of Oakmont by Fownes).

It's all pretty interesting and seems to just have to do with what those styles were and what MacDonald &Co can do well today and what they don't seem to do well (if you really want an exact restored look and playability).

All this bunker restoration stuff is very interesting, particularly since Gil Hanse is about to restore my club, Gulph Mills's bunkers! Let's see how well Gil does there with our Ross bunkers (and even our Maxwell bunkers!).

I really liked what Lancaster's (Flynn) bunkers turned out like by Hanse--they just seem to be the way Flynn had them. But at the same time we have Ross bunkers and I don't want to see Gil turn them into the look of Flynn either (or Tillinghast or Thomas et al!)!

I know Gil pretty well now and if that starts to happen maybe I should tell him we need to go with Ron Prichard and MacDonald & Co judging from what they did at Ross's Aronimink!

It looks to me like MacDonald & Co can do Ross bunkers well  but not Flynn, Tillinghast and Thomas et al! I spent quite a bit of time at Aronimink when they were doing the bunkers and I know exactly what Ron Prichard was looking for in Aronimink's "Ross look". I also know that Ron felt the MacDonald shaper on that project was very likely the best the company has--or at least he was very good!

Gil can sure do Flynn and apparently Tillinghast but if I really want to find out how Gil matches Ross bunkers with they way they were all I have to do is go up to Plainfield and do some research!

Furthermore, EXACTLY why MacDonald & Co seem to do Ross type bunkers (and possibly even Oakmont's style) well and not some of the others is becoming much clearer!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

Patrick Hitt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2002, 05:00:25 AM »
Tom,
I am saying that it is up to Fazio or his associates to say that a bunker shape is acceptable or not. If the bunker shape is wrong, the architect says fix it. When the first bunkers at Skokie were built, a lot of time was spent helping the the shapers get a feel for what the architect wanted. Why blame a shaper when the architect says yes or no to the final shape ? It is certainly possible that Gil Hanse could take a MacDonald crew and teach tham what he would want. All I am saying is blame the architect, not the crew.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2002, 06:19:49 AM »
Tom

I'd like to hear what you believe "playability" differences in the bunkers done by MacDonald and COmpany might be vs. a more thoughtful restoration that maintains the old look and esthetics?  At least at Bethpage, the bunkers play pretty much the same as they would have before had they been filled with the same type of sand.  That is- their depth and slopes were fairly similar.

OK- now that's the last nice thing I will say about MacDonald and Company work in this post.  I've seen the dreadful stuff they did at Riviera but not Merion.  Riviera looks like a case of malpractice plastic surgery work on #'s 7 and 8 but more importantly they will not play the same because their depth and slopes do NOT look like the other Thomas bunkers on the course.

If I had one piece of advice from what I've seen personally it would be to go with Gil Hanse, Rodney Hine, Bill Kittleman etc. I would not hesitate for a SECOND that they could recreate the precise style and playing characteristics of ANY architects bunkers.  I've seen them do Tillinghast style at Fenway and it is a masterpiece.  Go down the street to Quaker RIdge and look at the difference.  Its night and day trying to compare what Gil did with the Rees Jones work at QR (Mike Cirba or Bill V can both attest to this).  I've seen their work at Century to recreate Alison (and Colt) style and again they left their ego's at the gate and recreated the Alison style beautifully.  You want Ross?  Please go and visit Plainfield.  I's absolutely beautiful the work they did there.  I'll take your word about Aronimink but those photos posted here didn't look all that great to me.  Maybe Mike can chime in here again since he's actually seen Plainfield and Aronimink recently.  

I couldn't agree with you more about the restoration work done by Gil's company.  I sure as hell wish they would get the job at Yale (I've tried to recommend them) instead of that unnamed butcher working there now.  Bill Kittleman is a Yale man too!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_McDowell

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2002, 06:28:52 AM »
How about some pictures of Gil's work. I would love to see what you are raving about.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2002, 06:39:18 AM »
Jeff

For Fenway photos just go to Ran's course profile.

I don't have and for Plainfield or Century but maybe someone else here can post a few.  I'll be playing Apawamis in the next couple of weeks and I'll bring my camera.  Gil just finished working there last winter.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2002, 06:49:47 AM »
Patrick Hitt;

Basically, I'm not blaming anyone--not the architect, the contractor, the shaper, the green committee, the project master plan committee, the members, no one!

I don't think there's any real good reason to do that--not on Golfclubatlas anyway!

All I'm really interested in on this discussion group is to get as detailed and accurate as possible as to what the differences and distinctions in various bunker styles truly are (and the distinctions in styles and playabilities between the various "Golden Age" architects) and what it takes to really restore particular styles (and playabilities) as exactly as possible.

If any member, committeeman, contractor, shaper or even architect isn't aware of those differences and distinctions, or simply doesn't care about them, or even doesn't even want to stick with what they were and logically should be for the overall style of any original architect, then fine--I can accept that, although I do think failing to recognize all or some of those things is a bit tragic!

It really is looking to me like a company like MacDonald can do certain styles better than others and it seems like the reason may be that certain styles are more complicated than others or simply require probably various detail work that MacDonald & Co might not get into--they just may not have the people who do that. It probably isn't even that they can't--they just don't!

I'm no architect, contractor or anything like that but it seems to me that the architects and crews that are really good at that "evolved" rugged look just get off their shaping equipment eventually and start to do some things that other architects and crews just don't do!

There's nothing wrong exactly with doing things one way or the other, I guess, it's just that there are some real differences and distinctions in method and execution and it ultimately it really shows!

Seeing Lancaster's bunkers about 5-6 years after restoration was interesting--it was an education--I think it was for Gil and the golf club too. Things didn't work out well for the playability of the general membership at first, I hear, but it's apparently working out now it seems. It seems there is still some membership issues with the playability of the Lancaster bunkering--it just isn't simple and easy or particularly "formulaic" to play but I think the club might be coming to understand that's the way it was supposed to be. Right after the Hanse bunker restoration at Lancaster apparently the fescue went crazy and that was too much for the membership. Frankly, that wasn't the first club that happened at but the whole issue (out of control fescur) has gotten toned down now, I'm told. That would probably include Kittanset too!

I'm sure everyone's on some kind of learning curve and that would include the architects and crews right on down to the members who are involved in these projects and even tbose who aren't that just play the course after any project!

And I just can't see that MacDonald & Co would have ever done bunkers like they have them now at Lancaster. But maybe they can. And if so, I wish you'd point some out to me they've done.

But when it comes to other styles--apparently Ross's at Aronimink--that's a different matter. They seem to be able to do those well or well enough to satisfy even particular and specific purists. The basic design style, the shaping and even the final phase of grassing and such with that style just seems to be more inline with what MacDonald already does.

But for a club like Shinnecock to hire MacDonald to do Flynn's  style, look and playability, I really think is a big mistake--and that's only from what I've seen Macdonald do at other courses that are basically Flynn, Tillinghast and Thomas's individually unique styles and probably playabilities too. That of course is providing those clubs actually want that exact style and playability. But they should understand all the differences and distinctions first and then figure out who does it best and who doesn't!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

John_Lovito

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2002, 06:54:18 AM »
Geoff,

I will try to take some photos of Gil's work at Plainfield tomorrow.  Can I send them to you to have them posted here?

John
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2002, 06:56:04 AM »
As for the playability of the "restored" bunkers at Aronomink...that's easy...for the fairway bunkers...there is NO playability.  From first hand experience, the flat bottom deep grassed face bunkers offer no options every ball hit into a fairway bunker by our group led to a sand wedge blast back to the fairway.  Every ball rolled right to the front face of the bunker.

For those that like "the bunkers as hazards theory", you should take a trip to Aronomink. The green side bunkering is playable, but the fairway bunkers are a 1 shot penalty.  I don't remember playing a course with more penal fairway bunkering. On many fairways the bunkering cut into the fairway width by 1/3, consequently the landing areas have shrunk alot.

Tom,

Is the current "look" of the bunkers at Aronomink consistent with Ross' original plans.  To me, they looked very uniform, with little variety. They certainly get your attention after you've been in one. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't care for the style presented.

I think I may have been spoiled by playing at Applebrook first, the strategy and bunkering there is wonderful.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ed_Baker

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2002, 07:02:26 AM »
I have to go with the architect too. I base the statement on the fact that I have seen and studied 9 "Ross restoration bunker projects" 7 of the 9 are Ron Prichards work and the Prichard work is far superior to the other 2. I also know that of the 7 Prichard restorations there were 5 different contractors (shapers). The results were amazingly consistent, this would lead me to the conclusion that in Rons' case he is very effective at getting whatever contractor he is working with to produce his vision on the ground. I would opine that most architects would demand the same.

In the case of MacDonald & Co. I have only seen Merion and Aronimink as examples of their work, and as Prichard was the architect at Aronimink I'm not at all surprised at the quality of the Ross bunkers, but as stated above I believe Ron could have used a number of contractors and achieved the same result.

I don't know the facts or circumstances at Merion, my opinion is that the results are ..... different.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2002, 07:04:16 AM »
John- send me your photos of Plainfield and I'll be happy to post them for you.

Jamie-  You posted somewhere about a Scotland trip you are planning next year.  Your experience at Aronomink will certainly prepare you for the fairway bunkers over there.  You will be lucky if your stance allows you to even go in the direction of the fairway when you hit into some of those hazards.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2002, 07:15:19 AM »
It seems to me that the difference is clearly HANDWORK.

If a bunker has largely a grass-walled face, MacDonald and Co. can do those pretty well with modern equipment, because the "brushstrokes" are not as intricate or detailed.

That is the case on most of Ron Prichard's restored Donald Ross bunkers, for instance.  They are largely grass faced bunkers (some steep), with flat sand bottoms.

However, they seem unable to be able to reproduce bunkers well that have sophisticated patterning, or flashed-sand faces.  In the case of Merion, they tried to produce intricate capes and bays, although they still ended up with almost vertical grass faces because I sense their construction methodology doesn't permit anything else.  It's like trying to paint Picasso with a handroller.  

THAT's where the difference in construction techniques shows clearly, as in the following examples.







and finally, a grass-faced Hanse restoration of Tillinghast at Fenway...

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

Ed_Baker

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2002, 07:17:46 AM »
J Slonis,

You are right about a certain uniformity to the steep grass faced Ross bunkers, when they are freshly restored they do look uniform. Fortunately they do evolve and "soften" a little over time. Ours are now 5 years old and are establishing their own character, being able to cut the face turf lower after it establishes will help the randomness of where the ball ends up in relation to the faces. The faces firm up quite a bit too. I believe one of Ross' tenets was to show the player the trouble and woe to those that hit it there! Fairway bunkers should cost a stroke, unless of course you stiff the next shot. ;)

As discussed on here many times, Ross did have different bunker styles, some had much more flashed up faces, but of the hundreds of old photographs that I have seen the Aromiink style was very prevalent.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2002, 07:23:46 AM »
How would you describe Alison's style?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2002, 07:46:49 AM »
Ed Baker,

Thanks for the info.

That was the first time I had played Aronomink since the restoration.  It is a totally different golf course from what it was a couple of years ago, particularly for the tee shots.

It'll be interesting to the The Senior PGA Championship there next year.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2002, 08:17:06 AM »
Jamie:

I can't really answer your questions about whether the way Aronomink's bunkering (fairway bunkering) plays now (basically a 1 shot penalty) is the same as Ross intended it. I can't really even tell if the "look" of it is the way Ross intended it. But I am going to try hard to look into this because it's all extremely interesting to me!

What I do know is what Ross said (wrote actually) about what he felt was the overall playability or the principle of the playability of fairway bunkering generally. He said he believed that a player should have an outside chance of maybe getting to a green (or pretty far along) from a fairway bunker. He even explained architecturally how that was done--basically sand (or maybe grass sometimes) upslopes of enough length and degree to filter balls back down to the flatter sand floors obviously back enough from the bunker tops and lips to have a chance at that kind of play!

And, I also know that what Ross said (and wrote) and what he sometimes did was not particularly consistent that way. Ross actually did all kinds of bunker shapes and designs--sand flashed all the way to thin top lips, grass drapped partially down the faces, grass drapped all the way down some faces with flat sand floors throughout! The faces themselves, whether grass or sand or partial didn't have particularly consistent degrees of slope either. Why he did what he did where and when is an interesting study and I do think shows a bit about Ross's own architectural evolution or even his randomness from site to site and course to course!

Broadly he defined all the variations of his bunkering in his writing, calling them, "scooped out pits", "sunken pits with raised faces", "pot bunkers, "mounds and pot combinations", "cop bunkering", "diagonal bunkering formations", "hummocks" etc, etc.

As to what he wanted at Aronomink all I know is what I've seen on their aerials which as you know doesn't show anyone much about what a golfer will see at ground level or how it effects his recoverability and playability.

I also know that Ron Prichard had Ross's exact plans of Aronimink and they were very detailed and explanatory I think! There's no reason to think they wouldn't be as they appeard to be some of the best work of Walter Erving Johnson, who was Ross's excellent and quite detailed draftsman.

Whether Ron Prichard and the crew stuck exactly to those dimensions and those original drawings with original measuremnt explanations, I don't know. I do know everytime I saw Ron out there he had copies of those original plans in his hand!

So, I don't know but Ron Prichard sure would.

So, I guess you could say that's restoring things with both original plans and also photographic evidence. But aerials can only show you so much, like the actual shapes (even in some detail) from the air. Aerials can't show you all that much about the depths, though, even though some people have gotten quite good at actually estimating shadows in relation to estimating  the time of day and sun direction from when the aerial was taken and estimating bunkering depth that way. That can show you something but nothing like old on ground photos!

But there's another way to estimate things like bunker depths and their original "playabilities". Unfortunately, that's only providing that the bunkers are in the same place and that their lips and surrounds are too.

This kind of thing certainly some architects and restoration architects do. I'd call it a form of architectural archaeology!

If the top profiles and lips are still there somewhat as they were you just probe down through the evolutionary build up to where the height was of original construction.

A man by the name of Mel Lucas called that probing at Merion down through the outside edges and so forth of the lips and surrounds as "finding Hugh Wilson's fingerprints".

So you find that and measure the heights. Then you do the same through the sand floors and measure that. Compare the measurements and you basically have the original depths that effect and influence the "playability".

But what if a course leaves the evolutionary build up on the bunker lips and surrounds and restores back to the original depths of the sand floors? Now you have bunkerinng that might be feet deeper in fact and playability.

Apparently, Merion left the heights of the evolutionary buildup of the surrounds and lips (maybe even increased it on some) and possibly went back to the original depths of the floors. So naturally you're going to get a much different depth playability than it may have been originally.

This kind of thing even in restoration I would call "architectural". But the little random shaping and edging, the grassing and such I would call the "look".

To me they are two separate things but put them together and you get how exactly any architect is going to "match" or "emulate" what once was with what will be.

Again, with Flynn bunkering at least I think that Hanse has done this more accurately and exactly than MacDonald has. But I don't even know what MacDonald was told to do on any project, if anything particularly that way.

These are all the kinds of things that go into really good restoration and competent decision making, in my opinion, and I would hope in the opinions of others involved somehow in any architectural restoration project. You've got to know all this first and only then can you decide intelligently which way to go!

And that does take a certain amount of understanding and agreement on the part of a lot of people--architects, contractors, shapers, detailmen, committees and members--and even guests, I suppose!

Again, I'm not saying they should all make any particular decison one way or the other about it all but if anyone along the line is uninformed, even partially, something is probably bound to go wrong--in somebody's opinion!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dunlop_White

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2002, 08:24:30 AM »
Interesting!  Do you think Bill Coore could reproduce a Maxwell bunker using McDonald & Co.?? I do!! But do you also believe that Tom Fazio could replicate a Maxwell bunker using Jeff Bradley? I do!! Most certainly we would be safe if Coore and Bradley worked together, as usual. But without one another, who would be more integral to the process?

Your answer will often determine who is ultimately responsible for restoration work! I agree with all of your assessments.

Tom Paul, you have accurately identified a situation where the contractor/builder/shaper (McDonald & Co.) simply fails at recreating bunkers with the look, style and playabilty of specific architects. While viewing photos of Merion and Riviera,
I must concur! Its sickening, especially since they appear to be the current builder/shaper of choice like Tom Fazio appears to be today's preferred architect. I like Fazio courses fine. They are very playable for most people; however, I do not want Fazio to meddle with the classics, just as Tom Paul does not want Mcdonald & Co. to design bunkers in the name of Thomas, Flynn, Tillie and others. The contractor simply must have the knowledge, the talent and the eye. Otherwise, we will be without an integral piece of the puzzle. That is for sure!

But I also agree with Patrick Hitt. The architect chooses the contractor. Similarly, architects evaluate and assesses the builder's work throughout the process and/or their final product. Shapers follow the directives of the architect. Architects serve as the police who monitor, check, and balance the entire project. The architect must possess the knowledge and the talent as well. He must understand and respect the original work, have an eye for the initial look, and selflessly interpret the strategies and design intent, if any.

And Mike Cirba: I think club officials, green chairmen and superintendents, have an important duty as well. It all depends on whether the they hire an architect in reliance of their expertise or whether they have done their due diligence, and homework and take an active stance in the process.

I hope I am not taking the easy road out, but I truly believe it is a team effort. The ultimate reponsibilty relies on the team. Each part is integral to the process and should serve as checks and balances on the other.  One bad piece could destroy the whole.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2002, 08:37:57 AM »
Tom

I believe that Brad Klein has a short film of workers actually building Aronomink with Donald Ross.  He showed a clip during a talk he gave at Sea Island.  I don't know if he showed us all of the footage he has but it was fascinating.  I don't remember as well if any of the clip showed bunkers.  It would be worth a look for anyone interested in Aronomink and its history.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2002, 10:45:55 AM »
Just for the record, and to suggest what might come next, I would like to quote Richard M. Bator, GCS at Merion, from the Newsletter to Members, February 15, 1991 - his final report of the 1990-1991 season.
Item 20 - 21: "Bunkers - Removed railroad ties from No. 10, and restored it with grass and sand as before.
By letting the bankings of bunkers and mounds, and waste areas, grow wild for several months, the various varieties of Fescues seemed to once again flourish.  Also, by not watering the fairways with the automatic system, these various varieties again became more prominent in the primary roughs, with the color contrasts also returning somewhat."
Item 22: By allowing the bunkers to grow natural, we achieved our goal of allowing the Merion eyebrows or over-hanging effect to be once again a part of their original design.  The sharp edging of bunker edges was not allowed, through the use of power weed eaters or edgers.  Subsequently, the edges strengthened and the rough look, again, was prominent."  Thanks, Dick, for all you did for Merion's past.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ed_Baker

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2002, 11:10:34 AM »
Bill;

Are you saying that the bunkers are up for a redo?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2002, 01:49:11 PM »
Geoffrey Childs:

You asked what I thought the differences in "playability" are between MacDonald's restored bunkers and the old look and aesthetics of some of the courses they've done.

I haven't been to Bethpage in forty years so I wouldn't know about that one and I've never played Riviera so I don't know about that but I might know a little something about Merion before and after but not really the differences in the "playability" of the bunkering.

I do believe I hit a ball or two into the Merion bunkers of the past but in my present state I can't remember what it was like to get out of them and I've played the course since the restoration but I don't hit the ball into bunkers anymore, certainly not Merion's.

So I can only rely on what members and other players tell me. Now, after the restoration by Faz/MacDonald all the bunkers are harder to play out of because they're all deeper than they used to be and the sand is much softer (at this point) than it was. It was said that much of the sand at Merion used to be  so hard packed before the bunker project that most of the members forgot how to hit a normal bunker shot.

But now the bunkers are much harder to get out of but much of the concern at the moment is many of the older members actually find it very hard to get themselves in and particularly out of the bunkers.

The caddie cadre at Merion is stronger and deeper than it has ever been because members have to tip their caddie $5 everytime the caddie has to physically lower the player into those bunkers and physically has to haul him out of them somehow.

Merion's newly restored MacDonald bunkers have definitely accomplished one goal of making the course play harder as you now definitely want to avoid going in those bunkers!

Any other questions?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hanse bunker restoration vs Faz/MacD restorati
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2002, 01:51:57 PM »
No Ed, but they are in good hands with our present GCS.

Hopefully, with proper controls on watering, working with various grasses, and shaping to bring back the Merion look with more sand, we can doctor ourselves back to the Valentine, Kittleman, Bader years.

As said before, things evolve.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »