[Patrick_Mucci]

I was looking through Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" and couldn't help but notice the apparent ferocity of the bunkering on so many "Golden Age" courses.

Bunkering that seemed, if not universal, certainly systemic.

Then I thought of Hollywood and its myriad bunker complex.

Hollywood and Pine Valley were designed to be Championship courses.
You could probably add GCGC to the mix.

Most of these course pre-date the invention of the Sand wedge by years, sometimes a decade or two

Was the number, position and ferocity of the bunkers a natural by-product of the roots of the architects in the UK ?

Subsequently, AWT was responsible for the filling in of many bunkers in his tour.
Surely, even clubs that AWT didn't visit, filled in their bunkers as joiners of the fad.

Sarazen didn't invent the Sand Wedge until 1932, so the courses played prior to 1932 had to be far more difficult in terms of bunker play.

Today, the act of restoring a bunker is often a difficult one, opposed by many club members.   WHY ?

With the modern ball and equipment, the challenge today, has to be far, far less demanding than the challenge over those same courses nearly a century ago.

FAIR..... UNFAIR
Were those words ever uttered, en masse, by golfers in the early part of the 20th century ?

Has the broadening of the spectrum of golfers resulted in the dumbing down of the architecture, and in particular, bunkers.

Has anyone ever heard of a modern club altering their golf course to introduce features that will make the coures more challenging ?
If so, could you detail the revision and how it was received.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Has anyone ever heard of a modern club altering their golf course to introduce features that will make the coures more challenging ?
If so, could you detail the revision and how it was received.

They plant trees  and are extremely happy about it. 
They add ponds  and are extremely happy about it.

[Mike McGuire]

Yes they have.

First it is necessary to define "golfers" and "players"

Golfers love a challenge and welcome a new bunker in their way. Players want a big field to bat their ball around and abhor hazards that might get in their way of breaking 100 or whatever.

At my club, I have witnessed the ratio of golfers to players change from 50/50 15 years ago to 10/90 today.

Almost impossible to put in a new bunker.

[Philippe Binette]

Mike Clayton's : How soft are modern golfers in Golf Architecture a worldwide perspective  no 3 is to be red in that regard.

the answer is yes...

long grass: not acceptable
deep bunkers: not acceptable
difficult shot: not acceptable
not mowing from the men's tee to the ladies tee: not acceptable.

make the courses 6000 yards, and make them tough SOB is better golf then what we see...

[Melvyn Morrow]

I refuse to answer your question under the grounds that I may incriminate myself

Melvyn

[Mike_Clayton]

Patrick,

It isn't a phenomenon unique to America. The related question concerns how many of the great holes would be classed as unfair and derided for their creation because 'this is a members course'

The great 15th at Kingston Heath would be a severely criticised hole in this age because non-competent players can never hope to escape the bunkers in less that several swipes. Of course the poster child is the Road Hole.

We recently did a short par three where players must carry 135 meters across the fronting bunkers to reach the green. One 80 year old members called and asked if I had considered 80 year olds we built the hole.
Across the street is the great 15th at Commonwealth - a hole that asks exactly the same question.
I suggested than no one had complained about that hole or the question it asks - and that it was built when the game was played with hickory and was infinitely more difficult than it is now - when the game has never been easier to play.

[Mark_F]

The great 15th at Kingston Heath would be a severely criticised hole in this age because non-competent players can never hope to escape the bunkers in less that several swipes. Of course the poster child is the Road Hole.

Mike,

I had a hit with someone last week who has been around a while, and they reckon the front bunker on the KH hole was miles deeper in the 1970s?

It's funny what people complain about - they change the bunkering on Peninsula South 17 because they all come up short, and yet the bunker shot from the left on 13 South is much harder.

[Ally Mcintosh]

This topic is timely for me Patrick because last night I had out an old World Atlas copy and was reminding myself how ubiquitous and fun the bunkering was on the the finest inland courses in GB&I also... Routing maps of Ganton, Woodhall Spa and even Sunningdale contested to this... Modern designs have followed far too many formulae in placement and shapes...

[Jim Tang]

The 15th hole at Black Sheep is a dogleg right to an elevated green.  The original design had 3 small, shallow bunkers guarding the inside of the dogleg.  Three more shallow bunkers could be found short and left of the green, which is elevated.  The hole is a great design becasue if you steered your tee ball away from the dogleg to the wider part of the fairway, your 2nd shot was more challenging, which forced you to carry the greenside bunkers and play from a less desirable angle.  To get the best angle of attack for the 2nd and have the opportunity to play to the wider part of the green, you needed to challenge the right side of the hole and the dogleg.

However, from the up tees, members were hammering the ball over the bunkers in the dogleg and getting a great angle for their 2nd shot.  Even if members did end up in the bunkers in the dogleg, they still were able to go for the green in two most of the time becasue the bunkers were not deep enough.

The owner found all of this troubling.  He had the three bunkers inside the dogleg expanded into one massive bunker, probably quadrupling the ground the bunker ate up and deepened it significantly.  The carry off the tee was lengthened roughly by 30 yards and if a ball ended up in the enormous bunker complex in the dogleg, it was so deep your only option 90% of the time was to chip out sideways.

While he was at it, the owner also significantly deepened the three bunkers short of the green.   If you are in those bunkers now, because of the modifications and the elevated green, you cannot see the putting surface.

The changes have brought back a true risk/reward element to the 15th and made it a much better golf hole.  The dogleg today is usually not carried, so, to get the favorable angle for the 2nd shot, you need to take a line down the extreme right side of the fairway, running your tee ball on the edge of the bunker complex the entire way.  You can still paly it safe off the tee, playing well left of the dogleg, but, the deepened greenside bunkers left and short of the green are now a real terror.

Interestingly, the owner added a similar large bunker complex on another hole, which replaced a large area of prairie grass.  This was done to make the hole easier, not harder.  Tee balls that went into the head high prairie grass area were gonzo, so, the bunker was added to allow players to find their ball and play a recovery shot.

[Ronald Montesano]

Mel...we know what you think of us. When you sail off on the great golf ball, as happens in the final story in Lazy Days At Lahinch, you'll come to know how wrong you have been about many of us.


Now, on to the answer. Ian Andrew, et al., did a great job strengthening Cherry Hill (Walter Travis) in Ridgeway, Ontario. The bunkers are much more apparent and viable. In addition, they and mother nature removed stands of trees of no golf purpose. I cannot speak better of a renovation job and am looking forward to seeing his work at Park Club.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Tang,

Ahhhhh, the benefits of a dictator ! 

[Sam Morrow]

Why the US only? It seems to me everywhere the game is played people have become spoiled wimps.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I've read some articles from the early part of the 20th century in which the thought was that trees, water, forced carries, and any hazard that captured a good drive were unfair.

The question of adding features to strengthen a public course that I'm familiar with came down to money,  how much will it cost to build and  maintain them, vs. how many extra rounds will the work bring in. That's an almost impossible question to answer.

[Jim Tang]

Pat -

That is well said, but somewhat of an understatement.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ronald

You do yourself and fellow countrymen a disservice as you do NOT know what I think of you. Of course I am not keen on carts etc, re golf, but I have nothing but fondness for nearly all Americans that have crossed my path (albeit not cart).

I can disagree without hate or dislike. However there is a hand full on this site who have never taken to me, which would be fine except for their unpleasant attacks upon me and my kind. To these individuals I have no time, but as far as I am concerned they are small in number, well as far as I am aware.

I am not anti-America or Americans and I have no pre-set agenda against anything related to your people or country, after all I do have American relatives. Had my great grandfather (James Hunter) not died early by drowning at Mobile in 1880’s I would be an American - as he died before becoming an American Citizen. Anyway the subject matter on this site is golf design and the heart of golf is walking which has a massive bearing on design content of any golf course.

I pursue golf and the traditional way the game is played.  I see modern golfers missing out on the full enjoyment the game can offer which IMHO start from walking, which in turn allows one to observe the land and course as one walks, while thinking about navigating around all the potential traps and hazards be they Man made or a gift from Nature.

This anti-American crap, is the only way many can stir up resentment against my cause as all I want is to see the game flourish and all golfers embracing the full thrill of that Royal & Ancient Game of Golf. Man facing the challenge created by the Design and Nature.

I think many perhaps need to re learn the quality of the game, it’s simple and basic attractiveness of walking with life (or Nature) playing courses like Machrie, Machrihanish, Askernish etc., simple but wonderful courses built and maintained at affordable levels to really entertain the golfer. Courses that offer the full benefit of playing 36 Holes in day to fully appreciate the land, design and the potential changing environment that region has to offer.

We do not need carts, they take pleasure out of the game (unless you need them for mobility), distance aids are just duplications of one’s own eyes, mind and body, a pointless distraction to the thinking process and the long aerial shots are destroying great designs and courses originally not intended for the long aerial shots. So Golf, traditional all-encompassing golf requires commitment and a degree of thought while one walks, learning close up about Nature and GCA, all the time with a warm feeling of contentment that you achieved it unaided.

My hand of friendship has always been open, have I not sent many new Members photos and articles on St Andrews and Golf when they joint this site, regrettable less than half respond. But then that’s life.

No you do not know what I think of you and you really do not know me.

Melvyn 

[Ken Moum]

FAIR..... UNFAIR
Were those words ever uttered, en masse, by golfers in the early part of the 20th century ?

Has the broadening of the spectrum of golfers resulted in the dumbing down of the architecture, and in particular, bunkers.

Has anyone ever heard of a modern club altering their golf course to introduce features that will make the coures more challenging ?
If so, could you detail the revision and how it was received.

Patrick, you'll need to explain how hundred, perhaps thousands of courses have gone from looking like my Ross-designed home course--here in 1948 with 50-  to 70-yard wide fairways and almost no trees:

http://shawneeaerials.shutterfly.com/

To here in 2012, with fairways barely half as wide and trees everywhere:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Shawnee+Country+Club,+913+SE+29th+St,+Topeka,+KS+66605-1399&hl=en&ll=39.011608,-95.663575&spn=0.00827,0.02105&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.534108,86.220703&vpsrc=6&hq=Shawnee+Country+Club,&hnear=913+SE+29th+St,+Topeka,+Kansas+66605&t=f&z=16&ecpose=39.01160848,-95.66357507,1847.74,0.022,0,0

[Sean_A]

I am all for deep bunkers, but I have little time for the championship mentality of bunker left and right.  Well positioned bunkers shouldn't necessitate large numbers.  To me, large numbers of bunkers usually means lack of thought into the design or perhaps even worse - overdesign.  

Someone mentioned The road Hole.  Well that bunker is far deeper today (and rightly so) than at in the Golden Age.

I played a course today that has less than 50 bunkers and watched a guy take 9 shots to escape from one of them (a deep bastard!).  No, on well designed courses, the golfer is not spoiled.  

Ciao

[Jeff_Mingay]

Patrick,

It isn't a phenomenon unique to America. The related question concerns how many of the great holes would be classed as unfair and derided for their creation because 'this is a members course'

We recently did a short par three where players must carry 135 meters across the fronting bunkers to reach the green. One 80 year old members called and asked if I had considered 80 year olds we built the hole.

Mike,

I had a very similar situation at one of my client clubs. At this course, we recently excavated some old bunkers that had been filled and re-filled, and re-filled again and again, with bunker sand many, many times over many, many years to original depths. At a 120-yard par three, one of three greenside bunkers became much deeper. I was also questioned as to whether or not I had considered the age of many elderly members when restoring this bunker depth, and asked if I was aware a lot of women play this course. My answer was similar to yours. This hole is at least 90 years old, and this particular bunker got shallower and shallower with each ensuing decade - imagine trying to escape from it prior to Sarazen inventing the sand wedge!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Another interesting tidbit...

The pro at this club actually gave lessons in this bunker, on the course, after we restored it. I thought that was kinda neat

[Joel_Stewart]

With the modern ball and equipment, the challenge today, has to be far, far less demanding than the challenge over those same courses nearly a century ago.

FAIR..... UNFAIR
Were those words ever uttered, en masse, by golfers in the early part of the 20th century ?

I've wondered that many times playing Pine Valley.  I just can't imagine how that course played in the 20's or 30's with the equipment and ball.  Same with the Lido.  It must have been a ball buster.  Was it fun?

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - more broadly speaking, I have a feeling that if good golfers today had to endure shooting the kind of scores their counterparts routinely shot back in the 1910s and 20s, we'd have golfers quitting the game in droves.

I think that all architects working today (i.e. of all "stripes") do their work/design their courses within the parameters suggested by the skill-sets and tastes of the average/casual/public/retail golfer.   I don't think that was the case in the 1910s and 20s and 30s. 

In every way, the game is easier today  -- and thank goodness too, as, alas, we have indeed become spoiled.Spolied by some wonderful and timeless work/design, mind you, but spoiled nonetheless.

Peter

[Jason Topp]

What about the courses of Nicklaus and Dye in the 80's?  Many were very severe but popular.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

What about the courses of Nicklaus and Dye in the 80's?  Many were very severe but popular.   

Jason,

What courses designed by Nicklaus in the 80's became popular ?

[Mike Hendren]

Charles Banks' greenwide bunkers were an intergral part of the golf course - integrated through engineering and excavation.  As a result, I'm guessing they've generally survived.  Perhaps George Bahto can comment.  By comparison, the bunkers of other architects were often peripherals or add-ins and in that sense optional.  Superintendents and greens committee's have subsequently opted back out due to maintenance and/or playability issues. 

As for difficulty, I can't fathom trying to get up and down from, say the bunker fronting the 18th green at Knoll West without a sand wedge and from sand that has not been routinely maintained.    Moreso than any architect, his bunkers had to be avoided at all costs.  I can't help but believe the man was mean-spirited. 

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

Today, the act of restoring a bunker is often a difficult one, opposed by many club members.   WHY ?

With the modern ball and equipment, the challenge today, has to be far, far less demanding than the challenge over those same courses nearly a century ago.

Patrick, the saddest effect is not the dumbing down of bunkering but the introduction and widespread use of water hazards to  challenge and penalize. 

I have yet to visit an unfair bunker but I have encountered what I would consider unfair H2O.


Bogey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()