The relationship between putting surfaces/footpads and surrounding bunkers

[Patrick_Mucci]

One of the elements I found intriquing at Fenway was the relationship between the putting surfaces and the adjacent bunkers.

Most of the bunkers were VERY, VERY close to the putting surface.

Most of the bunkers had VERY STEEP slopes from the putting surface to the bunker.

Most of the bunkers were VERY DEEP.

Some of the internal contours in the putting surfaces directed/fed balls to the flanks of the putting surface and down into the bunkers.

This made perimeter hole locations VERY dangerous.

Short sided misses made for difficult recoveries and long sided misses also had difficult recoveries, since, a recovery hit a little too boldly would be fed back down into the short side bunker.

It also made putting to those hole locations more challenging.

It didn't matter if the approach shot was a 3-wood or Lob-wedge, the configuration appeared to be systemic, which placed a premium on the approach and back to the drive.

As I viewed this arrangement, it struck me that so many courses use maintainance practices to prevent this scenario.
That, as a concession to fairness, or simply to make the course easier for the broader spectrum of golfer, this relationship between putting surface, surrounds and bunkers has suffered a disconnect.

Cries of, "it's not fair, my ball was on the green only 10 feet from the hole and then it went down into the bunker and I ___bogied the hole" seem to cajole and convince Boards and Green committees to avoid or prevent this relationship from becoming functional.

Yet, I loved it.

There was nothing deceptive or sneaky about it.
You could see everything from your approach area.

I realize that this configuration may be a challenge for modern, riding maintainance equipment.
And, I realize that this configuration may be a challenge on/at rainy sites, but, it seems to be easily accomodated in the Northeast  

All too often we see bunkers offset from the greens, leaving a gap or safety net of rough between the green and the bunker.
All too often we see mini-berms that prevent balls from rolling into the bunkers.
Even the D.A. at P.V. was altered to prevent balls from rolling off the green and down into the bunker.

Have golfers become a culture of wimps ?

Have golfer's complaints dramatically altered maintainance practices and architecture at local clubs ?

Why aren't there more features that REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT THOUGHT, before executing a shot ?

When observing this feature I thought about how applicable this feature was to ABC's introduction to their "Wide World of Sports" show, "… the thrill of victory… and the agony of defeat… the human drama of athletic competition…"

This feature was a perfect example of the drama of golf, how a ball so close to either victory or defeat, could bring thrills or agony to the golfer as he pursued his scoring journey on the golf course.

Isn't it the dramatic, rather than the bland features which inspire us ?
And.... torture us ?

Why has modern day golf strayed from this arrangement ?

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/fenway-golf-club

P.S.  Did I mention false fronts that feed into the fairway and bunkers ?

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

That is very typical of how Tilly designed his green complexes and also why in this day of nothing on the ground that the primary importance he assigned in design to the green entrances even before finalizing the green complexes have left putting surfaces that both confound and amaze.

Take a careful look at photographs taken at many of the courses that Tilly both designed and where he oversaw the construction and you will see these features prominent. That Gil brought them back is one of the reasons why his restoration work was so well done...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip,

I think the ODA's had roots closer to the U.K. and penal golf, hence, it seems that their work is more reflective and/or representative of more difficult features, such as the ones I've described above.

I don't think those designers gave credence to the "voices of the membership" when it came to difficulty.
In their time the game was a harsher game more often contested at match play.

I think the trend toward medal play has affected evolving architecture.

I wonder, if golf was solely contested at Match play, how much more interesting the architecture might be ?

[Charlie Goerges]

I wonder, if golf was solely contested at Match play, how much more interesting the architecture might be ?

A LOT more interesting. The more I think about it, the more I think the card and pencil are the bane of (what should be) a fun game.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I've only played Fenway once, and it's been a few years.  I loved the golf course.  But, your description brought up a question I can't remember ... do the greens surface drain INTO those bunkers which defend them so closely?  So the bunkers get washed out?

I'm sure it has rained enough in the NYC area recently, that you could tell if the bunkers had suffered recent washouts.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

On the kinds of greens that you are describing, a lot of the hummocks between the putting surface and the sand have raised up dramatically over the years from sand being blasted up there. And it goes right out in to the putting surface, altering drainage routes and playing contours.

I have found areas on old greens where you have over two feet of sand buildup. And guess what - this new white sand, that is all the rage, builds up on green banks and bunker hummocks at two or three times the rate as the old traditional mason sands did, so this problem is only going to get worse on the older greens.

One thing is for sure, a lot of older greens are eventually going to have to be rebuilt completely, to get back down to those original contours that used to feed the hazards, but now repel them.

[Niall C]

Patrick

I do like greens that feed the ball either to the side or into a bunker but only as long as you can read the movement when playing the shot. There is nothing more frustrating than playing a shot in the way you want only to see your ball run off on a direction because of a contour you can't read from your approach. If you can reasonably read that a ball landing on the green is likely to run one way or the other then thats fine, you make a judgement accordingly. If you can't read it then its pot luck. I hate to use the word fairness but this game is bloody hard enough without some architect having a laugh at my expense (rant over).

Niall

[D_Malley]

Many older golf courses could better maintain their green surrounds. 
my course would be much more interesting if the approaches were cut like this.
particularily when it is firm.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/34384781@N08/3844526475/" title="MCC_1 by malleydj, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3576/3844526475_cf3c6ab64a.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="MCC_1" /></a>

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I've only played Fenway once, and it's been a few years.  I loved the golf course. 
But, your description brought up a question I can't remember ... do the greens surface drain INTO those bunkers which defend them so closely?  So the bunkers get washed out?

Tom Doak,

On the front nine every green sloped noticably from back to front.  On the back nine the slopes on some of the greens weren't quite as steep, hence, surface water was predominantly directed to the fronts of the green where NO bunkers existed, save for the 8th hole.

While I didn't examine every bunker at every green, I noticed the following on some of the greens.
Where the putting surface sloped to the flanking bunker, the face of that bunker was steep and it was grassed, with the floor of the bunker flat or rising slightly up to the grass face.

Interestingly, on some greens where the feeding feature existed, the putting surface of the feeeding feature was cleverly seperated from the rest of the putting surface by in internal contour/ridge.  The one that sticks in my mind was diagonally oriented.
In other words, if we were looking at a green from the approach, and the left flanking bunker was being fed by the left side of the green, an internal berm/ridge existed.  It started at about 11 o'clock and was oriented toward 5 o'clock.  This ridge was like an angled back stop, deflecting  balls hit to its left side, further left and down toward the adjacent bunker.  I thought about how neat that feature was because it served as a seperate function within the green.   Then I realized that it served a second function, that of directing surface water away from the flanking bunker, toward the center of the green and down to the front of the green.

It's quite a clever feature in its dual role.

This feature limited the amount of surface water that would flow toward and into the bunker, while preserving its function when interacting with golf balls.

I'm sure it has rained enough in the NYC area recently, that you could tell if the bunkers had suffered recent washouts.

None of the bunkers that I looked at showed signs of washouts, however, I didn't examine every bunker.

The next time I visit Fenway, I'll examine all the greenside bunkers and the putting surfaces adjacent to them.

It' really a neat golf course with a nice blend of short and long holes.

I can see golfers going back and forth, from one greenside bunker to the next on the short, narrow 15th.
With the green a narrow 2,500 sq/ft, it's a refreshing change of pace from almost every other golf hole we usually see.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

On the kinds of greens that you are describing, a lot of the hummocks between the putting surface and the sand have raised up dramatically over the years from sand being blasted up there. And it goes right out in to the putting surface, altering drainage routes and playing contours.

Bradley,

I don't think that typically happens at Fenway.

The bunkers are SO DEEP, with their high steep slopes, that I'd be surprised if any meaningful quantity of sand finds its way onto the putting surfaces.

This isn't a golf course that opened recently, it's been there for 85 years, yet it seems that the putting surfaces don't have any unusual contours at their flanks.  And, they're relatively small greens.

I commented, to the fellows I was playing with, that bunker depth didn't matter if you were approaching with a wedge or 3-wood, they were deep.  A perfect example is the 5th hole, a 480 yard par 4 slightly uphill to a pronounced back to front two tiered putting surface with some contour.  The flanking bunkers were ferocious, deep with steep sides.

With the exception of the 8th hole, you can run the ball up on every green, but, don't go to the flanks.

In fact, the course almost begs or demands that you play on the short side of the green.
However, with mid to back hole locations, 3-6 three putts would seem the norm.

I have found areas on old greens where you have over two feet of sand buildup. And guess what - this new white sand, that is all the rage, builds up on green banks and bunker hummocks at two or three times the rate as the old traditional mason sands did, so this problem is only going to get worse on the older greens.

It's not a problem at Fenway.

One thing is for sure, a lot of older greens are eventually going to have to be rebuilt completely, to get back down to those original contours that used to feed the hazards, but now repel them.

I don't think Fenway's greens are going to have to be rebuilt in this century.

The genius of the design is in the steep slope that accomodates the run-off and the great depth of the bunkers.

On my most recent round, I hit it in three bunkers.
# 1 when I tried to drive the green and landed in the right flanking bunker.
# 6 the 240+ uphill par 3 when I mishit my 3-wood and ground deflected/fed my ball into the front left bunker
# 11 the 200+ sharply uphill par 3 when I flushed and drew/hooked my 2-iron.

Not all bunkers have the feeding feature from the putting surface.
However, many, if not most, seem to be fed by the land at selected points along the green flank.

This configuration is quite different from that at Seminole where the greens and adjacent are crowned (convex), leading down to concave bunkers.

There, that configution takes a ball 10-20 yards away from the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I do like greens that feed the ball either to the side or into a bunker but only as long as you can read the movement when playing the shot.


Niall,

My eyes aren't that good.
I can't see green contours from 110 yards let alone 200+ yards.
I think common sense dictates that fooling with the flanks of a green is fraught with danger, whether the culprit is the wind, a push or pull, the spin of the ball, flight of the ball or contour of the green, you takes your chances when you get too bold.

I've always prefered to hit toward the center and work the ball to the appropriate side.
Granted, that task used to be easier prior to modern day equipment (1985+)

There is nothing more frustrating than playing a shot in the way you want only to see your ball run off on a direction because of a contour you can't read from your approach.

I understand, but, if you're going to challenge the flanks of the green, you have to expect that, especially on greens with pronounced back to front slope, with contour.

If you can reasonably read that a ball landing on the green is likely to run one way or the other then thats fine, you make a judgement accordingly.
If you can't read it then its pot luck. I hate to use the word fairness but this game is bloody hard enough without some architect having a laugh at my expense (rant over).

That's where we disagree.
Part of the architect's job is to lure us and punish us.
Sometimes his effort is blatant, other times it's more subtle.
I like the concept of deception and that of punishing greed.

I don't know how well you play, but, I'd guess that the last thing you would worry about at Fenway was being suckered by a flanking feeding feature.

Let me list my approach clubs into every hole

1   par 4   Sand wedge (from greenside bunker)
2   par 4   3 wood
3   par 5   Sand wedge
4   par 3   6-iron
5   par 4   3-wood
6   par 3   3-wood
7   par 4   9-iron
8   par 4   Sand wedge
9   par 4   8-iron
10 par 4   3-wood
11 par 3   2-iron
12 par 4   2-iron
13 par 4   4-iron
14 par 4   6-iron
15 par 4   3-iron (choked and punched from 100 yards)
16 par 4   8-iron
17 par 3   4-iron
18 par 5   7-iron (choked and punched from 100 yards)

With DEEP, STEEP bunkers would you flirt with the flanks of any of those greens ?

Look at the pictures in Ran's write up

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/fenway-golf-club

[Mark_Fine]

If a ball feeds into a bunker, so will water - there is no debate on this issue. 

Bradley, I hear what you are saying about sand buildup and don't disagree but I also cringe when you suggest rebuilding old greens to restore original contours.  Doing so and you are effecting just building a new green.  Also, features that repel balls can cause them to feed as well.  It goes both ways. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

It may not be a question of original design that keeps most bunkers further from the green than you saw at Fenway.  There is the natural tendency of greens to shrink as each mowing pass makes sure not to scalp the fringe by staying ever so slightly inside the green edge, and maybe Fenway is one of the few courses that has restored their greens back out to their natural edge?

Many greenside bunkers were later re-designed at least 6' from the green edge to accomodate turning of riding greens mowers.  Or, those built closer were moved out when riding mowers became popular.

I rarely recall Tillie greens draining into the bunkers, but I don't know how much original Tillie I have seen.  I don't think they do at Winged Foot, for example.  In fact, the old World Atlas of Golf had a contour map of one of the greens there, and it showed it draining almost completely back to front, as you say the greens at Fenway are.  That leads to the question of whether Fenway is typical Tillie, or if they might have gotten a little of the Pinehurst effect of dragging topdressing in circles, or some other effect to direct some water into the bunkers?

I recall being told I didn't get a particular project because of an interview discussion about how far I place bunkers from the edge of the green.  A high end gca answered in his interview that he placed bunkers within 2' of the putting surface to ensure that greens would ALWAYS be hand mowed.  I suggested it was a point of discussion in the design process - keeping them as close as 2' would require greens to forever be hand mowed, but moving them out to 6-8' feet would allow occaisional or, in times of economic stress, consistent machine mowing.  That, as it turns out, was the wrong answer for that particular interview........

Perhaps my answer was influenced by my two summers working maintenance at an older Chicago area course.  I managed to put both a riding mower (with me on it!) and a walk mower into bunkers before learning how to handle them.  I also managed, during a demonstration for my former Illini turf student classmates (I got the job via taking that class to supplement my LA degree) to lose control of a walking mower at the nearby U of I turf plots, and send it right through a fence....compared to regular lawn mowers, there was an extra step to engaging the reel mowers, and I managed to engage the travel gear before instead of after engaging the blades, surprising myself in the process!

As a result, I did NOT sign up for turf management II in the next fall semester.....

I am just guessing, so no need for anyone to jump me on this one!

[Mark_Fine]

"Roll-offs" as I sometimes call them, are common on older golf courses.  You see them alot of Tillie designs, Flynn designs, Ross courses and so on.  The majority of the green on their courses does not drain toward these areas but water (and your golf ball) will run off if you are close to the edge.  Sometimes they feed toward bunkers but most times just to the surrounds. Jeff's point about shrinking is very true and it includes the hazards that often recede away from the fillpad.  Features tend to separate and often a big part of restoration is bringing everything back out to where it once was.  This ususally means making the greens larger and tightening up the hazards (back toward the green surface).  This separation is almost always a function of maintenance. 

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

Why would a greenside bunker recede from the green?  I don't think I've ever seen that on the older courses we've worked on.

I understand very well why the green would shrink, but I can't think of a maintenance reason for the bunker to slide away from the green.  I've noticed many instances where the greenside bunkers shrink lengthwise (they used to come to the front of the green, but now don't start until 5-10 feet later), and some where the bunkers crept closer to the green, because of constant edging of bermudagrass.

Also, Mark, it IS possible for contours to get balls rolling off into bunkers without drainage going off into bunkers.  All you need is a strong contour inside the green that will get a ball moving sideways toward the edge, combined with a very slight rise at the edge of the green which will keep the water out but not be strong enough to stop the ball from rolling.

Patrick:

Thanks for your detailed description of the greens contours in relation to the bunkers.  It sounds like only a few feet of green slide away into the bunkers, minimizing the potential for erosion.  But, as Jeff said, it's got to be monitored carefully or this will change over time, because of variations caused by topdressing.  In fact, it's possible that topdressing has caused this edge condition ... if the greens were smaller 15 years ago and they were only topdressing the green surfaces, and then Gil came in and expanded the greens back to their original size, that would have created some rolloffs that may not have been there to begin with.

[Niall C]

Patrick

Bloody hell , a 2 iron ! I used one once, I think it was to lean on.

With regards to architects deceiving the golfer, I don't think giving a bum steer on direction of contour works for me. Giving some conflicting info on distance is fair enough as it challenges the golfer to play a shot where the perception is different to the hard data. Thats just mind games. Deliberately disguising contours so they can't be read is worse than having hidden hazards.

Having said all that, if I am approaching from 180 to 200 yards I reckon I'm going to hit the green no more than once or twice in the normal round so my aim is likely to be focused on middle or left or right half of the green. I'm simply not expecting to hit the ball with any more accurancy than that so if, for instance, I successfully hit the left half of the green expecting the ball to break right to the pin and the ball went in the opposite direction I would be slightly peeved to say the least.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

If a ball feeds into a bunker, so will water - there is no debate on this issue. 

Except that the clever contouring of the putting surface will drastically limit the amount of water so directed.

Bradley, I hear what you are saying about sand buildup and don't disagree but I also cringe when you suggest rebuilding old greens to restore original contours. 

Doing so and you are effecting just building a new green.  Also, features that repel balls can cause them to feed as well.  It goes both ways. 


Mark, but there's a more important issue.

How do you know that the contours were changed solely by sand splash and not top-dressing, and how do you know the extend of each ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

It may not be a question of original design that keeps most bunkers further from the green than you saw at Fenway.  There is the natural tendency of greens to shrink as each mowing pass makes sure not to scalp the fringe by staying ever so slightly inside the green edge, and maybe Fenway is one of the few courses that has restored their greens back out to their natural edge?

Jeff, there's no doubt that green shrinkage has produced a bit of a disconnect, and that riding equipment might be responsible for not returning greens to their original footpad or configuration, but, on the limited new courses I've seen, it seems rare today that many have steep, deep bunker immediately adjacent to the putting surfaces.

Many greenside bunkers were later re-designed at least 6' from the green edge to accomodate turning of riding greens mowers.  Or, those built closer were moved out when riding mowers became popular.

Agreed, form followed function in those instances.

I rarely recall Tillie greens draining into the bunkers, but I don't know how much original Tillie I have seen.  I don't think they do at Winged Foot, for example.  In fact, the old World Atlas of Golf had a contour map of one of the greens there, and it showed it draining almost completely back to front, as you say the greens at Fenway are. 

The next time I visit Shackamaxon, Ridgewood, Suburban, Alpine and other courses by AWT I'll look at that.
Other than on par 3's and short par 4's I don't recall that many holes with fronting bunkers.
Most that I can recollect are open in the front, allowing for run-ons and water run-off.

That leads to the question of whether Fenway is typical Tillie, or if they might have gotten a little of the Pinehurst effect of dragging topdressing in circles, or some other effect to direct some water into the bunkers?

Without further study I'd have to defer to the AWT experts on that one.

I recall being told I didn't get a particular project because of an interview discussion about how far I place bunkers from the edge of the green. 
A high end gca answered in his interview that he placed bunkers within 2' of the putting surface to ensure that greens would ALWAYS be hand mowed.  I suggested it was a point of discussion in the design process - keeping them as close as 2' would require greens to forever be hand mowed, but moving them out to 6-8' feet would allow occaisional or, in times of economic stress, consistent machine mowing.  That, as it turns out, was the wrong answer for that particular interview........

I wonder if that's a question of "design" or "culture" ?

Perhaps my answer was influenced by my two summers working maintenance at an older Chicago area course.  I managed to put both a riding mower (with me on it!) and a walk mower into bunkers before learning how to handle them.  I also managed, during a demonstration for my former Illini turf student classmates (I got the job via taking that class to supplement my LA degree) to lose control of a walking mower at the nearby U of I turf plots, and send it right through a fence....compared to regular lawn mowers, there was an extra step to engaging the reel mowers, and I managed to engage the travel gear before instead of after engaging the blades, surprising myself in the process!


With small greens, I've always been an advocate for walking mowers.

As a result, I did NOT sign up for turf management II in the next fall semester.....

I am just guessing, so no need for anyone to jump me on this one!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Thanks for your detailed description of the greens contours in relation to the bunkers.  It sounds like only a few feet of green slide away into the bunkers, minimizing the potential for erosion.  But, as Jeff said, it's got to be monitored carefully or this will change over time, because of variations caused by topdressing.  

In fact, it's possible that topdressing has caused this edge condition ... if the greens were smaller 15 years ago and they were only topdressing the green surfaces, and then Gil came in and expanded the greens back to their original size, that would have created some rolloffs that may not have been there to begin with.

I'd agree, EXCEPT for one factor, the functional, diagonal berm/ridge/contour that extends well into the green.

That's not a product of top-dressing and/or sand splash, that's an integral part of the design of the putting surface, one that allows higher surface water to be deflected and drain to the front of the green while presenting/providing the slope that will direct the ball off the green.

Your point about a feature deflecting and directing a ball toward the edge of the green, absent much in the way of slope is a good one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Bloody hell , a 2 iron ! I used one once, I think it was to lean on.

Niall, I'm a golfing dinosaur.
I carry a driver and a 3-wood, which I can always choke down and play as a 4 or 5 wood.
I like the 2-iron because I can keep it low and run it., punch out from under trees, putt with it from off the green, etc., etc..
I've never liked hybrids since I can't seem to adjust to them.

With regards to architects deceiving the golfer, I don't think giving a bum steer on direction of contour works for me.
Giving some conflicting info on distance is fair enough as it challenges the golfer to play a shot where the perception is different to the hard data. Thats just mind games. Deliberately disguising contours so they can't be read is worse than having hidden hazards.

I disagree, I'll bet you'd go bonkers over Fenway.
It's challenging, but fun to play.
If you're not a Pro, you have no business going for perimeter hole locations.
Those greens and those hole locations are a treat.
They're very unique.
The golf course is fabulous provided green speeds don't get too high.

Having said all that, if I am approaching from 180 to 200 yards I reckon I'm going to hit the green no more than once or twice in the normal round so my aim is likely to be focused on middle or left or right half of the green. I'm simply not expecting to hit the ball with any more accurancy than that so if, for instance, I successfully hit the left half of the green expecting the ball to break right to the pin and the ball went in the opposite direction I would be slightly peeved to say the least.

Hollywood, Mountain Ridge and Fenway all have a good deal of internal contouring.
As I said, my eyes aren't good enough to detect that contouring at 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 yards out.
Hell, I have to lie down on the green to see the contour....... from behind and in front of the ball, when I'm lining up a putt.

[Sean_A]

Patrick

Bloody hell , a 2 iron ! I used one once, I think it was to lean on.

With regards to architects deceiving the golfer, I don't think giving a bum steer on direction of contour works for me. Giving some conflicting info on distance is fair enough as it challenges the golfer to play a shot where the perception is different to the hard data. Thats just mind games. Deliberately disguising contours so they can't be read is worse than having hidden hazards.

Having said all that, if I am approaching from 180 to 200 yards I reckon I'm going to hit the green no more than once or twice in the normal round so my aim is likely to be focused on middle or left or right half of the green. I'm simply not expecting to hit the ball with any more accurancy than that so if, for instance, I successfully hit the left half of the green expecting the ball to break right to the pin and the ball went in the opposite direction I would be slightly peeved to say the least.

Niall

Zowie Niall, those are two architectural elements I am very much in favour of so long as things don't get carried away.  So, what do you think of TOC?  Isn't it wild how nearly all the "don't dos" in architecture are present at TOC?

Pat

I really like bunkers set away from greens if there are contours behind the bunker which can be used or if bunkers surround the approach but the best angle is over the bunker set away from the green.  Of course, the ideas only work on f&f courses. 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Maybe the word "recede" is not the right word.  What I mean is that bunkers often shrink which has the effect of them "moving away or receding from the green".  This is very common on older golf courses and we see it all the time.  Here is one example of an old Tillinghast design where we did a restoration master plan.  It is pretty easy to see how the bunker has effectively moved away from the green while at the same time the putting surface has shrunk.  As such there is a big separation that was not there originally.  By restoring both features, one dramatically improves both the asthetic and strategic appeal of the original golf hole.  The beauty is that it is not that expensive to do so and makes a world of difference in improvement.  The best pin positions on many of the older designs are near the edges and this helps bring them back.




As far as getting balls rolling into bunkers without water doing the same, I agree it can be done but not that easily.  At Fenway it does not work that way.  As an example, below is a photo of the #15 green at Fenway.  Once the ball gets on the side of this narrow green it almost always rolls into the bunker.  Water does the same.  This of course does not mean all the water on the green feeds into the bunker.  It does not as most runs off the front.  As you well know, one further point to make is that not every architect drains their greens entirely off the front edge.  They wanted firm approaches as much as they wanted firm greens.    



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

The bunker shrinkage you refer to, which appears in the photo you posted, almost looks man-made.



I can't imagine the right side of that bunker moving further away from the green, especially when edging usually has the opposite affect.

What course is that ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Some of the bunkers at Fenway used to look the same way (before Gil re-worked them).  The photo I showed is from Fort Monmouth and yes, all the bunkers there are "man-made".  Many of the bunkers (like this one) got smaller for a whole variety of reasons.  Fortunately they are relatively easy to bring back (some have already been completed).  We found some great aerials showing how big and bold many of the bunkers here once were.  I had Rick Wollfe and Bob Trebus out with me a few years ago and they were amazed at the golf course.  In its time, it was a big budget Tillie design.  We actually took our shaper to Fenway to look at their bunkers because of the similarities.
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I meant that the shrinking of the right side of the bunker looked like it was intentionally done by man, as opposed to a natural or evolving process.

How did that bunker get smaller on the right side ?