Why has the Melbourne ‘sand-belt’ style bunkering not been used anywhere else?

[Tom Kelly]

I was hoping someone would be able to answer one of the many questions posted below to answer why the Melbourne sand-belt bunker style has not been used elsewhere in the world?

Having seen the sand-belt bunkering up close I can’t understand why this style has not been used anywhere else. It both looks and plays brilliantly and although the clean cut edges stand out up close and often don’t look particularly natural they somehow manage to blend into the overall environment very well, especially at Kingston Heath in my opinion with the rough wasteland style back edges.

I can only come up with three possible reasons why it isn’t used elsewhere but am not sure if any are legitimate;

Firstly is there something about the landscape and perhaps flora of the sand-belt/Australia that makes the shapes of the bunker blend in and makes them seem out of place anywhere else, I have often tried to imagine the bunkers in other settings and it does somehow at first seem out of place, but is this just my perception of the bunkers only being found/belonging in Australia?!

Secondly is it the soil or rather sand that’s makes the bunkering suitable and possible on the sand-belt and nowhere else. Do the steep faces especially so close to green sites make it impossible to build on softer soils or sands found elsewhere in the world due to erosion problems? Would it be possible or wise to create these steep faces more artificially using sportcrete or another type of artificial bunker liner to create the look and feel of the bunkering?

Finally were Alex Russell, Mick Morcom or another of the people who worked with Mackenzie on his famed trip to Australia responsible for the bunker styling rather than Mackenzie himself? Or did Mackenzie himself ever say why he didn’t use that style at other courses he built afterwards?

Does anyone know of any other reason why the 'sand-belt bunkering' cannot or is not replicated anywhere else?

Cheers

Tom

[Scott Warren]

Thomas,

It has been used quite well at West Sussex.

My understanding is that a particular combination of grain size(s) is required for the sand to compact and hold on the faces as it does in Melbourne (without needing liners). My club in Sydney is on pure, pure sand and yet the different native sand makes for completely different playability.

[Tom Kelly]

Thanks Scott that seems to make sense. I guess that same consistency of sand must be present somewhere else other than Melbourne or Australia though?

I've had a look at West Sussex website and other than the heather the par 3 8th in particular looks like it could have been plucked from the sand-belt and dropped into Sussex quite easily! But I can't tell, are the faces hard packed there as well or is it just the general shaping of the bunkers they have used? Can the shaping of the bunkers could be replicated without the hard packed faces, they may be not be as steep but it would be interesting to see if you could create a similar look and feel of the sand-belt bunkering without it looking like a bad copy....?

[Tim_Weiman]

Thomas,

I may be way off base here, but I recall thinking the bunker work at Atlantic City Country Club - the Tom Doak revision - was inspired by the sand belt.

Maybe Tom or someone else familiar with ACCC can comment.

Regardless, I love the sand belt bunkering. Some of the stuff at Kingston Heath, for example, is just wonderful.

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas:

It's the sand.

More specifically, the soil out of which the sand belt courses are constructed is a very loamy sand ... at Royal Melbourne, it has more of the consistency of dirt in many of the bunkers. 

I once heard Michael Clayton say of his former partner Bruce Grant, when we were discussing some bunkers where the sand had blown out, that "Bruce grew up at Royal Melbourne, so he doesn't think there should be any sand in bunkers anyhow."

[Ryan Farrow]

Thomas, Schmidt-Curley has been doing a version of the Melbourne Sandbelt for quite some time, almost to a point where it was starting to drive one of our principals crazy, but its hard to say no when clients kept requesting it. It was turning into a signature design style for our company and a lot of our courses in the southwestern U.S.  but now we have finally gotten away from that and do all kinds of good stuff now.


When we were doing the 10 courses at Mission Hills, we had to bring it back just to keep the variety up. This time we went pretty authentic, more transitional edges, and variety of plant life to help sell the style, here are a few pictures of what we did. Keep in mind, this site was 100% volcanic lava rock.

















Its a fun style of course to build, would really like to do it on a super tight site with a lot of close corridors.

[Bill Brightly]

Fantastic pictures Ryan.

Can someone post a photo or two of a "sand-belt" style bunker? I have played Royal Mellbourne, but I'm not certain what the term defines.

Thanks.

[Paul Carey]

Steve Smyers has used this style.  In particular at Old Memorial and Four Streams. 

[RJ_Daley]

I've asked this question going back since the start of this GCA.com DG.  Some of the answers that were given back a decade ago was both the soil particle size and nature, and the root system of the "couch" turf, which is I guess a cultivar of bermuda turfgrass.  It was noted by some of the Aussie contributors that the exacto knife sharp edges that we see on TV when tours are broadcasting events in their season from Oz is not the same level of crisp sharp bunker edges year around.  (I have no idea to what extent that is correct).

One thing in Ryan's example photos that seems to me observable from those pics (accurate or not?) is that all their bunkers with the crisp edges aren't as dramatically cut straight down into the root zone, and the very edges of those newer bunkers seem like the last foot or so are banked or built up, whereas the one in Oz seem to fall right in with no last bit of edge sloped up away from the fall-in.

But, it makes sense to me that having a very strong, almost jute-back fibrous root system of turf, in sand-loam that is not so prone to crumble when exactly cut, is a fair theory to assume.  Also, that would then go obviously to what sort of irrigation they apply, and what amount of rain they get that tend to break down or wash out that exacto cut through the soil-root zone.

At any rate, I am among the folks that love to see 'the look' of it when the cameras turn to Oz courses.  It seems that Barney Dunes and Lost Farms (from photos) have decided to follow the Sand Hills of NE prairie approach to maintaining the lips rather than the Melbourne or Oz traditional regimine; would that be correct Tom?

I'd think Mr Clayton would have the most insight into all of this if he'd care to explain.

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan:

Have you ever been to Kingston Heath and Royal Melbourne?

I'm guessing that if you had, you probably wouldn't have posted those pictures.

[Bill_McBride]

Haven't been to Australia, but got very excited a couple of years ago watching television of an event at Metropolitan.  I just loved how those steep faced bunkers seemed to be carved out of the greens.  It's a wonderful look. 

Are there bunkers anywhere in the US that look like that?   None that I've seen!

[Scott Warren]

Bill:

It is indeed a wonderful look!

[Bill_McBride]

Bill:

It is indeed a wonderful look!

WOW!  Thanks, Scott. 

[Mike_Cocking]

The bunkers at Metro are quite unique - even to the sand belt.  Their razor sharp edges appeal to a lot of people, for me though they have a slightly manufactured look and the slight ruggedness to the traps at KHeath, RM, Woodlands and Victoria are more appealing.

There are lots of different ingredients that go into sand belt bunkers.  As tom pointed out the sands have a lot to do with it (they have a high percentage of fines which compact and allow for stable sand faces), and of course they are also fairly free draining.  But as well as the sands there is the shaping side of things which many claim to understand but few really do - many architects (and superintendents) seem to think sand belt bunkers are all about walking (tongues) for instances.  (There are lots of examples to choose from here but I won't name them).

In addition there is also the Melbournes climate (allowing for both cool season and warm season grasses and heathland plants) and management practices which borrow more from the british that america (short grass on play side, rough sides left rugged etc).  Take any of these out of the equation and you'll miss the mark.


RJ - Barnbougle and Lost Farm illustrate the sand point well.  Being built on essentially beach sand the grains are quite big and won't compact like the sand belt.  Apart from the fact their rugged look is well suited to the site, you couldn't build sand belt bunkers down there even if you wanted to.

[Tom Kelly]

Thanks for info guys, I thought this thread had died so hadn't looked back for a few days!

Scott and Tom

Thanks for the info it makes a lot of sense and it is almost dirt and grit more than sand at times now I come to think of it. I could imagine trying to create the edges as severe anywhere else on not ideal ground could create some massive maintenance headaches!

RJ

Having spent a very short time working on the sand-belt I can say it is true, the bunkers don't always look quite so clean cut, but they never let them get too rough so unless looking close up you still get the same look and feel of the sharp edges.

The rain they get there in the summer months (when I was there) is very sparse and usually very heavy when it does come down. The edges stand up extremely well even after a few massive storms including a hail storm.......yes a hails storm in Australia I'm not making it up and some of them were the size of golf balls too which very quickly melted and turn into rivers of water everywhere! I didn't see any edges collapse or have problems crumbling probably because the water drains so well it doesn't get a chance to soak into the soil and the rootzone? Perhaps in a wetter climate they may have more problems....can anybody comment on how they hold up during the winter months in more sustained periods of rain? I know you Melbournians love to complain about the cold and wet winters you get down there!! Try living in England.....

[Tom Kelly]

There are lots of different ingredients that go into sand belt bunkers.  As tom pointed out the sands have a lot to do with it (they have a high percentage of fines which compact and allow for stable sand faces), and of course they are also fairly free draining.  But as well as the sands there is the shaping side of things which many claim to understand but few really do - many architects (and superintendents) seem to think sand belt bunkers are all about walking (tongues) for instances.  (There are lots of examples to choose from here but I won't name them).

In addition there is also the Melbournes climate (allowing for both cool season and warm season grasses and heathland plants) and management practices which borrow more from the british that america (short grass on play side, rough sides left rugged etc).  Take any of these out of the equation and you'll miss the mark.


RJ - Barnbougle and Lost Farm illustrate the sand point well.  Being built on essentially beach sand the grains are quite big and won't compact like the sand belt.  Apart from the fact their rugged look is well suited to the site, you couldn't build sand belt bunkers down there even if you wanted to.

Mike

I agree that the shaping isn't solely about the steep, clean cut edges and I personally loved the view the shaping gave when seen from a distance The layers of faces of the different bunkers without the grassed lips you get on other bunker styles made then seem almost like waves of sand coming up from the ground. Also the idea of the fairways and greens running straight into the bunker with the rough back edges was something I also particularly liked. Kingston Heath being the best example I saw with the bunkers often running into each other and wasteland type areas at their back edges.

Putting the sand aside and the step faces, do you think it is possible to use the other elements which create the style as you mention the same shaping (minus some of the tongues...) and the short grass on the play side etc to give a similar feel to a course on different sand/soil or do you think it is the sand and steep clean cut edges that make the most impact? Would they just look like a bad copy in our opinion?

[Mike_Clayton]

One of the almost unique things about the bunkering is that there is often no fringe between green and bunker - meaning so many marginal shots fall just off the green and into sand. Scott's photo of the right bunker at the 11th hole at Metropolitan shows that well.
Some courses that stopped hand mowing lost that feature but it is most pronounced at Metropolitan.
There are also some of the most difficult sand shots in the game on the sandbelt - because of a combination of hard greens, short shots from deep bunkers with little green to work with and firm sand making precise contact imperative.
So the look is one thing - and it is possible to get somewhat close to that look -  but the shots they present and how to play them is an important part of the character of sandbelt bunkers.
If you build a 'sandbelt' bunker and fill it with too much sand it's not a sandbelt bunker no matter how it may look in a photo from a distance.

[Jason Topp]

If you build a 'sandbelt' bunker and fill it with too much sand it's not a sandbelt bunker no matter how it may look in a photo from a distance.

I really enjoyed that aspect of those bunkers.  Every shot was different, from shots essentially off of hardpan, to a thin layer of sand to a normal bunker shot.  I suspect any US club that tried that approach would not use it for very long because of member complaints.  It is a pity, because reading the lie and executing the shot add variety and interest to bunker play.

[Ryan Farrow]

Ryan:

Have you ever been to Kingston Heath and Royal Melbourne?

I'm guessing that if you had, you probably wouldn't have posted those pictures.

No, I have not been to the Sandbelt, hoping to get there sometime next year (hell, I'm already halfway there!).... Anyways, I have seen my fair share of Sandbelt photos, even played Royal Melbourne on my Playstation... That counts right?

To answer your second question, yes, I still would have posted these photos. I did not post them for you to critique (by all means, feel free). I posted these in response to an honest question, and wanted to give a decent response. We tried to mimic a Sandbelt style course, in China, with a Thai Bunker crew  on volcanic lava rock.... I thought it was a pretty decent representation considering the circumstances. Now you can argue.... maybe that wasn't the right call, but when your building 10 courses on the same piece of property..... no regrets.

I have no problems with anyone posting photos of Smyers work, Normans work, etc..... Thomas asked a good question.... and he got an answer. The more feedback, the better right?

[Bill_McBride]

If you build a 'sandbelt' bunker and fill it with too much sand it's not a sandbelt bunker no matter how it may look in a photo from a distance.

I really enjoyed that aspect of those bunkers.  Every shot was different, from shots essentially off of hardpan, to a thin layer of sand to a normal bunker shot.  I suspect any US club that tried that approach would not use it for very long because of member complaints.  It is a pity, because reading the lie and executing the shot add variety and interest to bunker play.

I'm guessing a 60* SW with very low bounce would be a useful tool in those bunkers. 

[Tom Kelly]

If you build a 'sandbelt' bunker and fill it with too much sand it's not a sandbelt bunker no matter how it may look in a photo from a distance.

I really enjoyed that aspect of those bunkers.  Every shot was different, from shots essentially off of hardpan, to a thin layer of sand to a normal bunker shot.  I suspect any US club that tried that approach would not use it for very long because of member complaints.  It is a pity, because reading the lie and executing the shot add variety and interest to bunker play.

I'm guessing a 60* SW with very low bounce would be a useful tool in those bunkers. 

Bill

A wedge with low bounce it is almost a necessity and probably another reason why I loved the sand belt bunkers. I personally can't stand playing out of bunkers with so much sand that you sink into when you try to plant your feet....probably partly because my sw/lw has hardly any bounce on it and I'm not good enough to compensate!!

Mike

Yet another reason why they haven't been copied much elsewhere. It seems that perhaps sum of all the parts equals far greater than each aspect on its own. I am starting to see the futility of trying to re-create them in a less than perfect environment. You are never going to get quite the same overall felling. They will not be bad and may have some good aspects but it will take a hell of a lot to make them as great as the originals.

[Bill Brightly]

Thanks for posting the photos, Scott.

While those bunkers are awesome, one thing I would say is that they better be VERY steep to keep idiots from walking up the face! Looks like one step on the edge and the damage would be next to impossible to cheaply repair. So it seems like you can have those type of bunkers on private clubs, but to build them where there is significant public play might be a problem.

[Tom Kelly]

Thanks for posting the photos, Scott.

While those bunkers are awesome, one thing I would say is that they better be VERY steep to keep idiots from walking up the face! Looks like one step on the edge and the damage would be next to impossible to cheaply repair. So it seems like you can have those type of bunkers on private clubs, but to build them where there is significant public play might be a problem.

Bill I can't speak for the ones at Metro as in the picture, but the bunkers I've worked with at Woodlands and Commonwealth stand up surprisingly well and are very sturdy due to the hard ground and combination of all the things mentioned above....sand, rootzone etc. I think it would need a serious pounding before the turf on the faces fell in. The sand faces are repaired fairly easily as there is no sub soil as such to  to deal with before adding the sand its all just the same sand so it just needs compacting down again!

If you want to see a few more pictures of the sand-belt bunkers have a look at David Scaletti's  website, he is a very good golf photographer who happens to be a member at Commonwealth on the Sand-belt. Have a look at his pics of Kingston Heath, Vic, RM, Commonwealth, Metro, Woodlands etc.

http://www.davidscaletti.com.au/catalogue

He has some stunning shots of Barnbougle too!

[Mike_Clayton]

Bill,

Bad players always complain about the lack of sand - and almost without exception when you start talking about bounce angles on sand irons they have no clue what you are talking about.
when we still made clubs in Australia - pre-1975 - they all came from Sydney where the bunkers are soft and all the clubs had lots of bounce.
They were useless in Melbourne until you took to them with a grinding wheel.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

Bad players always complain about the lack of sand - and almost without exception when you start talking about bounce angles on sand irons they have no clue what you are talking about.
when we still made clubs in Australia - pre-1975 - they all came from Sydney where the bunkers are soft and all the clubs had lots of bounce.
They were useless in Melbourne until you took to them with a grinding wheel.

Those were the days, eh?!   Today we just buy the right gear!   But I guess you still have to know which gear to buy!

Man I want to get to Australia.......