[Alfonso Erhardt]

I have seen early photos of the course that Colt designed in Madrid (1914) and the course is filled with quite penal bunkering. Some early photos I have seen of Sunningdale seem to confirm that his early designs were more of a penal type than what is considered strategic.

When and how did Colt evolve from penal to strategic designs?

[Paul_Turner]

Alfonso

Not sure that he moved from away from penal towards strategic; other than using fewer bunkers on the later courses and consequently fewer cross bunkers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure, but based on is work around Chicago, I always liked his green contouring best.

[Alfonso Erhardt]

Paul,

I am no expert, but his book with Alison does enter into the concept of strategic holes although it doesn't discard penal holes, so in purity he/they did not move away from the penal thoughts.

Would you qualify his/their evolution as a mere cross-bunker removal?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Amazon recently sent a new blurb about an HS Colt book. Anyone have the skinny on that one?

[Thomas MacWood]

Alfonso
I'm not sure he ever did get away from some of his penal leanings. There is no such thing as completely penal or completely strategic golf course....you find different degrees of both. Colt could bunker a course with the best of them, though I wouldn't call him a penal architect. Paul Turner has noted the degree of his bunkering was determined by the natural advantages of the site. Typically the fewer the advantages with more bunkering. His redesigns of Muirfield and Lytham in the 20s were very heavily bunkered.

[Sean_A]

I never thought of Colt as a cross bunker kind of guy.  I think he was much more apt to turn a cross bunker on a diagonal and break it into a few bunkers or make centreline bunkers.  Even on the championship courses he worked on (which I do think he was mindful of in terms of what its purpose was), did Colt use cross hazards a lot?  Muirfield has a load of bunkers, but most of them I would characterize as strategic, though there are a handful of holes where the bunkering is left and right in the landing zone.  However, I am not sure Colt is responisble for all the bunker work at Muirfield.

To be sure, I could never characterize Colt as a penal archie at any time in his career.  I think Swinley can be considered Colt's break out design (looking back on it now), does anybody consider this to be a penal course?  Alfonso, I would be interested to see aerials of the Madrid course you mention.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Would you consider that the Heathland Architects (Colt / Park Jnr / Abercromby / Fowler) were the first to move away from fully penal principles in design to take in to account strategic and playability concerns?

That's the way I look at it. I think they opened the minds of others. The Strategic Architects were those that belonged to the Golden Age.

[Thomas MacWood]

I agree with Sean. From what I've seen Colt was very fond of the diagonal bunker.

As far as characterizing an architect as penal or strategic I'm not sure how illustrative that is. I think you could say all architects show some aspects of both. If you want to compare Simpson with Colt, I would say Colt's courses are more heavily bunkered, but does that mean he is a penal architect? I don't think so. Afterall the model for strategic golf, the Old Course, is heavily bunkered.

[TEPaul]

Alfonso:

I think one of the fundamental problems with any of us trying to answer your original question is that this entire "penal/strategic" tag and concept definitely is a kind of amorphous subject and its meaning definitely morphed greatly over time. It's sort of like trying to work with jello. Penal and strategic within the overall jigsaw puzzle of golf course architecture and its various arrangements simply meant different things to different people including a number of the very best minds in golf course architecture in the great Golden Age.

If you ask me perhaps the most sophisticated expression of real strategic architecture came out of the minds of the likes of Behr and Mackenzie around the end of the 1920s. Both of them began to promote the idea that truly strategic architecture would be best served and best applied if architecture simply did away with "rough" altogether. Behr actually said if a golfer felt he could be best served strategically he should be allowed to hit the ball sideways off the tee!

Behr was into what he described as ultimate "Freedom" that included what he called "Unity" (I refer to that as "Whole hole unity or strategy") and "indirect taxation". On the other hand, it seems like Behr's strategic philosophy could get pretty intense down at the green end!   

[Dan Moore]

Not sure, but based on is work around Chicago, I always liked his green contouring best.

Jeff I assume you mean Old Elm.  Colt drew the plans and located the green sites in Spring 1913 and Donald Ross stayed on to build the course and those wonderful greens.  The green sites were very important as many of the greens use the natural slope of the property to great effect.  In addition there is a lot of grain in those greens and that may be due to the type of bentgrass used.  I'm told 17 of the greens (all but the first) have never been changed and are entirely original.  The Ross effect/contribution can be seen in the inverted saucer greens and exceptional closely cropped green surrounds at Old Elm which offer a variety of superb options from around the greens. 

With the exception of the first hole and loss of an alternative fairway on the fourth due to a relocated arm of the Skokie River, the  course is virtually unchanged from when it was built.  Brian Silva has been involved in recent years and 100's of trees have been removed.  This year  they are restoring 7-8 carry or cross bunkers that had been lost over the years with plans to add more in coming years. 

To address Alfonso's question the course does not seem overly penal or strategic but combines a good balance of both elements in a way that presents challenging and fun golf.  It is truly one of the architecturally exceptional courses  in the Chicago area. 

[Alfonso Erhardt]

All,

I acknowledge that the line between penal and strategic is blurred at times and I also have to agree with your view that Colt did not fully abandon some of his penal conceptions, but in my limited knowledge, older courses I have seen from Colt do seem to have a heavier concentration of bunkers and, especially, cross hazards that cover all of the fairway forcing carries for all players, which was a prevalent obstacle in Madrid when Colt laid out the course.

In Madrid, there were forced carries in 11 of the holes (split 50/50 over ravine and cross bunkering). The attached photos are from after the Spanish Civil War ( before Simpson's remodelling) and you can see a few examples of the cross bunkering I mean (I hope they are clear enough). The photos do not show ravines unfortunately.

Again, haven't seen that many Colt courses, but I do believe that his later efforts were (i) less bunkered and (ii) more thoughtful in their bunkering  - or they did seem like it.

[Thomas MacWood]

Alfonso
Great pictures. It looks pretty typical of Colt's bunkering.

The golf course looks like it was a real gem - I love the topography and scruby nature of the land. It reminds of some So. California courses.

[Alfonso Erhardt]

Tom,

The landscape is quite similar to S. California. Ravines, oaks and scrub. Just a little more extreme temperatures in winter and summer.

The course is still fantastic - although today a mixed pot of Colt/Simpson/Harris/Phillips, even Arana!

[Sean_A]

Thanks Alfonso

I am not sure what Tommy Mac is talking about, but these photos don't look like typical Colt bunkering to me.  That doesn't mean Colt didn't do them, I have no idea.  It also doesn't mean Colt didn't evolve, but there are plenty of courses Colt did around this time that aren't bunkered in the manner of this Madrid course.  The pic below (par 3?) looks to be very unusual bunkering.  



I find it interesting that Colt has broken up his cross bunkers into groups of bunkers.  I can only surmise this was for aesthetic reasons as the effect on play is virtually unchanged.

Ciao

[Neil_Crafter]

Sean
Looks like Colt bunkering to me, see photo of his bunkering from Prestbury, not that dissimilar, also bunkering an upslope to an elevated green. Seems pretty standard to me. Can you explain what makes it so unusual in your mind?

[Sean_A]

Sean
Looks like Colt bunkering to me, see photo of his bunkering from Prestbury, not that dissimilar, also bunkering an upslope to an elevated green. Seems pretty standard to me. Can you explain what makes it so unusual in your mind?

Neil

The forward bunker is the one which stands out.  In fact, I would say a bunkering configuration like that is unusual period. 

Looking through a list of very early Colt courses - say pre-1914, I find many which aren't heavily bunkered, but a few which are - mind you, I don't think some of these would be considered heavily bunkered today.  Mind you, I don't know what has changed and Alfonso could be right.  It may only be a lack of evidence for lost bunkers. 

Ciao

 

[Thomas MacWood]

This bunkering looks very similar to Tyneside, Old Elm, Toronto, Woohall Spa and Sunningdale-Old, all from around the same era. A lot of random bunkers along the perimeter puncturated by a crossing or diagonal bunker from time to time. The greens of his par-3s are often well bunkered.

I would diagree that his pre-1914 courses weren't heavily bunkered - Old Elm, PVGC and St. Georges Hill are examples that were heavily bunkered.

[Paul_Turner]

Alfonso

Super pics,  thanks for posting.

Yes those photos are very much in the Colt style.  Are the cross bunkers cut out of natural ridges?

Thinking more about Colt's bunkering, pre WW1 courses like Manchester, Ringway, Denham, Beaconsfield, Northamptonshire, Sonning (a lot) have, or used to have, quite a lot of cross bunkers either to carry off the tee, or short of the green with some dead ground to run the ball up: similar to your Madrid aerials.  

But thinking of some other pre WW1 courses, like Swinley, St George's Hill, Broadstone, Stoke Poges, Eden and there are not many cross bunkers.  Mostly wing, a diagonal line or big bunkers that cut across at a diagonal but leave room to run the ball on one side.

St Germain which is from 1920s has quite a few cross bunkers (see Ran's profile), with a similar style too.  

For Madrid, is really only the routing left from Colt's original design (or has that been altered much too?), or are some of the features still there too?  Does the club still have those cool bridges, just like Addington?

[Tom_Doak]

Alfonso:

I would say that MOST golf course architects evolve toward using less bunkers over time, and I'm not sure Mr. Colt's evolution is more noteworthy than others' in that regard.  He was a product of his times:  he started designing in the age of cross bunkers and built quite a few of them, but evolved to more of a "wing bunker" style with diagonal cross bunkers when strategic design became more in vogue.

[Mark Pearce]

I have never really thought of Colt as penal.  My home club (Northumberland GC) is a Colt and whilst it can be hellishly difficult maintained as it is at the moment it's the rough rather than the bunkering that makes it so.  Nearby Brancepeth Castle GC, however, does have a penal element to it.  Forced carries over ravines at a number of holes (par 3 2nd, second shot on the 5th, tee shot on the 8th, the long par 3 9th and 10th holes, the tee shot on the 11th and the tee shot on the 18th).  None of these is particularly difficult for me, and I'm not long but for shorter hotters, or with older equipment I'd classify it as a penal design.  There are also elements of Tyneside which might be classed as penal, with forced carries.

[Alfonso Erhardt]

Sean,

The cross bunkers were are all located at holes where fairways are very wide, which might explain breaking them into various bunkers.

Paul,

The bunkering is all carved out of natural ridges, as the terrain has many undulations and hills. The attached photo might help in understanding the terrain.

About the routing, since the club has 36 holes today, 15 of Colt's holes are still in play (with additional length), but they are played across different courses.

About the Colt features, since the course is very undulating it does play a lot with the hills and ravines so that has been retained. Bunkering in his holes has not changed much either (except for the cross bunkering, which was removed by Simpson).

Bridges still remain and there are 3 of them in the course. Before the last renovation in 2000, there were   3 more. The trees have grown over them, so they are not as visible anymore. Attached is photo of #1

[Stuart Hallett]

I agree that we tend to classify holes as penal or strategic to quickly, & also pigeonhole past architects. From my observations, Colt's bunkering depends very much on the sites natural interest. IMO his cross bunkering is limited to giving duffers a thrill or breaking up dead ground, while diagonal fairway bunkers, that certainly did evolve over the years, create interesting angles & give choices. For sure, the par 3 Alfonso posted is a typical short hole, thus heavily bunkered, as would be a short drive & pitch par 4. However, I always found Colt included enough subtle details to favour a strategic approach after the first impressions of a penal hole.

In comparison to Simpson, I'd say Colt is rather understated. I spent yesterday at Morfontaine, where once again I noticed the wicked contouring that feed bunkers, whether it be large parts of the fairway or lots of swales on greens. Not to mention the centerline bunkers. If anyone pushed the limits of strategic design towards penal, it must be Simpson with bold designs.

Lastly, Colt listened to clients demands. Rene Lacoste requested minimal bunkering at Chantaco & Colt included some fantasic grass bunkers, probably assuming they would add sand at a later stage...80 years on & still no sand (that's another story). St-Cloud & St-Germain were built for a growing community of golfers in Paris...the greens are unusually big.
He certainly had the ability to adapt to the site, the budget and the client.

Just some thoughts...excuse the waffle !
 

[Paul_Turner]

Alfonso

I suspect you have played Colt's Pedrena GC in Santander (Seve's home course)?  That looks to be an interesting comparison with Madrid, since Pedrena was one of Colt's last courses in continental europe whereas Madrid was one of his earliest.   (I'm pretty sure he stopped travelling over to the continent around 1930-Morrison did most of the work over there from 1930 onwards).  It'd also a good comparison because both are heavily undulating sites.

Any I haven't played either but Pedrena looks to have none of the clusters of cross-bunkers you show for Madrid.  (Pedrena also looks to have had several of the old bunkers filled, if you look on GoogleEarth.)

[Alfonso Erhardt]

Paul,

I have played the course, but not for some time. I have seen old photos of Pedreņa and it did not have those cross bunkers.

I think you made a great point, as the courses are in similar terrain but completely different in character and that can provide an idea of how Colt's style evolved over time (at least in what he did in Spain). It is puzzling that he was hired to do Pedreņa in 1928 by the Duke of Alba, who also hired him for Madrid in 1914, but who decided to go over to Simpson for some remodelling in Madrid in 1924.

Pedreņa has the bonus that it has not changed that much over time, whereas Madrid has been changed many times by many people.

On another note. How responsible were the contractors and on-site people for the final outcome of the course in Colt's designs? Distances in Europe in the 1920s were much greater than they are today, but Madrid in 1914 was as far from London as Colt did go in Europe,  and I don't know how many site visits or how hands-on may Colt have been with the design of the course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()