News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Rich_Goodale

Mounds/Chocolate Drops = Convex Bunkers?
« on: December 01, 2001, 01:40:36 PM »
The thread on the 16th at Dornoch had me thinking about the green complex at that hole.  There are no bunkers, but there are a number mounds surrounding the green, save for the front.   The two most prominent of these sit short right and serve very much the same functions as if they wer "real" bunkers.  They give an indication of the location of the hole (which is important for a semi-blind shot).  At the same time, they deceive the golfer in this function as they are significantly short of the green.  Finally, if your ball ends up in either of these mounds, your recovery shot is problematical and varied (keeping the grass grown at rough length adds to this function).  The other mounds which surround the green are small ("pot mounds"?) but very much come into play if a ball hit towards them rolls away from the green and requires a chip over them from a hard pan lie to get up and down.

I also remember a thread from several months ago about a long lost hole at Garden City(?) which was surrounded by similar (if more pronounced) mounding.  My questions are:

1.  Were those at Dornoch (and elsewhere) actually designed as "convex bunkers"?
2.  Are these phenomena (natural and created) legitimate architectural features?
3.  Do they get too little respect, in part because of the fact that mounding (outside of fairway humps and hollows) seems to be out of fashion these days?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Mounds/Chocolate Drops = Convex Bunkers?
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2001, 03:09:23 PM »
Rich,

A very fine example of a convex bunker can be found guarding the right side approach to #5 at Wild Horse GC.  It is a short par 4 slight dogleg left, where a sand hill hummock of about 12-15 ft height hides the right half surface of the green.  The natural sand hill-hummock is/was covered in native prairie grasses, and Axeland or Proctor went to work and hand spaded a laced pattern/design throughout the turf-sodded hill.  Once a spade full of ground and sod is removed, within 6inches of the surface, the ubiquitous pure sand of bunker quality is revealed.  Thus, the ability to hand dig an interesting laced pattern where the balance is about 50-50%, sand to native grasses about this guarding convex bunker.   I am told it was a bit of partner skullduggery how this design hazzard came about, when one partner went ahead with it when the other wasn't there.  But, all now agree that it is a cool design feature.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

TEPaul

Re: Mounds/Chocolate Drops = Convex Bunkers?
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2001, 05:16:31 PM »
Rich:

I can't say anything about what you're describing at Royal Dornoch because I've never been there.

But actual grass covered mounds (and chocalate drops) are not convex bunkers. Actual convex bunkers (with sand not grass) do exist, although they're quite rare. There is one or two to the right of the fairway on #9 NGLA, where all the sand is above the grass covered surrounds.

Mounds, though, are just another kind of architectural feature and you're definitely right they have gone out of favor these days--at least the type that are the smallish individual mounds of some of the very early courses of the late 19th and early 20th century. Mounding, though, as you know, has been used and over-used in the form of "containment mounding", the identifiable design feature of the previous career of Rees Jones; we really don't want to go here though, particularly since he's very much changed recently and gotten beyond that fetish and into much more natural and site specific type of architectural features!

Originally though grass covered mounds came about in architecture not unlike bunkering itself came about in golf--for another reason. As original undesigned bunkering was natural wind and water created links formations or the work of sheep burrowing into the lee, mounds on golf courses originally were areas of debris cleared from the course (whether rocks, stumps etc) that were piled and covered by sod and turf as the debris was too costly or cumbersome to move or remove.

Architects copied this original grass and turf covered debris in creating mounds just as a design feature but it certainly never caught on to the extent that bunkering did as a necessary golf feature. Ross, Tillinghast and some others did quite a bit of it. Sometimes they even combined mounding and bunkering with what they called the "cop" bunker (a small bunker in mounding).

The real old "chocolate drops" looked really artifical and for that reason obviously didn't survive in architecture. I like mounding occasionally but it too is sometimes hard to make  look natural. Coore and Crenshaw have done some small mounds and mounding recently though!

But I think it would be a real stretch to try to call any type of grass mounding convex bunkering.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Mounds/Chocolate Drops = Convex Bunkers?
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2001, 05:21:23 PM »
Rich- I site the hole we've discussed in the past, the 13th @ PG. That mound is so simple yet so deserving of respect it actually has more strategic impact than a converse bunker would, in that position.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Theresa Stotler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Mounds/Chocolate Drops = Convex Bunkers?
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2001, 06:56:13 PM »
If anyone has gotten a chance to see Tom Jackson's work at Crowfield CC in Goose Creek #16 I believe is a great example of playing in the mounds.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
a neat sounding feature
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2001, 04:24:17 PM »
Rich,

Those mounds on 16 at Dornoch sound excellent and only add spice to the variety of challenge. I wonder who deserves credit for them - Sutherland I presume?

The randomness with which the mounds would deal with shots greatly appeals. One day, you're stuck in them and the next, you're by the hole  ;D

There is a somewhat similar patch of mounds to the left of the 1st green at Essex County but I doubt they influence play as much as the ones you describe.

When are mounds OK? Your one is a good example. At Myopia Hunt, they covered over some stone with grass and dirt and created mounds to save on the expense of carting away the stone - and that seems like the prudent economical thing to do there as well.

Cheers,

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Mounds/Chocolate Drops = Convex Bunkers?
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2001, 04:45:50 PM »
Ran- The mounds that form the hills that become the mountains that surround the Palm Springs area are mimicked beautifully by Pete Dye @ both at the stadium course and CCoD.  I think this an example of justifyable mounding. Versus Mr. Dye's hairy mounds that seperate the first and 2nd at Blackwolf Run- river as an example of possible bad mounding. What do you think?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Good mounds are hard to find
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2001, 05:01:03 PM »
A C M,

My brother worships Blackwolf Run (River) course but I'm with you - some of the mounding on the side of the holes is not happening and only contributes to slow rounds.

In particular, the mounds down 15 drive me crazy - they seem so unnecessary and they break an awesome run of holes from 8-14 and 16-18. What a pity.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich_Goodale

Re: Mounds/Chocolate Drops = Convex Bunkers?
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2001, 05:01:54 PM »
Ran

I don't have a clue who did the mounding around the 16th at RDGC, and in fact I'm not even sure that it is all artificial!m  All in all, the mounding gives a bit of spice to a green complex that is not Dornoch's finest hour--although the hole as a whole is not bad, and a very tough 4.  The mound guarding the 12th is surely JS's--hence the name of the hole "Sutherland!"

Vis a vis balls bounding off these hills randomly, their "hairiness" grabs approach shots and makes them act more like "bunkers" than mounds, which is the thought that inspired my first post.

Cheers
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick Hitt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Mounds/Chocolate Drops = Convex Bunkers?
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2001, 11:27:07 AM »
A recent detour to the Jersey Shore allowed me to revisit some of my favorite chocolate drops at the Seaview Bay course. The scruffy mounds are the only features on the very flat property, but they successfully add interest to approach shots and diagonal hazards like the blind tee shot on 10. A very demanding feature on the relatively defenseless course. :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BillV

Re: Mounds/Chocolate Drops = Convex Bunkers?
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2001, 10:38:39 PM »
There is what I would call a perfect "Invert Bunker" on the right side of NGLA #17.  I had always thought of them as quite different than Chocolate drops, especially that the term chocolate drop has a negative connotation to it.  Many of them would have been better served as matter for stone walls.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back