The Bunkering at The National

[TEPaul]

"I can't speak for Tom MacWood's analysis, conclusions and suggestions,"



PHHEEEW! Well then, I would say you probably dodged a pretty big bullet there Patrick!   

[JMEvensky]

TEP,I'll bet Pat could work these discussions into the Enchanted Journey thread if you'd just push him a little.

[TEPaul]

"Here's what I DON'T understand.
You state that the 1938 golf courses in that aerial were penal.
Yet, since 1938 there have been nothing but tremendous improvements in the ball and equipment, making the play of EVERY course easier.
Yet, you support further diminishing the challenge by softening the golf course.  WHY."




Patrick:

Where do you see from what I said to you that I am supporting further diminishing the challenge by softening the golf course? All I said to you is if you think all those bunkers in that 1938 aerial should be restored that you sound like not just a CRUMPY old man but a pretty penal crumpy old man!

What makes you think I'm not a penal crumpy old man too? I just asked you a simple question about all those bunkers and restoring them, that's all. Why do you assume I too wouldn't suggest restoring them all?

I tell you what. Let's both of us go to those three courses and tell them that we strongly suggest they restore all the bunkers on all three courses. Then I'll tell them that you are also offering to pay for them all.

Do we have a deal?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

If change occured, it could only occur one of four (4) ways, by design, by accident, by Mother Nature and by outside influences.

I tend to think that a number of events had a significant impact on NGLA and other courses.

The Great Depression, WWII, and subsequent financial downturns..

It's my understanding that the back tier of the 11th green was allowed to grow as rough due to the concern for maintainance costs, either during the Depression or more likely during the War when Gasoline was rationed.

There is some debate on the above events influencing the configuration and maintainance of the 13th green as well.

Today, the back tier on # 11 is mowed to putting surface height and the right side of # 13 green has had the mini-bunker removed and the entire area, up to the steep falloff on the right side bunker, mowed do putting surface height.

IF there were singular events that might have caused changes in the configuration of the bunkers, it would seem logical that the events listed above were a catalyst.

The greenside bunkers at NGLA have a similarity in their form and function and relation to one another.
Most are tight against the putting surface, most fall off rather sharply and most are deep.
There are exceptions, like the bunker immediately to the left of the 8th green.
However, that bunker is NOT depicted in the 1928 schematic that appears at the back of "Scotland's Gift", so one has to wonder if it was an afterthought, and if so, by whom ?

Understanding the relationship of the greenside bunkers to the putting surface and surrounding terrain, altering those bunkers would be an enormous undertaking.]

And, if you altered them, I doubt any alteration could take place where the putting surface interfaces with the bunker.

You have to examine the highly structured/constructed nature of those greens and their immediate surrounds, including the bunkers to understand that the process of substantively altering them would be next to impossible.

What is possible is shrinking them at the non-green end.
Filling in expanses from the non-green end.

If one accepts the premise that the bunkers were transformed, or went through a series of transformations, my quess would be that the events I listed above were the primary causes, and that the bunkers were primarily alterned at the non-green end.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,I'll bet Pat could work these discussions into the Enchanted Journey thread if you'd just push him a little."



I don't know Jeff. At this point, I don't think I would want to push Pat even a little; it seems like he's suffering from what my grandmother back in the days of yore called "The Dipsy."

[Patrick_Mucci]

"One has to believe that the architect, CBM at NGLA, knew what he was doing when he created and fined tuned NGLA.
Do you think otherwise?"

Pat:

No, not really, but it may be an interesting question, nevertheless. What do you suppose was going on with him when that guy at NGLA back in the late 1930s pretty much pulled the rug out from under him at NGLA?

TEPaul,

I think it's primarily a combination of two things,

1  CBM getting long in the tooth
2  Another generation coming into their own at NGLA

It happens all the time, in business, life, politics and at golf clubs.

It's the way of the world, "The King is dead, long live the King"


Or would you say----WE don't like to talk about that? 

[TEPaul]

"and the right side of # 13 green has had the mini-bunker removed and the entire area, up to the steep falloff on the right side bunker, mowed do putting surface height."


Patrick:

That mini-bunker you refer to on #13 (it actually wasn't all that "mini"----did Macdonald put that thing in there or didn't he? There is one probably pretty easy way to find out----eg just look at that 1938 aerial that was given to you by the mystery man and it should tell you he put it in unless of course he'd already basically been thrown out of his own golf club at that point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Here's what I DON'T understand.
You state that the 1938 golf courses in that aerial were penal.
Yet, since 1938 there have been nothing but tremendous improvements in the ball and equipment, making the play of EVERY course easier.
Yet, you support further diminishing the challenge by softening the golf course.  WHY."

Patrick:

Where do you see from what I said to you that I am supporting further diminishing the challenge by softening the golf course?
ll I said to you is if you think all those bunkers in that 1938 aerial should be restored that you sound like not just a CRUMPY old man but a pretty penal crumpy old man!

Here's your post, reply # 21.
I thought you were chastizing me for wanting to restore the bunkering, because Tom MacWood also wanted to restore the bunkering.

But I've got to ax you Pat, why do you just automatically suggest that all the bunkers on that 1938 aerial be restored on all three courses? Are you under some impression that the amount of bunkers on a golf course has some direct relationship to architectural quality or something? If you do you must have gotten that odd notion from Tom MacWood because he seems to pretty much automatically suggest the same thing with golf courses that you just did with those three!

What makes you think I'm not a penal crumpy old man too?
I just asked you a simple question about all those bunkers and restoring them, that's all.
Why do you assume I too wouldn't suggest restoring them all?

I guess it was due to the perceived tone and challenge offered in your post, reply # 21.

Sorry, if I misinterpreted it.

I tell you what. Let's both of us go to those three courses and tell them that we strongly suggest they restore all the bunkers on all three courses. Then I'll tell them that you are also offering to pay for them all.

Before the current economic downturn, I bet I could have raised the funds to do that.
Why didn't you ask me three years ago ?

Do we have a deal?

Let's not bite off more than we can chew.
Let's do one course at a time.

[TEPaul]

"Before the current economic downturn,"


What current economic downturn? Did you lose your wallet or the address of your bank or something you crumpy old man?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Speaking of economic downturns back in the depths of the depression this friend of my grandmother's who was one of those old aristocratic Doyennes of New York and Long Island got a call from a young banker/broker who asked her to come up with some cash to cover a margin call and her response was: "Young man how dare YOU ask ME for money, my family and I have been banking at that bank/brokerage firm for over a century!"

[JMEvensky]

Pat:

Speaking of economic downturns back in the depths of the depression this friend of my grandmother's who was one of those old aristocratic Doyennes of New York and Long Island got a call from a young banker/broker who asked her to come up with some cash to cover a margin call and her response was: "Young man how dare YOU ask ME for money, my family and I have been banking at that bank/brokerage firm for over a century!"

You really need to write a book(with lots of photographs).

Just make certain that the vignettes are unassailably accurate or there'll be a 12 page thread on your historical inaccuracies.

[TEPaul]

"Just make certain that the vignettes are unassailably accurate or there'll be a 12 page thread on your historical inaccuracies."


Jeff:

I guarantee you a whole bunch of those people I remember back then on Long Island and New York when I was a kid in the late '40s and early '50s were some world-class doosers. If I told some of the stories I have little doubt there are some on this website who would consider them to be both politially incorrect AND historically inaccurate!  

One of my real fascinations with C.B. Macdonald is not just his architecture or his life in golf or whatever; it is the look of the man in his photographs. Ever since my early years in New York I have been a real student of physiognomy. Macdonald just has THAT look in spades of so many of those people I remember from around there back then. I don't think those types could just grow to look like they did---they pretty much had to "live it" and to "think it" to look like that, if you know what I mean.

[Bradley Anderson]

It is quite a mystery why those golf courses that had so many bunkers, let them grow over or fill in.

From what I can tell, there was a lot of sand available, all over the country, in those days. Sand was extensively used in mortar work, and every community had sand quarries, and trucking operations for delivering sand. I don't think it was too expensive to build a lot of bunkers on a new course. But I think what they didn't understand was that the sand might not last too long before it became contaminated with silt, and then become a water hazard every time it rained, regardless of how well it was tiled - and setting up trash pumps certainly wasn't as handy then as it is now.

So I think it was faster and easier to fill those bunkers in than it was to hand shovel it all out and haul in new sand. This is all conjecture on my part, but I would say that it didn't take a depression for most clubs to make that decision. I think it was more of a practical rules decision than it was a cost factor. Plus all of that hauling sand around on the golf course was too disruptive on the big scale that some of those enormous bunker works required. And to go through that process every ten years or so would have made most committees vote to fill them in.

But on the courses that were grown on sand, it wasn't the same kind of problem because those bunkers weren't being contaminated by silt - owing to the near absence of silt in the native soils. So those clubs kept their multiple bunkers around longer.

But as I say, this is all just theory.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

What you said there is not theory on your part. Most of it has been documented in the records of numerous clubs around the country, for instance, my own, that is very clear about why numerous bunkers were let go and grassed in, and many of them even filled in if there was some cheap and available fill around somewhere (we got a lot from the state road dept).

However, the most interesting question to me is precisely why were so many were created in the first place on so many courses? Was it all design, strategy, aesthetic or whatever?

On that note, I think one of the most interesting and cogent remarks I have ever heard on the subject came from Geoff Shackelford some years ago when he said in perhaps far more cases than any of us realize or are willing to admit that many of those bunkers might have just been that old process of "form following function" in that many of them could've just been cuts to create fill to make other architectural features such as greens, tees, whatever!

If that was true, and I have no doubt it was to some extent just putting sand in them probably seemed like a reasonable thing to do!


One of the best examples of that kind of thing I have ever seen is on The Bottle Hole of NGLA. If you look long enough at that massive green propped up as high as it is in relationship to what is obviously natural grade around it you really do start to wonder where in the hell they got all that fill to make a green like that. And you don't need too look far to tell. Some of it clearly came from just to the right of the green but there is a massive cut operation considerably to the right and short of that green that might look to some today like an old obsolete bunker. I don't believe it ever was. I think it was just a massive cut to produce an aweful lot of the fill needed to create that green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"and the right side of # 13 green has had the mini-bunker removed and the entire area, up to the steep falloff on the right side bunker, mowed do putting surface height."


Patrick:

That mini-bunker you refer to on #13 (it actually wasn't all that "mini"----did Macdonald put that thing in there or didn't he?
There is one probably pretty easy way to find out----eg just look at that 1938 aerial that was given to you by the mystery man and it should tell you he put it in unless of course he'd already basically been thrown out of his own golf club at that point.

As you know, aerials don't tell the entire story.

Even if it was there, it could have been put there for other than architectural reasons.
ie, as you know, that's a rather expansive green.
If the club was experiencing financial issues, I can see someone suggesting that they reduce the area under maintainance by not mowing a good portion of it as putting surface (the right side) I can then see someone saying, yeah, but, if we do that, we'll disengage the green from the adjacent bunker.  Then, I can see someone saying, I can fix that, just insert a new bunker next to the new edge of the putting surface.

So, while the bunker IS probably in the 1938 aerial, it's the genesis for the bunker that's the critical issue.

You should know that the 1928 schematic shows that bunker.

However, that same schematic shows no bunker surrounding # 17 or 18 green, a practice course and bathing house
While the schematic is labeled 1928, I wonder how accurate it is.  The 1938 aerial seems to show far more extensive bunkering.
I wonder if Craig Disher could obtain a 1928 Aerial ?  That would be invaluable.

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty,

If change occured, it could only occur one of four (4) ways, by design, by accident, by Mother Nature and by outside influences.

I tend to think that a number of events had a significant impact on NGLA and other courses.

The Great Depression, WWII, and subsequent financial downturns...

. . .
IF there were singular events that might have caused changes in the configuration of the bunkers, it would seem logical that the events listed above were a catalyst.

I agree.  It would be interesting to put together a chronology of the evolution of the look of the features over time.  I have found quite a few old photos in past publications and books, but there are some time spans missing, especially during the depression era.  Surely the club has many more . . . maybe next time you are there you will forgo playing and ask to dig through  their photographs instead?  (I am kidding of course.  But surely your pomous pal will have a comment anyway.)

But what is interesting to me is that the look seems to have evolved into something one might more accurately associate with Raynor's aesthtic style.  Surely you already figured out that this was behind my off-the-cuff remark which lead to this thread.  And despite Tom's feigned indignity over my joke, I think there is some truth to this observation.

Was this just coincidence, or at some point did someone decide to take it in this direction?   Did the course first devolve for the reasons you list above, followed by a decision to fix it, but more in Raynor's style?   Is it possible that the powers at NGLA itself (be it the green committee or a superintendent or a consulting architect) made the same error that is all to common today --  could they have meshed Raynor and Macdonald into one by creating and maintaining a Raynor aesthetic on a course that was otherwise all CBM?    

The greenside bunkers at NGLA have a similarity in their form and function and relation to one another.
Most are tight against the putting surface, most fall off rather sharply and most are deep.

I think the greenside bunkers are great, and that the look works as well.   Nothing hokey about it.   No tall grass to keep your ball out of the bunker.  No unplayable lies like they were taking out of the bunker grass at this years Walker Cup.   Imagine what CBM's reaction would have been to that!

I actually think the look works for the whole course.   I look at NGLA as an Exhibit.  It is a teaching lab demonstrating what excellent strategic golf architecture should be, and I think the course was meant in this way.   In this regard, the closely cut grass and clean lines of the features really show the bones of the course.   It is all there for everyone to see and study.     No pretenses about frilly edges to distract the golfer from the real meat of the course -- the arrangement and playability.  

But I am still not sure that this the look Macdonald intended, especially not initially.   Although in most of the photos where the bunkers are completely in play (surrounded by fairway all the way around) the mowing lines are clean even on the lips of the oldest bunkers in the old photos.   It was those large bunkers that extended into the natural beyond the fairway that had the roughest, most unkempt, look.  

There are exceptions, like the bunker immediately to the left of the 8th green.

However, that bunker is NOT depicted in the 1928 schematic that appears at the back of "Scotland's Gift", so one has to wonder if it was an afterthought, and if so, by whom ?

I don't have the book handy to check the schematic, but I believe that there is a bunker (or maybe two bunkers) short left of the bottle hole green on the 1910 scorecard map, a photo of which appears in Bahto's excellent book.  

Plus, I believe that the fronting bunker short left was integral to the original strategic concept of the golf hole.   One could avoid the bottleneck by carrying over the diagonal bunkers to the left, but then the golfer was left with a tough angle to the green over a bunker front left.   I am pretty sure that Whigham wrote almost exactly that when describing the hole in his 1909 article.    If anything, it is the right front bunker that I wonder about, as that one does not seem to fit quite as well with the original strategic concept, and I don't recall in on the card.

Anyway regarding the front left bunker, it may not be as closely tucked to the green, but doesnt it behave as if it is due to the steep slope between it and the green?   I seem to recall that about any ball that doesn't carry all the way to the green from the left would likely filter back into either the short left bunker or all the way into the bunker positioned to the right of it.   Come to think of it, in this sense doesn't the right bunker act almost as an extension of the left one?  Won't balls missing short left sometimes end up in the right bunker?    My playing experience there is too limited to say . . .

Here is a photo of the slope I am talking about . . .



ADDED:Patrick after posting this I realized that I might have misread your post.  Are you talking about the bunker short left, or the bunker that sits well left of the green, beyond the green side bunker?  That bunker is a bit odd.    Wasn't this one of the greens which wasrebuilt fairly early on.  I wonder if the the original green sat in the exact same place, or if not where exactly it was and how it was bunkered?

Understanding the relationship of the greenside bunkers to the putting surface and surrounding terrain, altering those bunkers would be an enormous undertaking.

And, if you altered them, I doubt any alteration could take place where the putting surface interfaces with the bunker.

You have to examine the highly structured/constructed nature of those greens and their immediate surrounds, including the bunkers to understand that the process of substantively altering them would be next to impossible.

No doubt.  But as I said above, I like the greenside bunkering, clean style and all.  I would cringe in horror if they chose to mess with them.  They seem to work terrifically from a playability perspective, and if they are messed with even the best might not be able to put all the pieces back together again.

What is possible is shrinking them at the non-green end.
Filling in expanses from the non-green end.

If one accepts the premise that the bunkers were transformed, or went through a series of transformations, my quess would be that the events I listed above were the primary causes, and that the bunkers were primarily alterned at the non-green end.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 I think your story is a reasonable one.   At least this time.   I am just curious about the evolution of the look.    One has to be very careful not to confuse the current aesthetic styling of NGLA today with the real substance of the course.   NGLA can't be judged on superficialities like the look of its bunkers.  There is way too much there there for that.    

This is why I roll my eyes at the answers to Jim Urbina's question on the other thread.   Amazingly, even among this educated crowd, you get this nonsense about how Macdonald wasn't influential because others did not adopt his supposed aesthetic sensibilities.    Pure poppycock.

-  First off, they are usually talking about Raynor's aesthetic styling, not Macdonald's, they are thinking of the the modern look of NGLA which happens to be more in a Raynor style that it originally was.    The fact is that, from the photos I have seen, early NGLA looked more natural (and more like the traditional links abroad) than almost everything in America at the time.   Those who supposedly took a more "natural" path were not heading in a different direction, they too were following CBM at NGLA!

- Second, and more importantly, focusing on the superficial aesthetics trivializes incredibly influence Macdonald had over the substance of golf course design.   Macdonald's influence isn't about bunker edges.   Rather, showed the golfing nation how to look to the links, and how to emulate what we find there.  He taught us that we could distill the fundamental principles underlying great links holes and apply them in this country and in a variety of settings.  He showed us that we need not settle for substandard, repetitious golf, but could create courses where every single hole was unique and compelling.   And as a result of his this most every great course in the country was fundamentally changed, and many great new ones sprung up everywhere.    He may not have created golf architecture and he may or may not have designed the first truly world class golf course in this country  (I think he did, but it is debatable) but he sold the concept of the importance of a great golf course based on the fundamental concepts underlying the links holes, and he inspired them to try and follow in his footsteps.    

Sorry for the rant.  I know I am preaching to the chior.   Probably more appropriate for the other thread, and I may copy it over there later.  

______________________________________________________

Tom Paul,

You've taken a joke and tried to turn it into a big issue and treat it as some sort of blasphemy.  Even tried in vain to get Mucci riled up about it, but he is too smart for that.   You need to get a life.

-- The funny thing is you have no idea the context of my original off-hand comment and don't give a damn about it anyway.  All you see is an opportunity to try and tear me down.  

-- The truly sad thing is that your mind and memory are apparently completely shot.  You claim to have CBM's book almost memorized and you write about him constantly, yet you still don't know the first thing about him or how he worked.  Because if you knew much about the man's career, then you'd know the basis for everything I wrote.   Unlike you I just don't spout off and then try to rationalize it later.  

-- The ironic thing is that, after all of the asinine and insulting things you write then try to pass them off as a joke, you are the one who cannot take a joke.    In that vein, here is a new theory for you . . .  

When you and Wayne were drunk in the Southampton Cemetery and Wayne was desecrating the graves of CBM and Raynor, Raynor's ghost got pissed off for being pissed on, and flew into a rage, traveling back through time and messing with the aesthetic styling of NGLA so that people would forever associate the look with both CBM and Raynor.  After all, he figured, if he was going to be pissed on anyway, he might as well leave his mark on the course that set Wayne off.

Oh, I almost forgot . . .  

[Patrick_Mucci]

It is quite a mystery why those golf courses that had so many bunkers, let them grow over or fill in.

Bradley, the systemic nature of bunker removal or overgrowth leads me to believe that finances, or the lack of them, were the root cause.


From what I can tell, there was a lot of sand available, all over the country, in those days.
Sand was extensively used in mortar work, and every community had sand quarries, and trucking operations for delivering sand.


There were tons and tons of sand on site and nearby, so availability and cost shouldn't have been issues.

I don't think it was too expensive to build a lot of bunkers on a new course.
But I think what they didn't understand was that the sand might not last too long before it became contaminated with silt, and then become a water hazard every time it rained, regardless of how well it was tiled - and setting up trash pumps certainly wasn't as handy then as it is now.


I don't think that's the case at NGLA and GCGC
Both enjoy good sites.
Silt doesn't easily find its way into predominantly sandy sites


So I think it was faster and easier to fill those bunkers in than it was to hand shovel it all out and haul in new sand.

I would disagree on those two sites.
It's unlikely that they became contaminated to the degree you suggest.
 
This is all conjecture on my part, but I would say that it didn't take a depression for most clubs to make that decision.


I disagree.
You speak of silt contamination as if it occured annually.
Depending on the site, silt contamination might never occur.
And, bountiful amounts of sand were nearby and cheap.

I think it was more of a practical rules decision than it was a cost factor.

I strongly disagree with that conclusion.

Plus all of that hauling sand around on the golf course was too disruptive on the big scale that some of those enormous bunker works required.


The flaw in your reasoning is that you're comparing conditions and maintainance practices in the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's in the context of contemporary, pristine conditions as they exist at ANGC.

And to go through that process every ten years or so would have made most committees vote to fill them in.

I don't think that any clubs went through that process on their large, expansive bunkers
I think that process is a figment or your modern contexted imagination.

But on the courses that were grown on sand, it wasn't the same kind of problem because those bunkers weren't being contaminated by silt - owing to the near absence of silt in the native soils.
So those clubs kept their multiple bunkers around longer.

That appears to be untrue when it comes to GCGC, SH and NGLA.

But as I say, this is all just theory.

I think you need to rethink your theory  

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

I think that what you are saying about bunker cuts being used as fill is especially likely to have happened at the clubs that were remodeled.

After the research turf gardens isolated good varieties of bent for stolons, most clubs that had seeded their greens with poor varieites elected to regrass their greens. As a part of that project some made changes to the whole green. In those instances it was certainly easier to add on to a green with fill from a greenside bunker.

Connelian writes about discing up the ground near a green and adding the amendments to make it good growing mix for the green. I just wonder if that ground that he borrowing soil from was filled in with sand? I have seen greens that he worked on that have sand cavities that extend far outside the original fairway width, and you have to ask yourself why would there be hazard way out there? The best answer I can come up with is he needed the dirt to raise up more interesting putting contours, and perhaps to get above water table for better drainage???

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

Another thought.

If the silting process was occuring, it should occur universally, yet, clubs didn't remove their bunkers, universally, they removed or grassed them selectively, and that is another reason that I think finances were the culprit in the process.

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble,

Why do you feel that sand blown on fairways and greens isn't good for the grass ?

Isn't that what top-dressing is all about ?

Pat

Top dressing is not about blowing sand on the grass.  

Other than uniformity, what agronomic difference does it make if it's achieved by a spreader or the wind ?

Top dressing is a directed effort to help the turf heal quicker and therefore the grass grow quicker after getting hammered by aeration or perhaps over-seeding.  

No it's not.
It's not about "healing" turf, it's about the "health" of the turf.
Courses that NEVER overseed get top-dressed.

It is also my understanding that there are more ingredients to dressing than sand.

That depends upon the purpose of the particular application.
In some cases, it's pure sand.

Let me know when five well known supers are in favor of sand blowing across a course at the whimsy of the weather.


Why do they have to be well known ?
A superintendent's primary concern would seem to be the need and cost to replenish the sand in the bunkers, not the impact on the fairway turf.
Having sand distributed throughout the fairways and greens doesn't seem to be a bad thing.

Ok Pat.  I will keep an eye out for nature's own top dressing you seem to advocate. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

If change occured, it could only occur one of four (4) ways, by design, by accident, by Mother Nature and by outside influences.

I tend to think that a number of events had a significant impact on NGLA and other courses.

The Great Depression, WWII, and subsequent financial downturns...

. . .
IF there were singular events that might have caused changes in the configuration of the bunkers, it would seem logical that the events listed above were a catalyst.

I agree.  It would be interesting to put together a chronology of the evolution of the look of the features over time.  I have found quite a few old photos in past publications and books, but there are some time spans missing, especially during the depression era.  Surely the club has many more . . . maybe next time you are there you will forgo playing and ask to dig through  their photographs instead?  (I am kidding of course.  But surely your pomous pal will have a comment anyway.)

But what is interesting to me is that the look seems to have evolved into something one might more accurately associate with Raynor's aesthtic style.  Surely you already figured out that this was behind my off-the-cuff remark which lead to this thread.  And despite Tom's feigned indignity over my joke, I think there is some truth to this observation.

Was this just coincidence, or at some point did someone decide to take it in this direction?   Did the course first devolve for the reasons you list above, followed by a decision to fix it, but more in Raynor's style?   Is it possible that the powers at NGLA itself (be it the green committee or a superintendent or a consulting architect) made the same error that is all to common today --  could they have meshed Raynor and Macdonald into one by creating and maintaining a Raynor aesthetic on a course that was otherwise all CBM?  

David, I'm not so sure that I have a thorough grasp, conceptually and physically (form and function), on the difference between a "Raynor" bunker and a "CBM" bunker.
And, I don't think anyone has clearly defined the alleged distinction
Until that happens, I don't know how can state that a transformation took place, and if it did, in what form. 

The greenside bunkers at NGLA have a similarity in their form and function and relation to one another.
Most are tight against the putting surface, most fall off rather sharply and most are deep.

I think the greenside bunkers are great, and that the look works as well.   Nothing hokey about it.  
No tall grass to keep your ball out of the bunker.  
No unplayable lies like they were taking out of the bunker grass at this years Walker Cup.  
Imagine what CBM's reaction would have been to that!

When TEPaul and I first walked and examined those apholstered bunker edges at Merion, I predicted the playability problem
I don't think anyone wants that situation to arise during a round.

I actually think the look works for the whole course.   I look at NGLA as an Exhibit.  It is a teaching lab demonstrating what excellent strategic golf architecture should be, and I think the course was meant in this way.   In this regard, the closely cut grass and clean lines of the features really show the bones of the course.   It is all there for everyone to see and study.     No pretenses about frilly edges to distract the golfer from the real meat of the course -- the arrangement and playability.  

I agree, but think it goes beyond that.
The form and function of the bunkers and their surrounds combine to affect playability, which is the ultimate goal of an architectural feature.

The configuration of those bunkers largely promote feeding them.
Their function is enhanced by their form, a wonderful combination.

Seminole's bunkers perform a similar function with slightly different results in that the ball is fed much farther from the intended target, while the bunkers at NGLA keep the ball closer to the intended target.

But I am still not sure that this the look Macdonald intended, especially not initially.   Although in most of the photos where the bunkers are completely in play (surrounded by fairway all the way around) the mowing lines are clean even on the lips of the oldest bunkers in the old photos.   It was those large bunkers that extended into the natural beyond the fairway that had the roughest, most unkempt, look.  

I think you have to look at the bunkers where the ball most often interfaced with them, not where the ball was unlikely to interface with them, and I think you have to examine the bunkers, their look and function based on the probable trajectory of a ball entering them.

At the greenside, they were sharp and mowed to promote feeding.
At the edges furthest from the green, the need for sharpness is diminished because there's no need for feeding
Balls rolling into a bunker from an approach don't need additional help in terms of momentum, although some bunkers do facilitate entry vis a vis their surrounds.
But, where marginal or miscalculated shots are concerned, redirection, vis a vis feeding is a desired quality, and thus the need for a tighter or cleaner look.

There are exceptions, like the bunker immediately to the left of the 8th green.

However, that bunker is NOT depicted in the 1928 schematic that appears at the back of "Scotland's Gift", so one has to wonder if it was an afterthought, and if so, by whom ?

I don't have the book handy to check the schematic, but I believe that there is a bunker (or maybe two bunkers) short left of the bottle hole green on the 1910 scorecard map, a photo of which appears in Bahto's excellent book.  

Plus, I believe that the fronting bunker short left was integral to the original strategic concept of the golf hole.   One avoid the bottleneck by carrying over the diagonal bunkers to the left, but then one was left with a tough angle to the green over a bunker front left.   I am pretty sure that Whigham wrote almost exactly that when describing the hole in his 1909 article.    If anything, it is the right front bunker that I wonder about, as that one does not seem to fit quite as well with the original strategic concept, and I don't recall in on the card.

This is not the bunker I was referencing.
I was referencing the little bunker that almost sits above the green on the left, at the green's mid point

Anyway regarding the front left bunker, it may not be as closely tucked to the green, but doesnt it behave as if it is due to the steep slope between it and the green?   I seem to recall that about any ball that doesn't carry all the way to the green from the left would likely filter back into either the short left bunker or all the way into the bunker positioned to the right of it.   Come to think of it, in this sense doesn't the right bunker act almost as an extension of the left one?  Won't balls missing short left sometimes end up in the right bunker?    My playing experience there is too limited to say . . .

That front bunker is "effectively" tight to the green due to the topography and feeding nature of the front of the green and the tightly mown grass in front of the green.

I've hit really, really good bunker shots to a front pin, only to have the ball spin back, off the green, down the slope and back into the bunker.
But, this was not the bunker I was referencing.

Here is a photo of the slope I am talking about . . .



ADDED:Patrick after posting this I realized that I might have misread your post.  
Are you talking about the bunker short left, or the bunker that sits well left of the green, beyond the green side bunker?  
That bunker is a bit odd.    Wasn't this one of the greens which wasrebuilt fairly early on.  
I wonder if the the original green sat in the exact same place, or if not where exactly it was and how it was bunkered?

The bunker I was talking about is up, on top, to the immediate left of the green.
It's relatively small.
Recovery to the green is almost a downhill shot.

Understanding the relationship of the greenside bunkers to the putting surface and surrounding terrain, altering those bunkers would be an enormous undertaking.

And, if you altered them, I doubt any alteration could take place where the putting surface interfaces with the bunker.

You have to examine the highly structured/constructed nature of those greens and their immediate surrounds, including the bunkers to understand that the process of substantively altering them would be next to impossible.

No doubt.  But as I said above, I like the greenside bunkering, clean style and all.  
I would cringe in horror if they chose to mess with them.  
They seem to work terrifically from a playability perspective, and if they are messed with even the best might not be able to put all the pieces back together again.

I don't think anyone has or will mess with them.

What is possible is shrinking them at the non-green end.
Filling in expanses from the non-green end.

If one accepts the premise that the bunkers were transformed, or went through a series of transformations, my quess would be that the events I listed above were the primary causes, and that the bunkers were primarily alterned at the non-green end.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I think your story is a reasonable one.   At least this time.   I am just curious about the evolution of the look.    
One has to be very careful not to confuse the current aesthetic styling of NGLA today with the real substance of the course.   NGLA can't be judged on superficialities like the look of its bunkers.  There is way too much there there for that.  

I think looks evolve or evolved out of money and/or maintainance practices, when more mechanized implements were used to groom and maintain golf courses.
There are some courses where the look was altered, for "the look".  I don't believe that's the case at NGLA  

This is why I roll my eyes at the answers to Jim Urbina's question on the other thread.  
Amazingly, even among this educated crowd, you get this nonsense about how Macdonald wasn't influential because others did not adopt his supposed aesthetic sensibilities.    Pure poppycock.

To deny MacDonald's influence is to deny the evolution of golf in early America.
If he wasn't influential, why was he sought out to design and build golf courses ?
Same question for his disciples, Raynor and Banks.
His/their work is still influential UNLESS some think that "Old MacDonald" doesn't exist.

-  First off, they are usually talking about Raynor's aesthetic styling, not Macdonald's, they are thinking of the the modern look of NGLA which happens to be more in a Raynor style that it originally was.    
The fact is that, from the photos I have seen, early NGLA looked more natural (and more like the traditional links abroad) than almost everything in America at the time.

Dave, with rudimentary equipment, circa 1906-09, I don't think that an unnatural look was possible.
But, as maintainance practices evolved, so did the look they produced.

A perfect example is Wild Horse.
I loved the golf course.
I didn't like an element of the bunker construction/configuration, which was deliberately altered to facilitate the entry and exiting of the Sand Pros

That's an example of how maintainance practices influence architecture and the "look" 

Those who supposedly took a more "natural" path were not heading in a different direction, they too were following CBM at NGLA!


The claim that MacDonald's path wasn't natural is mostly misunderstood.
I wonder, based on people who have played and studied NGLA, what's unnatural about it, from the perspective of the golfer playing the golf course ?
The unnatural or constructed component at NGLA tends to be visible from behind the greens, as is the case at many courses, but, that's not the view, or the field of play that the golfer encounters during his round.

- Second, and more importantly, focusing on the superficial aesthetics trivializes incredibly influence Macdonald had over the substance of golf course design.   Macdonald's influence isn't about bunker edges.   Rather, showed the golfing nation how to look to the links, and how to emulate what we find there.  He taught us that we could distill the fundamental principles underlying great links holes and apply them in this country and in a variety of settings.  He showed us that we need not settle for substandard, repetitious golf, but could create courses where every single hole was unique and compelling.   And as a result of his this most every great course in the country was fundamentally changed, and many great new ones sprung up everywhere.    He may not have created golf architecture and he may or may not have designed the first truly world class golf course in this country  (I think he did, but it is debatable) but he sold the concept of the importance of a great golf course based on the fundamental concepts underlying the links holes, and he inspired them to try and follow in his footsteps.    

Dave, I agree, those who focus on the bunker edges are nit picking and missing the important core architectural values rampant at NGLA.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

I didn't know that NGLA or GCGC filled in that many bunkers. But I agree that if they did it would not have been because of siltation or drainage issues.

Now they may have added a lot of sand to those bunkers over the years and lost the elevation of the original floor of the bunker. That certainly happened at GCGC. I know that because Mel Lucas told me the story of when he took his committee out and he climbed down into a bunker and began digging sand out until he hit the bottom and said to them "this is where Travis played from", or something like that. And he had dug like two or three feet down before he hit the original floor.

All I know is you can move a lot of sand on to a course before it is seeded and grown in and being played to a club tournament calender. But after it has grass on it and a lot of activity, the whole process is WAY more difficult. My point is that the courses that had luxury bunkers, and lots of em, would have found it more compelling to eliminate them than to renovate them.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

If you don't mind I would like to turn to the bunkering of Shinnecock for a moment because I think I've had about enough of the idiocy of this guy on here who said that Raynor messed up the aesthetic of the bunkers of NGLA whether he now claims he was joking, half joking or not joking at all. Some of his last few posts are just about more than I can take even if it did take me a while to stop laughing after reading them.

What exactly would you be referring to with bunker lose at Shinnecock? There might be a few here and there that were let go or changed and then there is at least one or two additions from Dick Wilson that are on the course but not on that 1938 aerial but what else would you be referring to at Shinnecock?

If it involves that massive field of about 18 bunkers on the tee shot on #8, yes those were honed down to about 7-8 bigger ones in that area that remain today. Or are you referring to those massive sand areas on #5 and #6 that show up on that 1938 aerial?

If that's what you're referring to we explained that a few times on here in the past. Those things were actually designed and constructed by Flynn but we think at some point along the way the club might have gotten confused and thought they were just large areas of natural sandy waste area that existed there previous to the course and for that reason they may've let them go and vegetate over. We've spoken to them about reestablishing them but that job would be a big and complex one as would be holding that look, I guess.

We proved to them that Flynn both designed and constructed them when we showed them his drawings that showed his writing in those areas to undulate the areas into sort of sand waste areas. We think this is something he picked up in his time working on Pine Valley and what was done with some areas like that there such as HHA on #7.

Actually on one of Flynn's Shinnecock drawing iterations he basically had a HHA sand waste area the size of PV's HHA designed on #15 but it was never built that way and he toned it down to what's there today.

Other than that stuff what bunkers from that 1938 aerial do you think have been lost? We'd like to know because we've basically been all over this with a fine tooth comb with the club because as you know we do historical consulting there from time to time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I didn't know that NGLA or GCGC filled in that many bunkers. But I agree that if they did it would not have been because of siltation or drainage issues.

Bradley, It's not a matter of filling them, it's more an issue of abandoning them or letting the go to grass.
            There are some spectacular bunker areas that NLE, not through the intentional hand of man, but rather, through
             neglect, benign or deliberate.

Now they may have added a lot of sand to those bunkers over the years and lost the elevation of the original floor of the bunker. That certainly happened at GCGC. I know that because Mel Lucas told me the story of when he took his committee out and he climbed down into a bunker and began digging sand out until he hit the bottom and said to them "this is where Travis played from", or something like that. And he had dug like two or three feet down before he hit the original floor.

A good number of the deeper bunkers were dug out, then a sodded grass floor was installed, then the grass floor was covered with sand.
The process seems to have worked very well.

All I know is you can move a lot of sand on to a course before it is seeded and grown in and being played to a club tournament calender.
But after it has grass on it and a lot of activity, the whole process is WAY more difficult.
My point is that the courses that had luxury bunkers, and lots of em, would have found it more compelling to eliminate them than to renovate them.


Untertaking substantive projects during the golfing season is rarely a good idea.
Winter or summer can come as blessings to courses that want to embark upon projects when the members aren't in attendence.
In fact, it's probably best to do off-season projects as you immediately eliminate 400 sidewalk superintendents.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What exactly would you be referring to with bunker loss at Shinnecock?

The best way to describe that would be to have the 1938 aerial and a current aerial or "google" view available.
Side by side, I think the areas become self evident.

There might be a few here and there that were let go or changed and then there is at least one or two additions from Dick Wilson that are on the course but not on that 1938 aerial but what else would you be referring to at Shinnecock?

If it involves that massive field of about 18 bunkers on the tee shot on #8, yes those were honed down to about 7-8 bigger ones in that area that remain today. Or are you referring to those massive sand areas on #5 and #6 that show up on that 1938 aerial?

I'm a fan of the massive sand areas that NLE at SH, NGLA and GCGC.

If that's what you're referring to we explained that a few times on here in the past. Those things were actually designed and constructed by Flynn but we think at some point along the way the club might have gotten confused and thought they were just large areas of natural sandy waste area that existed there previous to the course and for that reason they may've let them go and vegetate over. We've spoken to them about reestablishing them but that job would be a big and complex one as would be holding that look, I guess.

As to the scope of the job, it would seem rather simple, not complex, if the only thing that occured was the invasive growth of vegetation.

The problem with many restoration projects is their high degree of visibility.
The demise of those vast sandy bunkers occured gradually, imperceptably over decades and decades, at no cost to the membership, but, their restoration would take place in one fell swoop with a price tag attached.

That's the impediment to many restorations, sudden change and the need for a lot of change.

We proved to them that Flynn both designed and constructed them when we showed them his drawings that showed his writing in those areas to undulate the areas into sort of sand waste areas. We think this is something he picked up in his time working on Pine Valley and what was done with some areas like that there such as HHA on #7.

I hope you're successful in your efforts as it's clear that the restoration of those bunkers would enhance the golf course.

Actually on one of Flynn's Shinnecock drawing iterations he basically had a HHA sand waste area the size of PV's HHA designed on #15 but it was never built that way and he toned it down to what's there today.

The 1938 aerial offers indisputable evidence with respect to what EXISTED, architecturally, at SH, NGLA and S.
Hopefully, there will be an effort to restore what's been lost over the last 71 years.

Good luck

Other than that stuff what bunkers from that 1938 aerial do you think have been lost?
We'd like to know because we've basically been all over this with a fine tooth comb with the club because as you know we do historical consulting there from time to time.

I think the 1938 aerial provides you with a sufficient road map in terms of restoration, understanding that length had to be added to keep the course relevant in terms of championship and modern play.