Golfer architectural evolution-asset or drawback?

[TEPaul]

One of the more fascinating subjects about classic architecture to me is golfer induced architectural evolution! It's been talked about a bit on this website, but I think it may be a subject that is not well enough understood or considered sometimes--particularly during restorations.

What to do about golfer induced arcthitectural evolution mostly arises during restoration decisions and has vastly varied degrees of concern.

The most dramatic effect of it and the most difficult decisions involving it seems to arise when considering what it's done with greenside bunkering immediately fronting greens and what to do about it in a restoration plan. Some of the best examples I've seen of it are #8 and #13 Merion, #17 Pine Valley and also recently #15 LuLu!

Since these types of fronting bunkers get far more use than most other bunkers the effects of golfer induced architectural evolution is the greatest with them. It's sand-splash from daily recovery shots that's basically a daily application of topdressing which in the case of these holes mentioned has increased the height of the top lips of the bunkers by sometimes 3'-4' or more! Naturally if the bunker lip is immediately juxtaposed to the green surface directly behind it the green surface for sometimes 6'-10' will inherently rise with it, creating a downslope!

The interesting thing is over a period of decades on these holes the "playbablity" and strategies of playing approaches to these greens has changed almost 180 degrees! But it also changes the "visuals" of the original design too--sometimes also by about 180 degrees from original total visibility to sometimes almost total green surface blindness!

You can imagine how hitting approaches to some of those greens the way they originally were (and with today's greenspeeds) you might be able to suck the ball back into the fronting bunker while today you have to be very careful not to "turbo" the ball across the green if you land it just over the increased height of the bunker lip on the downslope of the green that has evolved just behind it!

There also seems, to me anyway, to be something almost poetic in this kind of golfer induced architectural evolution because although most golfers probably don't even realize what's happened, the game today for many other reasons has evolved into much more of an aerial game with obviously much higher trajectories than what golfers could produce in the old days.

Personally, I'm fascinated by it and am very interested to see what any club does about it during restorations or even if they're aware of it. I think I like the evolution and would tend to leave it alone if it were my call. But I do believe that every single case of it should be looked at very carefully and considered on it's individual assets or drawbacks!

If the evolutionary buildup is left alone in the restoration process, as Merion has done, there is also something sort of archaeologically fascinating to know that approximately 3'-4' below the present bunker top and front green surface today is what has been described as "Hugh Wilson's fingerprints"!

I think Merion should have left it the way it is and I think LuLu should too because it does add a certain intensity to playing an approach to those greens, particularly a front pin. Plus with LuLu's #15 it adds a very cool visual deception to that green! The green surface is not at all shallow from front to back but it appears that it is due to the evolutionary buildup and increased height of the front bunker and green front.

So a golfer has to concentrate more, work a bit harder and become familiar with it from experience. Plus there's always that poetic change of being able or even be forced or given the choice to hit the ball higher today than in the old days when it was lower and more visible.

But the particular situation with Pine Valley #17 is another story altogether and would be a very complex one if they ever decided to restore the really cool alternate right fairway which is now completely obsolete and in trees.

The entire strategy of that alternate right fairway was to take a greater risk off the tee to play the ball up to its increased height so you could get a look at the bottom of the pin for your approach shot (and maybe where your opponents ball was exactly!). But today the top of the fronting bunker and the green front has risen so much that you would not be able to see the bottom of the pin even if the alternate fairway was restored and used!

These considerations and decision making was also one for Coore & Crenshaw with evolutionary buildup at Riviera. I don't know what they did about it but I'm sure the Shackelfords do and can fill us in.

So what do you think about golfer induced architectural evolution of any kind? Asset or drawback? Would you take it on a case by case basis or just go one way or the other generally?

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

Good post.  Here's the Cliff Notes version for any impatient readers out there:

"Golf courses evolve.  Is this good or bad?"

The answer is:

It is inevitable.  Where the evolution diminishes the course (i.e. the 9th at Merion, the shoreline on the cliffside holes at Ballybunion) one should attempt to carefully reverse it, with the understanding that this reversal is temporary and will have to be repeated, periodically, over the life of the Solar system.  Where the evolution improves the course (e.g. the Road Hole bunker and the ex-tree on hte 18th at Pebble Beach) it should be monitored, optimized and then preserved.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I think Ben Crenshaw believes strongly in evolution.  He spoke to a general membership meeting before the greens "restoration" in the early 90's.  A member said the course had evolved and if you back, it might make the course easier.  Heaven forbid some senior should break 100.  Anyway, Crenshaw's reply was, "if after we have completed the greens project you cannot tell we have been there, then we will have suceeded."  I take that to mean, only restore when you have to.  Let things evolve.  Of course today's Fazio, Latshaw, USGA, foreign ownership wants to "modernize."  They will be modernizing the 14th green soon.  Tragic.
From a personal standpoint I will be working on 3 greenside bunkers this summer at my little course.  The build-up of sand has made the collars and green edge rise 12 inches in 8 years.  But I am going to attempt to leave the bunker edge at it's current height.  Let the bunkers evolve, restore the green contours.  

[Tyler Kearns]

TEPaul,
        As more and more people fall victim to the bunker in question and splash-sand top-dressing evolves its depth, is there not a degree of poetic justification that the subsequent shot becomes progressively more difficult comensurate with the action that bunker recieves? I think it kind of re-inforces the architects original intent; that the strategically placed bunker should be challenged, but ultimately avoided!

[TEPaul]

TKearns:

The bunkers in question on the holes cited which are short par 3s and 4s definitely need to be avoided, there's no question of that, but I'm not sure they should be called "strategic" bunkers exactly, since the golfer really doesn't have much choice but to hit the ball over each of them if he wants to get the ball on the green--there's no other way!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Evolution is inevitable, but whole sale alterations are not. Every case is different and that is why studying and trying to trace the evolution of golf courses is interesting. Some start off with brilliant designs and either age gracefully or possibly decline because of thoughtless alterations, some start off mediocre and are steadily improved. You can't freeze golf courses in time, but on the other hand not all change is good or inevitable.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Evolution is indeed good and the natural order of things on a course. Everytime someone hits out of a green side bunker, the elevation and contour of the green changes and over time does so significantly. Mowing habits change greens and fairways over time. The drainage of the course and growth of trees are part of the evalution. Just for gods sake keep the greens com. guys away from the changing the course without respecting the original intent of the architect.

[Tom Doak]

This is one of the main reasons I hate the growing bandwagon of "restoration."

Sometimes evolution of bunker lips is good, but eventually it will probably get out of control.  Once it does, the club will interview three architects.  One would leave the evolution alone; one would address it in spots; and one would remove all the sand buildup.

All three will call what they are going to do "restoration."

P.S.  I think the right answer is usually somewhere in the middle.  Every bunker face is a judgment call; to make all the calls according to one simple rule is a disservice.