[Jeff_Brauer]

Slag,

As a few hint, its sort of interesting to see how a fad or trend plays out. I presume this F/T started its current iteration at Sand Hills in 1999 and has been working for a decade now.  Maybe 50-100 new courses have some version of it and many others have been "restored" to it even if perhaps the original bunkers didn't have that look?

Why do some work, and others not? 

IMHO, some are too regular even among the irregular edges and still look man made.  (Regular irregularity....hmm are we still talking bunkers or digestive problems here?)

Some are done, but the gca is not fully committed to it - he/she gets half way there but is afraid to really do it.

Others are on a site where it doesn't really match.

We have seen enough of them and say "Oh not this again." So, they never have a chance in our perception, no matter how well done.

I think if we look back at the history of fads and trends, we will see a similar pattern and also, a natural desire for the next big thing.

I am also intrigued by the evolution of MacKenzie bunkers, since that look really persisted as the model for 70 years or so.  (Frilly edges have a way to go as the dominant trend setting bunker!) I just looked through the Mac book and didn't really see enough photo evidence of his early bunkers to know.  But like later gca's would it be true that once he had some acclaim with his style, that moved forward into all of his work, almost regardless of setting?  Was he expected to do that kind of bunkering, much like Pete Dye clients wanted long strip bunkers and pot bunkers?

Also regarding frill edges, most golfers agree with Matt.  Is it architecturally sound to introduce a random multistroke penalty for someone missing the green by six feet, while making a fairly standard play for those who miss by thirty?  OR as noted, have such a different result for two six foot misses separated by only a few feet along the edge?  I understand you don't ever want to eliminate the rub of the green in golf, but should a bunker style more or less force it into the issue more than nature itself might?

Lastly, many of the frill edge bunkers built back in the day were really a result of the ability to maintain them, which was nil. On a suburban golf course with less wind, and given current maintenance equipment, is a cleaner edge bunker any more or result of the evolution of the bunker given its "natural conditions" in that suburban setting?

Man, I am so deep!

[Norbert P]

I think one reason why the Prairie Dunes bunkers look so good - whether they're designed by Maxwell(s) or Axland/Coore - is because the general shapes of many bunkers throughout the course are actually quite simple. It's the periperhal grasses and other plants that present a rugged, natural appearance rather than frilly and/or jagged edges.

  I concur with Tom Paul's statement that you make a good point that deserves repeating.   So should we look at the bunker shape as a face and the plant surrounds as a hairdo?  Or are metaphors demeaning to the cause?

                                 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Regarding Billy Bell bunkers, I question whether Mr. Bell wanted the bunkers to retain the look he left after construction. I wonder if he was really looking ahead to how the bunkers would age. By leaving the edges ragged and irregular they would be more prone to weather into an eroded look. Maybe he was looking ahead to that look knowing they would change over time. I'm not a big fan of lacy edged bunkers that are then edged to retain the original lacy shapes. If you want a rugged edge, you have to let it age a bit.

Some modern attempts to mimic those lacy edges look pretty silly when combined with modern bunker edging practices.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

With modern irrigation, I don't think they age as much as they used to. If anything, they keep getting stronger turf.

And, as I pointed out on another thread, I heard the other day (and actually considered) that the new trend is drip irrigation on bunker noses to keep that turf perfect without having to water into the bunkers (thus preventing the dreaded crusty lie).

The entire premise upon which ragged, aging bunkers was built is no longer in place at most courses.

[Norbert P]

 
   Prior to Sand Hills, what was the last golf course designed with jagged/frilly/tufted bunkers?

   When did it stop after Cypress Point?

  How did they lose their popularity of design? Is it an RTJ Sr. clean bunker shift popularity/production thing? I.e., "This is the right way to build 'em because RTJ is buildin' 'em this way" mentality.

[Norbert P]

Here are a few shots from the Kingsley Club.

  The Tam Juniper(?) on the left seems an odd choice.
  The Buffalo Juniper (?) on the right makes me wonder if it's playable and makes me think of Woking's controversial heath bunker surrounds . . .

  

[Sean_A]

Some of the most attractive and best placed bunkers I know of are at New Zealand.  Really quite simple in design, but the most is gotten out of them. 




















Ciao

[TEPaul]

Slag:

A ball that lies in grass in a bunker and is not touching the ground in the bunker is not considered to be in the bunker (Hazard). Therefore, if the ball in such a lie is deemed by the player to be unplayable, one option he can use is option 28b of the Unplayable Ball Rule. That option is not available for a ball that lies in a bunker (touches the ground in a bunker) as the drop must be within the bunker. This is probably a situation which over 90% of golfers do not really understand.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don,

With modern irrigation, I don't think they age as much as they used to. If anything, they keep getting stronger turf.

And, as I pointed out on another thread, I heard the other day (and actually considered) that the new trend is drip irrigation on bunker noses to keep that turf perfect without having to water into the bunkers (thus preventing the dreaded crusty lie).

The entire premise upon which ragged, aging bunkers was built is no longer in place at most courses.

Jeff, sort of my point but I guess you missed it.
As for drip irrigation on bunker faces, that's been talked about for years now. In fact I first heard someone saying they wanted to try it in 1992 or 93. And I'm guessing it was thought of long before that. I don't care for it myself and think it's more about trying to be clever than building good bunkers.

I still think the question is did Mr. be expect the look he left to be maintained? Or did he build the irregular edges with the thought that they would mature into something even better. I think he did, which makes it funny to me that so many feel the need to copy his original look. They should be copying what the bunkers looked like ten years later.

[Norbert P]

 Thank you Tom, I will TRY to remember that very useful info. I'm not a cheating person,  just ignorant.  (No excuse, I know)

  Some fine picts Sean.

  Here's a Foster resto/ Fowler bunkers picture from Ran's Eastward Ho! review . . .

      

    Beauts in my opinion.  Great seasonal timing helps, methinks.

[Norbert P]

 . . . I still think the question is did Mr. be expect the look he left to be maintained? . . .

  Is there a typo or omission in here or am I reproving my statement about my ignorance?

[Matt_Ward]

Slag:

Frankly, for much of the discussion there is the most basic of assumptions that bunkers today still have a real relevance for the better player. With today's clubs unless the lie is really poor the top players don't see many bunkers as being anything more than a convenient backstop that saves them from even more challenging positions.

I much favor the deep and thin bunkers that Jim Engh does -- these are not trivial bunkers and it's more than likely your stance and lie will be impacted. The make-up element that so many people enjoy seeing (re: Sand Hills and the like) are quite attractive but if the overgrowth becomes too much then the net result will be an unplayable lie in plenty of instances. I much prefer the more practical emphasis in having closely mown areas which allows balls to trickle away from the greensites causing even more anguish for the better player while still permitting the higher handicap player to go about playing the hole without such elements in play.

Your effort at Wine Valley has plenty of such situations.

[Norbert P]

  A semi-off topic trivial thing, but  . . .  
Sculptor Gutzen Borglum said, in essence, that his Mt. Rushmore would take centuries of weathering before the final product would reveal itself as he intended it to appear.

                              

[TEPaul]

Slag:

That ball in grass within a bunker that is not actually touching the ground in the bunker led to a series of events with me one time in about the third round of the Philadelphia Amateur Championship that was pretty bizarre.

My ball was suspended in grass that were called "Simpsons" in a fairway bunker on the 8th hole at Philadelphia CC. I told my opponent I was going to take a unplayable and drop the ball behind the bunker keeping that point between the drop and the cup. He insisted I could not drop the ball outside the bunker. I told him I was completely certain I could if the ball was not touching the ground in the bunker that we both could see it wasn't.

But he kept insisting I couldn't drop behind the bunker. I kept insisting I could. Finally he told me if I was going to do that he wanted me to play a second ball and drop it in the bunker. I told him a player cannot use a second ball in match play and he insisted of course he could.

So we argued for a while and then I said: "OK, God-damnit, since we (player and opponent control their match), if you, my opponent, want me to do that then I will do it for your benefit only but I'm going to first drop my ball behind the bunker and play it. And so I did both.

Of course I didn't know enough about the Rules back then to have just dropped my ball behind the bunker and just played it and told him if he had a problem with that he could make a timely claim.

It got to be quite the issue with the committee and they called the USGA. Eventually, they just left it that my first drop was the ball in play but technically I probably should've been disqualified for playing a second ball in match play even if it was because of his insistence and just so we could stop the arguing and get on with the match. They let the second ball thing slide under those circumstances, I guess.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Slag,

Perhaps he is talking about the mysterious Mr. Ree, who I think later formed the "Mr. Ree Meat Co."

Don,

I got your point and was simply trying to re-state it in a different way.  And, rebuilding bunkers to original, "peak" or current conditions is an intersting subject.  To be honest, most bunkers I rebuild are for the here and now, of golfers wanting better conditions and supers wanting easier maintenance (i.e., fewer, flatter bunkers, as small as possible if hand raked, and tuned to the 8-9' turning radius of bunker rakes if not)

Matt,

Interesting point on the "edge to middle" aspect of bunkers where being near the edge will affect your shot. I was once called to a club and in reality, they wanted those kind of bunkers rebuilt to have more middle, unaffected shots.  The remodeling gca downsized the bunkers because overgrown trees made site scale smaller, but still tried to keep the "boobs and butts."  As a result, there was no place in the bunker that wasn't close to a lip that either affected your stance or kept you from hitting anything more than a nine iron.

The details of slope, size, shape, etc. all work together to determine if there is a shot to be had.  Its more than just the look of bunkers in design, and sometimes this site focuses only on the look.  PS, you are the only one to talk about depth so far.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Too many clubs have no clue on just what a bunker does and how the better players simply grin and enjoy them -- they can spin the ball at-will and the weaker players simply bring their pale and shovel and proceed to hack away in getting out of them.

The sad reality is that any attempt to make them harder for the better player only makes them THREE TIMES HARDER or more for the weaker player. The desire to have such "natural" elements as many fawn over on this site is fun to debate upob -- but today's equipment for the better player makes bunkers really more of a "frill" than a strategic consequence. Engh's bunkers borrow some of the penal flow you see at links courses and frankly the ones at Old Macdonald in plenty of spots do something likewise.

Jeff, this site focuses too much on look -- rather than playability issues and how that ties itself to a balance equation between the highliy skilled and less skilled players. Depth of bunkers is important -- but really I believe that creative land forms that take mis-shots away by rolling the ball to less than desired positions has a more meaningful impact on the better players while permitting the weaker players the wherewithal to continue playing the hole without spending a day at the beach on Coney Island.

[Tom_Doak]

 
   Prior to Sand Hills, what was the last golf course designed with jagged/frilly/tufted bunkers?

   When did it stop after Cypress Point?

  How did they lose their popularity of design? Is it an RTJ Sr. clean bunker shift popularity/production thing? I.e., "This is the right way to build 'em because RTJ is buildin' 'em this way" mentality.

Slag,

You've got this wrong.  For one thing, Bill Coore built ragged bunkers at Kapalua before Sand Hills.

More importantly, Robert Trent Jones built a lot of lace.-edged bunkers early in his career.  He got it from working with Stanley Thompson.  I would guess most of those edges went away as golf course maintenance became more mechanical, and Mr. Jones heard enoug grief about it to stop building them that way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Thoughtful answer.  That said, I notice that the "take away" slopes are also being softened in attempts to keep average players somewhere near the green.  We don't see fast fw slopes at  20% very often, because taking too many misses too far from the green is also deemed unfair by some, and to slow play by most.

[Adam Clayman]

What is wrong with balls that are six feet apart having completely different scoring variances?

Tom, Thanks for that. I guess I new you only did the greens and the new holes. but just lumped the changes I saw all together. Sorry
Did you do some of the bunker work at CPC?

I specifically recall the 1st hole had a nasty bunker well short and left of the green. It had evolved into such a beast that full warning to stay away was re-iterated. I recall it's shape as having been somewhat benign. Which begs the question form over function? What's more important to the sophisticated course owner?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Nothing, so long as you come out with the better of the two lies with money on the line!

[TEPaul]

"I would guess most of those edges went away as golf course maintenance became more mechanical,"


TomD:

In my opinion, there is no question of that at all. Perhaps the greatest influence on the look of the grass and grasslines on bunkers, at least over time, was not aesthetics or playability---it was basically the evolutions in maintenance practices and particularly its equipment.

I got one helluva eduction for about an hour or more one time while walking around GMGC with Richie Valentine talking about that very thing----eg the evolution of maintenance practices and equipment. He told me that it took Merion some years to establish that high frilly eyebrow look at the top of Merion's sand flashed up bunkers under the eras of Flynn and his father Joe Valentine. He told me that even into I think the 1971 US Open they were still using scythes to groom those frilly eyebrows but then the era of the mechanized weed-eater or fly-mower came in and it instantly changed that old fashioned frilly Merion eyebrow look quite substantially. He said basically it was gone as the top grass line became straighter and cleaner looking.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

Doesn't Matt Shaffer, and his staff, still use scythes to maintain the bunkers at Merion?

[Norbert P]

Slag,

You've got this wrong.  For one thing, Bill Coore built ragged bunkers at Kapalua before Sand Hills.

More importantly, Robert Trent Jones built a lot of lace.-edged bunkers early in his career.  He got it from working with Stanley Thompson.  I would guess most of those edges went away as golf course maintenance became more mechanical, and Mr. Jones heard enough grief about it to stop building them that way.

  Pardon my wrongly phrased questions.  (Rereading my post, I did preload one a tad.)

   Interesting remark about Mr. Jones possibly buckling under the pressure of owners saying (Warning! Non-factual historical statement ensuing . . . )
"Yo look artist boy, just get'er done so we can make some money."  or Supers saying (Warning! Non-factual historical statement ensuing . . . )
 "Er, Bob, don't waste time with your cutesy bullshit frilly look; we're just gonna tidy 'em up to keep my boys busy when yer gone anyway."

  

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Using non-bunker land forms -- work much more than anything else. Bunkers for the better player merely provide a safe backstop and predictable spin control when getting out of them. I look at what DeVries did with the 1st Kingsley. No need to bunkers by the green - the target is long and narrow with fall-offs on both sides. Makes the better player really think hard before going for the green in two blows. Put a bunker to either side and that would only make the hole easier for them.

Another good example is the mound that Team Doak included in front of the par-5 3rd at CommonGround. If they placed a bunker it would make the hole even easier -- the land form is well done for what it provides.

This site is usually more about pic appeal than about true functionality. Create bunkers that impose even more demands and the weaker player will suffer even more so.

When bunkers add all of the make-up with high grasses and the like - they only add to even more time consumed on the course and the likely insertion of unplayable lies to keep the game moving.

I like the concept of closely mown areas being used more frequently. The slow play fear you mentioned doesn't happen with the balls rolling away with the land form concept as it does with bunkers from my experience.

[TEPaul]

Well, Jeff, from the look of them in recent years I would say they probably just cut them down with something in the early spring and then let them grow the rest of the year only to be repeated the next spring.  

Those things are amazing; there are a number of them out there that few could even find their ball in.

As to what Matt uses to do them, I don't know at this point. I do know in the beginning he experimented with a flame-thrower on a few of them.

Actually burning grass on purpose is a pretty interesting thing. There are some really sophisticated horse farms around here that do it. Their grass the next spring is absolutely beautiful.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()