[Scott_Burroughs]

Steve,
    That's great about restoring the cross bunkers at LuLu.  I loved the old 17th from the photos in the clubhouse.  Are there plans to restore the 17th green to the original, with the giant surrounding bunker?
    About the cross bunkers on 5, keep them where they are, as Matt Ward will have to decide if he wants to gamble with the driver or lay back with a 3-wood.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Steve,
     Look at both of Evan Fleisher's posts on this thread to see how to post pictures.  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1007479337

     I would think #13 plays like a par 5 to many members as well.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

The cross bunkers of Gulph Mills are primarily on holes #1, #2, #3, #5, #7 and #11 to a degree, maybe also #17 to a lesser degree. Ross's style of cross bunkers, however, are usually of the "partial" style as there is always a way around them (fairway) on one or both sides.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I forgot #18 at Gulph Mills; it has a combination cross bunker/mound/rock outcropping covering the entire line of play on the second shot. The hole is so short (par 5, 421, but uphill drive and uphill second that it plays to about 470yds). This cross bunker et al. feature does not really come into play for good players but it drive the ladies and the older gents nuts. We plan to add about 60yds to this hole by doing nothing more than setting new back tees for #18 on the front of #11 tee box (a no cost way to pick up 60yds!) and that then will definitely bring this cross bunker feature in to decision making time for such as me!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

See what Eric Shortz started!

It was at dinner with Ran, Geoff Shac, and Eric at El Cholo-Santa Monica where I heard for the first time the words "Lu Lu Temple" and the description of how cool it was.

This of course led me to make sure of a visit in my tour there last year and I have a deep-defining love for the place. It is the ultimate in "Ross Quirk," and even better, Gulph Mills isn't far behind it!

Mike Cirba, do you remember my ramblings of the 17th fairway during our visit? Talk about a washboard fairway that looked to be something straight from the Old Course!

I remember the dead bunker carcass at the 5th, and can hardly wait to see it properly restored.

My favorite cross bunker in the game would have to be of course Pine Valley #7's Hell's Half Acre. However, when it comes to classic Ross, I would think that Plainfield #15 is another phenominal speciman.

BUT...........................

And you should be ashamed of yourself Tom Paul, for missing this one......

Riviera #10 which is a prime if not perfect example of a hazard crossing a fairway, or is it?

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

I'm not ashamed of myself for not menioning Riviera's #10 bunkers--I was recounting crossbunkers in a confined area of Philly and you've got to give me a little more time to get to LA!

You think LuLu's #17 fairway is a "washboard"? My boy, you've got to spend some more time on our Eastern seaboard! You do not understand the meaning of "washboard" fairway until you lay your eyes on Misquamicut's #1 (Ross). I guarantee you'll never be the same again. There is really no way to strategically play that fairway either even when hitting it! It's just blind luck--you're either on the top of a rogue wave or your lost at sea!

We'll take you there next year!

[network]

Tillinhast used cross bunkering on the majority of his par five's and very effectively.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tommy,

Of course I remember that conversation, even though I was still stunned from your miraculous par on the 4th from the sheer wall of the quarry!!  Did you happen to see what the bunkering at the green looked like on the old photos in the clubhouse during that visit?  I'm in total agreement with Scott...would LOVE to see its return!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, I didn't, I was probably a little too mezmerized by the knowledge of the gentleman that was outdrinking me on that great patio at Lu Lu. (Tom Paul)

Tom, I can hardly wait for that time!

[A_Clay_Man]

I haven't digested every word on this thread but could someone please put a timeline on the cross bunker? I have seen the ones at Pebble but I wonder if Langford's Lawsonia pre-dated those or more aptly put...Who first started with corssbunkering?

[Doug Wright]

Adam,

A herd of sheep wanted to get out of the cold, harsh Scottish wind and created a Hell of a cross-bunker on TOC!  

[TEPaul]

Cross bunkering is probably just as old as "architectural" (man-made) bunkering itself--which was probably some of Robertson's bunkering at TOC. For historical perspective it may be assumed that the bunkering on #17 TOC very well may be the first architectural (man-made) bunkering ever done (and that was Robertson).

Cross bunkering was heavily used too in early American architecture in the "geometric" era! If you've ever seen photos of some of those courses I would bet that any and all of you would say they were remarkably grotesque!

[Tyler Kearns]

Mike Cirba,
        In no way did I mean to sound patronizing in my response to the bunkering employed at the 8th hole at Hunters Oaks, and if I did, I apologize. Shorter hitters should enjoy the challenges of strategic design in the same manner as everybody else. I'm not suggesting all fairway bunkering short of the 250-yard mark should be eliminated, and that high-handicappers should essentially be playing a barren field. Upon another look at the Hunter Oaks hole, I think the first three bunkers are a bit much, for the demand a forced carry in order to avoid the "bumping the ball forward" syndrom you mentioned in your reply. The fact of the matter is, some people simply cannot get the ball airborne for any great distance, or in some cases at all. If those three bunkers were replaced by a single bunker that would demand the short-hitter to challenge it, or attempt a carry, in order to attain a better angle for the next shot, this would be a more pleasureable hole. I quote from A.W. Tillinghast speaking of designing for the "three-figure man (woman)", "his (her) poorly played shots are vexations enough without digging pit-falls to add to his (her) sorrows. Yet on hundreds of courses we find old-fashioned bunkers, marring the scenery at a point about 140 yards from the teeing ground, hazards which extend squarely across the line of play..."

[Mike_Cirba]

TKearns,

Thanks for detailing your thoughts, and I apologize if I misconstrued them.  

In the case of the hole at Hunter's Oak, I'd still argue that the short bunkers work, and I'll try to make my case.  From the front two set of tees (where I'd imagine older seniors and women would play), the hole is 277 yards and 251 yards, respectively.   To play over the first bunker on the left, the carry would be 83 & 63 yards respectively, but the ball would have to stop within another 50 yards to stay short of the next one.  To play over the first bunker on the right, into a nice position, the carry would be 100 yards and 80 yards.  The most daring play would be to try to carry both bunkers on the left, requiring either a 130 or 110 yard pop.  

I'm not so sure this isn't more fun than penal, especially since it's such a short hole and even if a bunker is encountered, the green should be realistically within range of the next shot.

As far as Tillinghast, permit me to disagree with his obvious genius.  As with most architects of his time, Tillie was first and foremost a salesman.  When the private club commissions of his time dried up during the depression, he convinced the PGA to hire him on to "modernize" courses during the depression.  

Much of that work involved going to courses and eliminating bunkers, all in the name of lower costs and cheaper maintenance.  Of course, that in itself was probably a reasonable thing to do given the economic catastrophe that had befallen the nation, but to be hired in the first place, Tillie certainly couldn't sell his services on the fact that he would come in and neuter courses, could he?

I was going to post on this a few weeks ago, and forgot, but I believe that the person responsible for taking out the plethora of bunkers at Hollywood in NJ was in fact Mr. Tillinghast.  Early photos such as Patrick Mucci posted here a few months back show just amazing fields of bunkers and cross-bunkers strewn wonderfully by Walter Travis all across the Hollywood landscape.  Years later, they just disappeared.  

Some on here blamed Dick Wilson...others the membership....but then I saw in C&W that in 1935, Tillinghast did work at Hollywood.  It doesn't seem much of a leap to assume that Tillie "cleaned out" the bunkering and cross hazards at Hollywood during his Depression Economic Plan.  

Anyway...to my point... I think that Tillie tried to find more creative and even strategic arguments about the plethora of pits during the 30s in an effort to SELL, pure and simple.

The ironic point is that many of his courses built during the teens and 20s had just tons of bunkers, including his patented Hells half acre cross-bunkering scheme.  Even more ironic is that his Bethpage Black course in 1936 featured not only cross hazards, but also significantly lengthy carries from the tee.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I pulled out "Gleanings from the Wayside" and it also mentions Tillie's work at Hollywood on the first of his two trips around the country in  1935.

It also mentions that he recommeded that several of his own bunkers from original designs be removed.  I should probably just agree with you, that he was in it for the money, to counter arguments that those guys were somehow better than the modern breed, but I actually think its a case of changing his philosophy gradually over the years.

The elimination of cross bunkers as a major design feature was a gradual thing.  The early geometric ones were abominations, and recognized as such.  They can't be much fun for at least 80% of the players, at least 80% of the time those players encounter such a bunker.  The depression probably hastened the demise of such bunkers, and just now, people like us are wondering why.  But there was a reason!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I have gotten the same impression as Mike regarding Tillinghast's post-Depression comments and actions. I think MacKenzie's post-Depression experimentation at Jockey, Bayside and eventually Augusta National was another calculated change in direction in the face of economic difficulties - showing that it was possible to produce cost effective and enjoyable new designs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Well, there is no question that the depression forced a "come to Jesus" attitude about money among almost everyone, and golf architects were no exception.  In other posts, many extol the virtues of "sticking to their principles", but the depression is certainly a worst case scenario where we could cut them some slack.

My point is that if you took constant two day train/car rides and had lots of time to think over the design of your previous work in light of some bad economic conditions, might you not have a change of heart about cross bunkers and their value in design?  They really trouble the wrong kind of players, slow play, and cost a lot to boot.  

The reason that they are not a major design feature today is that the logic established by these architects in the depression is still hanging on.  Some now question why they dissappeared, but I feel others forget (in these good times) just why they dissappeared.  I also ( in reviewing aerial photos of Tillies work in these and other books) think that he felt the "Hell's Half Acre" concept was good for one or two uses per course.  (Most aerial photos I have seen of his work don't have a proliferation of cross bunkers)

My question is, if they are of little relative value (according to the genius of Tillinghast and others) when factoring in the most strident economic conditions of golf, are they of such great value design wise in better - or even the best, which we have just experienced - economic conditions?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
I've never thought of these guys as holier than thou (God knows amny of them had their weaknesses) or unable to adjust their ideas based on realities (at least the smart ones). I would agree they no doubt they contemplated all the circumstances and what was most important in their design thoughts, and I'd guess cross-bunkers was way down the line of priorities.

I think Horace Hutchinson had it right when he condemmed them, but then said they could be a lot of fun and thought they should be included occasionaly just for the sake of variety.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Two  courses that seem to have an abundance of cross bunkers are NGLA and GCGC.

These courses seem timeless and are held in high regard by many.

Why do cross bunkers succeed so well at these two venues ?

Why doesn't this translate to their use elsewhere ?

[JohnV]

Why does it seem ok to many modern architects to put a lake that must be carried off the tee and another one short of the green when bunkers would accomplish much the same purpose without the cost to the player?  I sometimes think that modern architects are getting kickbacks from Titlest, Spalding and the other ball manufacturers.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

An extremely interesting post of yours. There's a ton of food for thought in it!

You're certainly one of our best voices of the realities of architecture on this website. It's your job and you do it everyday for a living while many of the rest of us have the luxury of conceptualizing and analyzing with no real consequences for what we say, propose and think!

However, I would caution even you from making assumptions and statements on what is ideal or even valid or necessary in architecture and its features based solely on economic considerations! I also think we should look at some of the master architects we're mentioning here as to whether they were compromising their principles when they made some depression era recommendations or did jobs that would seem to compromise what we believe their architectural principle really were.

Sometimes I think we tend to take their principles and their architectural thinking a bit too seriously or literally. We probably do tend to idealize these architects and consequently tend to NOT look at them for what they really were--talented men who also had to ekk out a living in the worst of economic times and also men who were probably somewhat "please and accomodate" salesmen!

We should look at golf architecture and the odd evolutionary hiatus of the depression and WW2 for what it was--a very depressed time for all. Golf courses and their features needed, like the rest of the depression and war culture, to go into mothballs for a more immediate concern.

But we should recognize what happened in that time and exactly why (economics) and not assume there is good architecture for poor economic times that's synomymous with good architecture for good economic time--more likely there is just good architecture, period!

People clearly forgot exactly why courses changed so much during the depression and WW2--which was strictly for economic reasons and conditions, not architectural principles. After the war many people simply assumed that fairway narrowed, green shrunken, bunker reduced courses were the way it was supposed to be architecturally.

And the economics of golf courses and their maintenance became the overriding determinant with no thought to architectural design intent. At my course about 25 years ago the fairways were shrunken from about 55 acres down to about 35 acres. I found the fellow who made that decision and asked him why he made that decision. Strictly for economic considerations, he said. I asked him if he understood the design intent of the golf course's fairways and he asked me what that meant!!

I had an interesting conversation with Rodney Hine, one of Gil Hanse's partners the other day driving back from a lecture in Atlantic City and we were talking about the general subject of economics and golf courses, particularly their maintenance. He mentioned that these things should not really be looked at in a vacuum of a specific feature but by an analysis of the necessary "trade-offs" of maintaining a golf course in the overall!

So something like a cross bunker should not be looked at in a specific economic vacuum but in its architectural value, use and validity. All architectural features should be looked at this way and the economic considerations should be applied to the overall, and "tradeoffs" can be better implimented this way. This is a better economic way to look at a golf course, it's features, like cross bunkers and how to maintain the course and any and all of its features, in my opinion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff Brauer,

I'd have to agree with Patrick and JohnV here.  

When compared with woods, water, wetlands, high rough, and other tactics frequently used by modern architects, how are cross bunkers part of slowing the game??

Give me a hazard where I have a chance of recovery anytime.  

I do agree that Tillinghast had some evolution in his thinking during his career, yet don't you also find it ironic that his last great course, Bethpage Black, included various cross and diagonal bunkering, not to mention long carries over sandy wasteland to even reach the fairways?  

Jeff, I've played your Avocet course at Wild Wing, don't forget!  If the mid-fairway bunkering there is something you'd now disavow, please say it ain't so!  

http://www.wildwing.com/avocet/a9.html

http://www.wildwing.com/avocet/a14.html

[Jeff Brauer]

Tom Paul,

I framed my thought as a question, not a statement, both to foster discussion and to indicate that I'm not 100% sure of any answer on the point.  I am sure that my mentors told me the reasons for the demise of the cross bunker, as stated in my posts, but that's about all.  Nonetheless, it struck me that the "rule" against cross bunkers, which I had only figured went back to the "50's Modernization period, really went back to the tail end of the golden age, a revelation for me.

I also feel that if something is difficult or impossible to maintain, or has low value relative to it's maintenance cost, it will eventually be eliminated.  For some reason, I think the old guys felt the same in general - even if we would disagree on SPECIFICS of what should go first.  So, I think I feel the same as Gil Hanse and his associates, plus or minus.  

Economics is, for better or worse, always part of the equation.  The hard part is to think in the fourth dimension of time, similar to what the Golden Age guys did with length.  Design was, IHMO, at an all time low when I entered the business in the 70's, and I had trouble envisioning the attention now paid to design features over maintenance.  But, having been through it, I have no trouble envisioning a return to a more economically stressful time for design, maintenance and club dues, etc.

In pure design terms, I agree with Tom MacWood and Horace H. that cross bunkers should be used only once or twice for variety, because they are not the very best strategic concepts.  I like cape holes, bottleneck bunkering, and most other forms of fairway concepts for that matter not be repeated either) Hence, Mike Cirba, the two examples at Wild Wing.  PS - I didn't even know of the "Bottle Hole at NGLA when designing that.  

Not sure why water hazards are more acceptable.  Of course, with modern irrigation demands, and the softer turf they create, hence the aerial game, combined with many people who want "the toughest" course, it's easy to see how they evolved.  And, it's just a few less acres of grass to mow!  Nonetheless, I think their overall use is declining.

For you who think I am a modernistic heather, I took home "Gleanings from the wayside" to read tonight.  I usually take home one of the great design books for study.  Well, sometimes I lightly read them while watching hockey....So if I call Tillie a leading proponent of the "hip check" or MacDonald a classic "butterfly goalie", I apologize in advance, and you know I wasn't studying too hard!

Going back to the design issue of cross bunkers, I looked at "Golden Age of Golf Design" to look at Tillies explanation of the "Hell's Half Acre".  To quote:

"...the green on a three shot hole should be beyond the range of any player who misses either his drive or second stroke.  Doglegging allows this.  But the most effective method, and I believe the only satisfactory method, is the location of a truly formidable hazard across the fairway.  This must be carried with the second shot if the green is to be gained with the third.  Obviously, the break in the fairway must be great, let us say 100 yards, for it not only has to be crossed with the second, but also keep any shot short of it from getting home."

So what's wrong with this logic?  First, is he trying to stop a second from reaching the green or a third.?....Do we really want a cross bunker forcing a third shot of over 200 yards for a middling shot?

IMHO, a cross hazard at, say 325 yards stops the  best players from going for a long hole in two.  But wouldn't a better strategic concept be modeled after Muirfield 9 - where the narrow pinch of fairway beyond the traditional landing are both increases temptation, and reduces reasonable chance of success of going for the green?  That gives a choice, ie strategy, rather than dictate a shot, no?

A cross hazard - bunker or pond - in front of the green (a la August 15) challenges any player from getting home in two, and allows the second to easily lay up, reducing chances for birdie.  Additional bunkers may make the lay up interesting or strategic.  It would not be out of the question to make this penal, with bunkers pinching both sides of the fairway, IMHO.  Far better, than dictating a lay up, and forced 250 plus carry to the green.

Any counter points?

Jeff

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

You're right, I shouldn't have said you made a statement about these things--you didn't--it was a quesition you asked.

Good logic about the strategic implications and ramifications of a real cross bunker vs other kinds of strategic design. To me it isn't a matter of either/or though, and cross bunkers certainly have their place in the context of architectural variety. Frankly, when speaking about cross bunkering I wasn't thinking only of the Tillinghast #7 Pine Valley type of total cross bunker--I was thinking also of the Ross type partial cross bunker where there is always a way or ways around it.

The Tillinghast type of #7 total cross bunker can definitely be questioned today regarding it's strategic ramifications, although, again, I think it's use in a limited way is interesting variety. If someone is short or misses his drive the second shot certainly could be an oddball layup and for the super long driver a cross bunker like PVGC's #7 does seem to limit his firepower off the tee and then limits his options on his second shot! I admit that a hole like #7 Pine Valley does not seem to be multi-optional. I've played PVGC #7 a ton of times over the years and all that goes through my mind is don't miss the drive or I'll be putting some pressure on myself on the second shot--but that's about it. Of course there's a bit more nuance to the hole than that because given the orientation and design of the green it's always best to get as close to the green in two as possible!

Actually Stephen Kay's Blue Heron West's #14 is a  much tougher Hell's Half Acre cross bunker than Pine Valley's #7! You have to hit your drive better and you have to hit your second shot much better! The only good news on Kay's is even if you land in the cross bunker your lie is not likely to be nearly as iffy as PVGC and if you do land in Kay's you really only have wedge of 9 iron to the green--not so at PVGC's #7!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Just an observation after reading these fine posts.

Water hazards, although intimidating, are less humbling for many players than are cross bunkers. There is a clear and final penalty for tanking one. You walk up to the edge, drop a new ball, add on your penalty stroke and play on, usually clearing or circumventing the hazard on the next try.
Bunkers on the other hand are not as final. Now that you're in there can you get out? If you whiff a shot or two you know that when you look to your playing partners they are going to be turned away, not wanting to be part of your train wreck.
Look at Nicklaus, taking 4 shots to extricate himself, or Duval at 17 last year. It doesn't matter that we know how tough their shots were, it was embarrassing to watch these Pros in that situation. Now, let that happen to the average Joe and he may never recover.
That is why I think that water hazards are more acceptable than cross bunkers. The only thing you can lose in a water hazard is a ball (or maybe a club:)).          

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()