Ross Bunkers - Up Against the (Back) Wall

[Ed Oden]

I have had the good fortune to play a lot of restored Ross courses lately.  I really like the flat bottom bunkers with raised surrounding lips which were apparently a Ross staple.  One of the things I have noticed about this bunker style is how many times a seemingly good approach shot will ricochet off the front wall of a greenside bunker and come to rest up against the back wall of the bunker, leaving a restricted backswing which severely complicates the ensuing bunker shot. 

By way of example, here is a picture of the approach to #17 at Carolina GC...


From the fairway, the front right bunker looks like a fairly standard hazard which must be carried except to a far left pin position.

But a closer view shows how this bunker angles away across the front right of the green...


And the view from behind reveals the progressive narrowing of the bunker plus the front and back walls...


The net effect of this design is that approach shots which are fractionally short will often carom off the front wall toward the raised back lip of the bunker.  I assume this is intentional.  If so, it is devilish.  Seems to me very much like an Americanized version of a pot bunker.  Any thoughts?

Ed

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ed

What do you suppose Ross was getting at with the wavy action? Does Spence know?  Is it aesthetics or is there some function related to your post?

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

Ditto, Mark

The waves look like additional maintenance cost/low strategic impact eye-candy to me.  And, while we're at it, what's with all  those chocolate drops in the background?

Rich

[Nicholas Coppolo]

Any examples of greenside bunkers to greens at fairway grade?

  In other words, how is this technique handled  on greens that don't "naturally" provide a lip with front to back slope or raised above the fairway. 

Did he (they) just dig below the fairway and use that as fill like a cop bunker?

[Matt MacIver]

The front-right bunker makes this hole a great one - it turns an otherwise flat straight hole into a partial dogleg right, and the narrowing of the bunker increases the risk-reward for back right pins. 

The wavy-ness didn't seem out of place to me, though I was wondering about the chocolate drops myself.  They're not in play and might just be where they buried some old trees...?

[TEPaul]

Ed:

I think one of the real on-going problems with understanding Ross and his architecture is that so many seem to think Ross basically designed and did one kind of bunker (and green ). That isn't even close to the truth. To understand how true that is all one really has to do is read his own manuscript and study his entire career inventory.

[BCrosby]

Ross did indeed use a number of different bunker styles. I remain to be convinced, however, that he used the style shown in the pictures.

I don't recall seeing Ross do many tumescent bunker edges or wavy bunker outlines. Both to my eye look distinctly of our time and place. Not Ross's.

Very pretty and all, but in this case restoration is paying homage to eye candy.

Bob

[Ed Oden]

Thanks for the replies.  First of all, I didn't mean for this to turn into a Carolina thread.  I just happen to have better pictures of what I was trying to describe at Carolina than elsewhere.  I don't see anything unique about Carolina with respect to the back wall bunker concept I am referring to. The same thing can be found at Charlotte, Linville, Salisbury, Mimosa, etc.

Mark, I don't associate Ross with geometric greenside bunkers.  In my experience, most wave or curve to some degree.  I suspect the waves on the example I posted are more noticeable than most because this particular bunker is so long. 

Rich, while many adjectives have been used to describe Carolina over the years, I don't recall "eye-candy" ever being one of them!  Seriously, I can't speak to maintenance costs.  But I would expect that any bunker that is 60 yards or so in length will be more costly to maintain than a smaller one.  There is only one other bunker at Carolina of similar length.  The rest are much smaller (and the waves almost imperceptible).  So in the scheme of things I doubt there is a significant maintenance issue.  As for strategy, this may be the MOST strategic bunker on the course.

Nicholas, is this an example of what you are talking about?


Matt, I can't recall the exact details on the chocolate drops but think you are essentially correct. 

Tom, agreed.  But don't you think that with the passage of time people have come to think of Ross' bunker "style" as more of a single dynamic in much the same way that most think Ross only designed greens like Pinehurst #2?  My guess is this notion will only increase as more and more Ross courses are "restored" to this perceived style rather than to the often peculiar nuances of their original design.  In many cases, it is impossible to know the exact bunker contours so the safest approach is often to restore to the Ross "style".

Bob, I regret choosing these photos since people are focusing on the wavy style of this one bunker rather than what I am asking.  I just had closeups of this bunker that I don't have of others.  So here is a more conventional example from Charlotte CC:


Balls which hit the front wall repel off toward the back wall often leaving a very difficult shot.  I see this all the time on Ross courses.  What do you think?

Ed

[TEPaul]

"But don't you think that with the passage of time people have come to think of Ross' bunker "style" as more of a single dynamic in much the same way that most think Ross only designed greens like Pinehurst #2?  My guess is this notion will only increase as more and more Ross courses are "restored" to this perceived style rather than to the often peculiar nuances of their original design.  In many cases, it is impossible to know the exact bunker contours so the safest approach is often to restore to the Ross "style"."


Ed:

Yes, I do think that. However, some research can help clear up those misconceptions. I'm not saying all restorations should or will go back to the exact look of the way Ross did a course originally but I'd hope more projects would at least become aware of it before deciding what to do.

[Scott Witter]

Ed:

There is sufficient evidence--if one does the research, to draw a position that Ross varied his 'style' to appropriately fit the site and the soils depending on where he built.  Of course, and from that research, we can find plenty of examples where he used the style and look that you have shown in the pictures.  It seems that he and his builders/construction foreman favored this general look.  To me details are very important, almost to a fault at times, but I doubt that anyone who is working on Ross courses, even the best of the architects, can draw a firm conclusion that the shapes were all precisely this way or that way.  IMO, the edging of the bunkers at Carolina do seem close to the many Ross drawings I have seen, all of which had Ross' name on them, but none of which Ross actually drew.  Quite often this was left to one or two of his right-hand associates/builders.  In those drawings, you would be surprised how curvilinear many of the bunkers appeared, though as we know they were built differently in the field--normally it seems, by studying old photos, that the edges were simplified from those depicted in the drawings.

I believe what is most important when building these bunkers is to first get the location and positioning/alignment correct based on historical research of pictures, drawings and field notes as well as ensuring that the depth is what Ross wanted.  When doing so, each bunker should fit its immediate surroundings and also blend into the overall look of the course and terrain, without appearing that it had no earthly business being there.  If when building them, they get a little deep here or there, or if both the 'front' and 'back' walls are steep, then I guess they could be construed as "Americanized" pot bunkers.  I don't think, however, that Ross, or Spence in this case intentionally set out to cause the penality you describe, though on occasion I think that would be fine.

The wavy edges I believe are fairly random, done so to give them a different appearance depending on ones position when viewing and to help them fit in.  We could argue, based on subjective POV, that they are just fine or too wavy--a waste of time IMO.   Also, and since I don't know if this project was meant to be a restoration (many interpretations there) or some level of restoration/renovation based on an agreed upon time period by Spence and the club, the architect must make some interpretations for the final product.

[Bart Bradley]

Ed:

I will try to reply to your original question  and discuss the general notion of bunkers shaped this way and not be concerned if they are "Ross bunkers" or not.

I think that it is very interesting, as you point out, that a shot that is almost good might turn out to end up against the back wall of the bunker, thereby enforcing a stiffer penalty on a potentially better shot...I find that features like this add to the randomness and unpredictability of the result...I think pot bunkers also add randomness/unpredictability to the result, although it is less clear to me that a nearly good shot will be penalized more than a bad one in a pot bunker...Perhaps those that play courses with pot bunkers all the time can correlate the degree of foozle with the resultant pot bunker lie, but on my trips to Scotland and Ireland, it just seemed random.

Also interesting is that there is certainly a movement in modern maintenance meld to try to graduate the penalty for the degree of poor shot...graduated rough at US Opens for example...which is just the opposite notion than these bunkers might provide.  In general, I think bunkers should be hazardous and so I have no problem with this type of design...as long as there is a limited number of them.

Bart

[Mike_Young]

Come on guys.  DR had no idea how most of the bunkers turned out on his 400 golf courses.  Look at his green complex drawings and you can see that the top view of the bunkers had some wave at sometimes but when you look at the cross sections it seems to me that most had a subtle back lip..however how was he to know how each farmer would build his bunkers on each of his courses.  I still say he was a macro designer not a micro thus most of what we see is the results of a supt or a club over time....
Now I have not had a seance with DR in quite sometime but a flat bottom bunker is a flat bottom bunker no matter whether the sides have waves or not.....therefore any bunker where the grass comes to the edge of flat sand will allow for the issues of a ball stopping against an edge e t front edge or back edge.  Perhaps this is one reason why properly flashed bunkers allow a ball to come to rest where one has a fair shot.....and then on the other side....a bunker is a hazard.....but any bunker with steep vertical grass baks on al sides intersecting with sand at the very bottom will have such a problem.....say it ain't so Donald......

[Kris Spence]

First a little history on the 17th green at Carolina.  The green was shifted about 20 yards to the right from its original location, therefore it was not restored.  I did this for a couple of reasons, (1) to add a slight bend to the hole to create more variety and strategic possibilities and (2) to move it closer to the 18th tees which were  moved during a previous project to add length.  I liked the location of the new 18 tee location so I wanted to close the proximity between the two.  As a result, this left a pie shaped area of open ground between 17 and 4 green, we chose to fill this area with irregular mounds to seperate and define the hole boundaries.  One of the things I like about the mounds is they tie in with the character of the greens and bunkers when looking across the propery and challenge recovery play on miss played shots into 4 fairway.

You will find one word used very often on Ross' field drawings and that is "irregular"  Ross seemed to prefer his green and bunker horizon lines to be irregular in profile.  This greenside bunker is one of 77 I believe on the course, I lengthened it to cross the center line of the hole to challenge the direct line and to encourage play up the left side which is away from the 18th hole on the right.  The long bunker on the par three 3rd hole that serves both as a greenside and cross bunker sort of inspired the #17 bunker as well as his orginal bunker drawings from Camden CC in SC.  

Ed, you will notice on most of the bunkers that the more aggressive a player attacks the hole, the more severe the penalty will become both on greenside and fairway bunkers.  I dont intentionally think about a ball kicking off the greenside face and getting trapped on the backside however I do realize the potential and certainly feel that it is appropriate in proper proportion.

I can tell you that the greenside bunker on #17 you show created alot of discussion before a single shot was ever played on the course.   Members expressed the same concerns you mention which in my opinion supports the purpose Ross would have intended for such a bunker, to clearly get the players attention, demand their respect and cause them to think and make decisions based on it presence.  Good stuff in my opinion!

[Will E]

Mike
I could have sworn I saw you at the last seance, maybe you missed it, I know I saw DR wearing at Fatass shirt though.
I forgot to ask Don about the bunkering at Seminole, and how come so many straight lines were used in his bunkering there.
He did let me know that he envisioned greenspeeds running around 13 and guys carrying the ball over 300 when he was over last week.

[Sean_A]

After all we have seen and experienced, I am dumbfounded that folks still want to pigeon hole Ross.  You lot will eventually figure out that Ross did more with less than any other architect who can claim to have designed 25% of what Ross cranked out. 

Ciao

[J_ Crisham]

Ed,  Did Ron Pritchard do the reno work here at carolina? The bunkering looks very similar to what we have at Beverly. We have what is termed the Chicago stlye rough that borders the bunkers. Makes one prefer to be in the sand versus some of the gnarly lies in the rough. Nice pictures of Carolina.                  Jack

[Chris Cupit]

Mike,

I understand there is to be another Ross seance at ACC pretty soon   Ahhh, club committees

[Chris Cupit]

And the view from behind reveals the progressive narrowing of the bunker plus the front and back walls...


The net effect of this design is that approach shots which are fractionally short will often carom off the front wall toward the raised back lip of the bunker.  I assume this is intentional.  If so, it is devilish.  Seems to me very much like an Americanized version of a pot bunker.  Any thoughts?

Ed

Not to start a violent pre-Christmas fight but does this bunker look at all Engh-ish to anyone familiar with Jim Engh's "muscle bunkers"?  I've seen photos of some of his work and have visited the Creek Club n GA and when I saw this pic, it reminded me of his bunkers.

[Bart Bradley]

Jack:

Kris Spence did the renovation..see his earlier post..


All:

I was once speaking with Ran when he told me that one of his favorite posts of all time was a Tom Macwood series of 10 pics of bunkering asking the board to name the architect...after many answers it turned out that all 10 pics were of Donald Ross...unfortunately the pictures are no longer visible on the thread...but here is his quote:

"And the answer to the visual quiz: Donald J. Ross

1.  Rhode Island (circa 1923)
2.  Minikahda (1927)
3.  Oakley (1909)
4.  Aronimink (1929)
5.  Minikahda (1927)
6.  Oakland Hills (1922)
7.  Oyster Harbors (1930)
8.  Crestmont, NJ (1930)
9.  Seminole (1929)
10. Lake Sunapee (1931)

This illustates the diversity of styles Ross incorporated into his work. There is a tendency to think of Ross having one classic style--relatively simple bunkers with grass faces, and unfortunately most restoration specialists restore his golf courses in that classic Ross style. Sometimes it is appropriate, other times it is not--as you can see. The homogenization of Ross is a trend that needs to be looked upon critically."

VERY, VERY interesting.

Bart

[J_ Crisham]

Chris,   I can assume it is advantageous to be a committee of one!  I'll have you know the 22 degree temp was perfect for pheasant hunting today. The 10 inches of snow was a bitch to march thru-wish I was in ATL about now. Happy holidays,    Jack

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I understand there is to be another Ross seance at ACC pretty soon   Ahhh, club committees

Chris,
Since I am considered ignurnt of DR by the committees of which you speak I have been left from any seances......but to listen from the outside I would say they must have been, shall we say, flamboyant seances...of course right now the half that opposes has got things pretty much in the air.....Ahhhh, club committees

[Mark Bourgeois]

My understanding of the bunker work Spence did at Mimosa Hills was based on a photographic record.  I think Ross called these sinews "Bull's Noses."

I also understand that the Michael Fay considers MH one of the best-preserved Ross courses.  Here are a few pics of the bunkers down the road from Charlotte:









Mark

[BCrosby]

Chris - I too see a lot of Engh.

Bart - I remember Tom Mac's wonderful thread quite well. I even remember most of the pictures.

To say that the bunker restorations don't look like Ross is not to say that all Ross bunkers look alike.

My real point is that Spence's bunkers look like they were done by someone in 2006 or so. Which I don't think is the look he was trying to achieve. It's a very attractive look, btw. But if someone hadn't told me it was a Ross course in the Carolina's, I might not have guessed it.

Bob

[Kalen Braley]

I'll 3rd that...those bunkers look very Enghish

[Dunlop_White]

You can call them waves or eye candy. Most in the business call them spines and muscle.  Ron Prichard's interpretation of Ross is even bolder and more "irregular" than this, especially with either blue grass or fescue facades. Believe it or not, Bermuda softens it's appearance a bit. This is not unusual. Most old-time photos of Ross bunkers reveal this "ripple" effect. Pics of Inverness or Salem come to mind.

In contrast, Ross's bunkers at Pinehurst all had raised sand-flashed faces....another way Ross would break up the horizon line on flat stretches of property.