[Ian Andrew]

I'm enjoying this thread - thank you to all for the contributions and comments - this is a fine example of why I come here.

[TEPaul]

"I would interpret the article differently. The turf walls or dykes I took to be the face of the bunkers and the "hazards" the sand itself."


Niall:

I don't think so, or not exactly. There's no question that the return correspondence to Macdonald's inquiry is somewhat sketchy as to the exact definition of certain things or particular areas of certain thinks like bunkers. On the one hand, it says that grass is not a hazard unless it is inside the limits of a bunker which is one of the definitions (Def. 6) of a "Hazard."

That is an interesting interpretation because for a number of years now grass covered ground within a bunker is not considered to be part of the hazard (bunker). In the last few years they have also specified that balls within the revetted face of a bunker is not in the hazard (bunker).

There is another most interesting part of that correspondence to Macdonald that explains the way things were in the Rules of Golf back then. Notice what it says about the essential lattitude of "local rules."

Essentially the R&A itself was prevailed upon (in 1897) to become the universal authority on the Rules of Golf simply to try to unify into a single code the massive amounts of local rules various golf clubs had been using pretty much unique to themselves club by club.

There is no question that over the years the Rules of Golf as such has in many ways affected and driven many things to do with golf course architecture itself.

One interesting example of that in the early days (including during that correspondence) is the definition of what constituted (within the Rules) the putting green! When we understand what that early definition actually was and said we can probably see it was that way because it was probably nearly impossible back then to tell the difference between a green and the grass that surrounded it!

[Niall C]

Tom,

I wasn't thinking of the exact interpretation of what constitutes a hazard either then or now but was thinking of it more of how it appeared. For me the clue to what is being described in the Muirfield article is the use of the phrases "turf wall" and "turf dykes". As i'm sure you know the word dyke has several meanings but in Scotland at any rate it means a wall made out of irregular stones with the flattish side of the stone mainly lying face down. That to me is a pretty good copy of the face of a revetted bunker.

The article that Bryan posted is interesting because having just ploughed through about a decades worth of articles from the Glasgow Evening Times from the 1890's it is clear we are not just talking about the evolution of golf course architecture but also the evolution of the terminology. In quite a few of these articles "bunker" is interchangeable with "hazard" and is used to describe all sorts of hazards including walls, trees etc. One word that has yet to come up is the word "fairway". Why ? Fairly logical if you think about it, this was the era of primitive horse drawn mowers which only a few courses may have had. The rest would give the local farmer grazing rights to help keep the grass down. Imagine standing on the tee and looking at an open field with no "correct" or at least defined way to go. Sounds to me thats as strategic as you can get.

Going back to the the picture of Hell bunker, the face looks pretty degraded in part and suggests to me that it would have been there a number of years before. If I was a betting man I would say revetted bunkering was around along time before.

Niall

[TEPaul]

"The article that Bryan posted is interesting because having just ploughed through about a decades worth of articles from the Glasgow Evening Times from the 1890's it is clear we are not just talking about the evolution of golf course architecture but also the evolution of the terminology."

Niall:

Terminology and the evolution of it in golf and architecture and PARTICULARLY in the Rules of Golf is extremely important and certainly was back then. I doubt Macdonald would have written that letter to the R&A Rules Committee if it wasn't important and certainly pretty hazy back then as to what some words and terms meant, particularly in a Rules of Golf context which what that correspondence was all about and after.


"In quite a few of these articles "bunker" is interchangeable with "hazard" and is used to describe all sorts of hazards including walls, trees etc."


One of the problems you can see in that correspondence (and is still true of its understading amongst some golfers today) is that all bunkers are hazards but not all hazards are bunkers. Of course I'm only speaking here in the context of the Rules of Golf.

It seems in that correspondence that included Macdonald, perhaps Park and the R&A Rules Committee they were all having a bit of a problem getting on the same page not about what a "Hazard" was but what-all the definition of a "bunker" was or should be. To be honest with you that is still somewhat of a problem today! 

 

"One word that has yet to come up is the word "fairway". Why ? Fairly logical if you think about it, this was the era of primitive horse drawn mowers which only a few courses may have had. The rest would give the local farmer grazing rights to help keep the grass down. Imagine standing on the tee and looking at an open field with no "correct" or at least defined way to go. Sounds to me thats as strategic as you can get."


First of all, the term "fairway" has never been used in the Rules of Golf. It has obviously been used in golf and architectural terminology, particularly in the 20th century but back in that day it was usually called "Fairgreen" (and way before that "swards") which also included the putting green and the reason was back then it was pretty hard to tell where one ended and the other began and that's obviously why the DEFINITION in the Rules of Golf back then actually measured the putting green itself as 20 yards from the pin excepting any hazards within that 20 yard dimension.

[Tom_Doak]

Bryan Izatt:

Years ago when I was in Australia, Michael Clayton told me that his partner, Bruce Grant, who had worked in Melbourne, "doesn't believe there should be any sand in bunkers anyway."  Bruce had been an assistant at Royal Melbourne, and back then they had never added sand to the bunkers ... they were just the native sandy loam which the whole course is built from.

Tim N:

Years ago when we were starting High Pointe, we considered sod-wall bunkers briefly, and I mentioned to my superintendent and associate Tom Mead that most of the examples I'd seen in the USA rotted away much more quickly than in Scotland.  He told me that probably had a lot to do with their using fescue sod overseas ... that there was something about the fescue that meant it wouldn't decompose as quickly as would bluegrass.  I never quite understood what that was; maybe someone here with a turf and soils background can explain it.

[JC Urbina]

Gents

I am wandering if it is as simple as form vs function.  I believe that many decisions that are made on a daily basis concerning design sometimes have to do with function.  Solving problems during the design and construction of a golf course have a bigger role in the outcome of the finished product.
 In many cases after the course has matured the greens keeper now becomes the keeper of the design and continues on the function side of the design making features manageable. 

I don't discount the notion as described by all who have commented.

  I am just trying to find out the purpose of the Sod Wall Bunker. 

 Intended Penal consequences in the early ages of golf design   OR
Spin off of funtionality in the maintenance of a golf course.

[RJ_Daley]

From the few numbers of photos I have seen of the 1880s-1920s era, I'd have to say that only rarely were actual revetted sod wall bunkers built out of necessity, and I don't believe they were ever intended as a specific design concept by the architect or golf designer layout men, like old Tom or some of the others who laid out courses, rather than architecturally planned and built them.  The only two photos I referred to above, found in the "scrap book of old Tom Morris" were that #4 hole at Prestwick and "Hell" at TOC.  I believe they were only revetted by the greenkeeper because that was a method of trying to stabilize the erosion in those two unusually large bunker.  And, the RR ties were the other method.  I think they just made do with what the situation presented to them, without any intent that a revetted wall of a bunker was a purposefully planned method from the start.  It was only a method and reaction to the vast size of the bunker and stop the erosion, IMHO.  In that same book where there are photos of "the Road Hole #17, clearly there are no revetted bunker walls in the 1880-1900 photos.  So, TRH bunker must not have needed the stabilization procedure being located as it was next to the green, and not so much in the vast wind swept open area.  It wasn't until years later that the revetted style was more formalized, it seems to me.  Then it seems it became all the rage because they looked interesting, militaristic and perhaps they thought it was more durable until they crumbled sooner than they originally thought.  Then, it came down to preference.  At least that is what makes sense to me...

[James Bennett]

Slightly different line of thought, but continuing the 'this is how they could build sucjh a bunker at that time' trend.

What about the method that Mackenzie used at Moortown (and others), where large mounds of rocks were used to raise a bunker, eg the cuurent #12 at Moortown, rhs about 80 yards from the green.  Why did he do it?  Presumably because the rocks were available nearby, and perhaps he didn't want to pay to have it cleared.  And, perhaps he wanted some visibility (the bunker is downhill and slightly blind otherwise).  And perhaps he wanted to be 'in the face and mind' of the golfer. 

The rocks were a frugal but effective solution.  It seems they might also have been a solution with hell bunker.  Alas, I have no idea whether Mackenzie wanted a more penal hazard (through the high lip) or not.  So I may not have advanced the discussion here.

Necessity is the initial mother of invention.  Inventions can be copied, but that comes later. 

James B

[Bryan Izatt]

Gents

.............................

  I am just trying to find out the purpose of the Sod Wall Bunker. 

 Intended Penal consequences in the early ages of golf design   OR
Spin off of funtionality in the maintenance of a golf course.

I would have to guess that it was originally a way to stabilize bunker faces on sandy soils.  The fact that it provided a possible penal result was perhaps an unintended but beneficial side benefit.  The following picture from Tony Ristola seems to conclude the same about stabilization.  It'd be real hard not to think that the "designer" of this bunker recognized at the time, that by installing a bunker in that height of bank with vertical walls, that he was building a very penal hazard.  In the olden days: real men; real hazards. 

[Lyne Morrison]

Bryan - that's a wonderful image isn't it - I was looking at it today also in Robert Hunters, The Links.

Jim, no further detail on sod walls to offer but my vote is with the maintenance theory. You can imagine the conversation where for some reason or other an interested greenkeeper volunteered  '... aye, but if we were to stack them on top of each other....'

I'm also guessing the more casual placement of sleepers shown towards the top of the bunker on this lovely postcard of Macrihanish would have been a precursor to the 'sophisticated' sleeper stabilisation shown in your image above (with thanks to Brian Ewan who posted this and others some months ago).

As an aside - these images - when contrasted with the the island green at Coeur d'Alene are a revealing (and somewhat frightening) example of the path travelled in course design over the past century.

Cheers - Lyne

[Niall C]

I would also go with the maintainance first (probably Old Course) followed by design theory. Maintainance first followed by design on courses imitating the Old Course or taking lessons learned from helping to maintain the Old Course.

Since this thread started I've swapped a couple of emails with Melvyn and he is of the view that revetting first happened at the Old Course in the 1870's by way of maintaining the bunkers. As ever getting the proof is the problem.

Incidentally he put me right on turf walls or dykes. These really did exist although he thinks they were more a feature of the early 1900's rather than late 1800's (Old Tom's designs at Tarland, Aberdeenshire in 1903 and Pwllheli, Wales in 1900) That said, my money is still on what was described in the Muirfield article being a crude form of revetted bunker.

Niall

[Stephen Britton]

Here are some before and after photos of Leo Barber's work at Paraparaumu Beach Golf Club.

The process..










The finished product...


Before...


After...


Before...


After...

[TEPaul]

JC:

I go along with the idea that with these kinds of bunker face constructions (both sleepers and sod wall revetting), it was probably just form following function in a maintenance or structural preservation sense first and foremost rather than first and foremost a style or design philosophy thing.

As far as such a thing as those vertical sleepered faces being more penal, I tend to feel that was sort of an unintended consequence which led architects, designers and mainteance people to eventually look for ways to minimze that extreme penality or probably actual danger to the golfer!

[Lyne Morrison]

Having given more thought to this subject I'm thinking that there must have been a reason to identify the bunker face as being worthy of preservation - therefore the impact of the bunker on play must have been recognised. An awareness or acknowledgement of the strategic influence perhaps came first - then the desire to preserve this.

"Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored" John Low, Concerning Golf, 1903.

Cheers - L

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

I'm not sure you can separate "maintenance function" and "playability" in those early days, when you consider that the early greenkeeping duties fell to the golf professionals.  But, I would agree with Niall that it was first a practical matter.  Nearly everything in Scotland is about practicality.

In the past 20-30 years, it's certainly gone over to the penal side.  Every time I go back to Scotland they have rebuilt the sod wall faces a bit higher and a bit steeper.  I think it's their way of overreacting to technology's impact on the game ... their alternative to adding new tees.  But I don't like it any better ... the construction work looks less and less natural when the bunker face goes all the way to the top of the little contour into which the bunker is built.

[TEPaul]

TomD and JC:

Give us your analysis of those before and after photos Stephen Britton posted on Reply #36.

It seems to me those ultra clean lines of the "after" photos compared to the "before" photos might also have to do with modern form follows function in a modern maintenance sense. Just looked at how trashed all the grass is surrounding those bunkers. Not on the bunker faces but all around them particularly just outside them on the ramped up near periphery. What's the story there?

It looks to me like those "after" bunkers would be a total snap to mow around compared to those ramped up surrounds outside the bunker faces in the "before" photos.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks for those pictures of Paraparaumu, Stephen.  That looks exactly as I remember sod wall bunkers being renewed over here in Scotland.  Looks like a tremendous improvement too.

Rich

[Sean_A]

I am assuming this sort of work is done for practical reasons to slow down erosion.  I don't see how the newer version of this bunkering looks any better than the old.  In fact, I rather like how that nose to the left of the right bunker and how the sand was lower to the face. 



Ciao

[Tony Ristola]

Probably not the first, but a photo with Ben Sayers of the bunker fronting Redan had wood planks to the front, sod to the left and the back was ragged.

.

[Rich Goodale]

I am assuming this sort of work is done for practical reasons to slow down erosion.  I don't see how the newer version of this bunkering looks any better than the old.  In fact, I rather like how that nose to the left of the right bunker and how the sand was lower to the face. 



Ciao

Sean

That "nose" and the sand "lower to the face" do nothing for me.  What do they do for you?

Rich

[Sean_A]

I am assuming this sort of work is done for practical reasons to slow down erosion.  I don't see how the newer version of this bunkering looks any better than the old.  In fact, I rather like how that nose to the left of the right bunker and how the sand was lower to the face. 



Ciao

Sean

That "nose" and the sand "lower to the face" do nothing for me.  What do they do for you?

Rich

Rich

I like the nose look especially if bunkers are behind it.  I can't tell in this pic, but often times the nose will hide the next bunker which throws doubt on how much of a problem the hazards are.  I spose I like doubt generated around my hazards.  The scruffier bunkers also match the scruffier looking rough.  I spose I like my courses a bit scruffy.  But I can understand the need for sod walls if that bunker starts to eat into the green.


Ciao

[JC Urbina]

Tom P
The bunkers that have been revetted have a very clean look.
From the greens keepers side it appears to have made the maintenance of the bunkers a little easier.

 Did the sod wall bunker make the recovery shot more difficult?  I am not sure.

 That's the point of the question. 

Was the recovery supposed to be 1 stroke harder then the original designers intent.  Or did the sod wall bunker actually make it much easier then what the before the before picture represented?

[Sean_A]

Tom P
The bunkers that have been revetted have a very clean look.
From the greens keepers side it appears to have made the maintenance of the bunkers a little easier.

 Did the sod wall bunker make the recovery shot more difficult?  I am not sure.

 That's the point of the question. 

Was the recovery supposed to be 1 stroke harder then the original designers intent.  Or did the sod wall bunker actually make it much easier then what the before the before picture represented?

JC

Its hard to tell from looking at the pix.  It does seem as though the revetted walls are more vertical and if this is the case I would say they are more difficult to get out of and the chances of pulling a horrid lie are higher. 

Yours is an interesting question.  Some sod wall bunkers were just redone at my club and for a few bunkers the bottoms were raised to make recovery a bit easier.  I am not sure why those bunkers were selected as there are other deeper bunkers (one being far deeper on the left side of the green!) about the course.  Perhaps they felt good players weren't going at flags near these bunkers because they knew the penalty could be quite severe.  Maybe the balance of temptation and safe play tipped too much toward safe play.  Whatever the case, those bunkers are important to the strategy of the hole because the green nearest those bunkers is the hardest to putt on so guys bailing left are left with a nasty two putt.

Ciao

[Neil_Crafter]

Alex Russell, Paraparaumu's architect knew that he had a problem with keeping sand in the bunkers there, and accordingly the bunkers were a lot smaller than any he did on his courses at home here in Australia. Whether he would have been a fan of sod-stacked pots is another thing!

Here in Adelaide we did a whole course redevelopment at Glenelg with sod faced bunkers. The turf used is couch (bermudagrass) and it's best when the sods are cut in-situ from a harvest site on the course with plenty of depth, usually one inch or so thick. We have used nothing in the way of a membrane behind the wall and there is no specific irrigation for the faces. Some of the bunkers have now reached their 10th anniversary and are still going strong, while others are deteriorating a bit more rapidly and will need rebuilding soon. I think the solar orientation of the face has a lot to do with their stability long term.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()