[Niall C]

Apologies if any members on here but I felt it worth commenting on the cover photo of Paramount Country Club and the bunkers. How rubbish do those bunker faces look ? I mean, the tongues look as though some turf has been simply draped over the face of a straight forward oval bunker and I suspect that is simply the case. They also look largely symmetrical. When you think back to how Colt and others tried to make bunker faces look like that chunks of turf had been ripped out the face to create the uneven surface to give a rugged overhanging look.

In comparison these bunkers, and in fairness you see it on a lot of renovated courses as well, just look insipid. IMO it would have been better to leave them as ovals with none of the superfluous tongues.

Thoughts ?

Niall

[John Kavanaugh]

As I get older I need a bunker tongue to enter and exit and make raking easier.  The ones in the picture look efficient for that purpose.  The ragged bunkers you prefer also collapse under my weight.  Looks smooks.

[Joe Bausch]

Niall, they are just fine to my eyes. 


But that is why there is chocolate and vanilla ice cream.   


I really like Paramount.  Some pics:


http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/Paramount/

[Phil Young]

With apologies to Joe Bausch... This is a photo of his of the 5th hole showing a closer view of the bunkers in the other photo. Great photo Joe as all of yours are. This shows the true nature of the design, depth and size, something that the other photo didn't quite manage.

[Steve Lapper]

Apologies if any members on here but I felt it worth commenting on the cover photo of Paramount Country Club and the bunkers. How rubbish do those bunker faces look ? I mean, the tongues look as though some turf has been simply draped over the face of a straight forward oval bunker and I suspect that is simply the case. They also look largely symmetrical. When you think back to how Colt and others tried to make bunker faces look like that chunks of turf had been ripped out the face to create the uneven surface to give a rugged overhanging look.

In comparison these bunkers, and in fairness you see it on a lot of renovated courses as well, just look insipid. IMO it would have been better to leave them as ovals with none of the superfluous tongues.

Thoughts ?

Niall

Niall,


   As one of managing members at Paramount CC, I appreciate your qualified apology, but take significant umbrage at your comments. The picture chosen is certainly not a great one and Phil Young's post of Joe Bausch's close up does a much better job of capturing the detail and aesthetic found throughout the course. GCA's own Jim Urbina and Brian Chapin were responsible for our bunker design and took few, if any, liberties in replicating to the best of their ability, the original Tillinghast tongues and shapes. Colt may have gone for rough edges, but Tilly, Ross, McKenzie, and Flynn...certainly did not. I, along with most anyone who've ever played there, would most likely strongly disagree with your casual and callow assessment.


  It's easy and convenient to make critical disparagement by photos, but it is intellectually dishonest. Photos can be notoriously deceptive and don't always capture the beauty of real interaction. Just note the difference in Joe's pictures. In this case, the symmetry of those particular bunkers, and those found elsewhere across the 18 holes is just fine and well appreciated by our members, their guests, and hosts of otherwise seasoned assessors. But of course, I'm sure your eye is better developed and superior to the likes of Ran, Brad Klein, Jim Urbina, et.al.


  Have you ever played Paramount CC? I'm not sure I've ever seen your name on one of our tee sheets? I'm happy to host you if you believe your baracalounger-based criticism is subject to change. If not, carry-on and critique things you've never seen. It's a strong and revealing methodology.


  Cheers

[George Blunt]

Steve,
I think Niall must be referring to the bunkers in the picture below from our miniature course.  No reasonable person would describe bunkering as "rubbish" based on images from the homepage of a website, unless they were trying to find out who the members of Paramount are that lurk/post here.
Next time I see you at Paramount we will have to have a long and serious discussion about upgrading our putt putt course to ensure it is in keeping with Niall's standards.
Regards,
George

[Jon Cavalier]

No offense, but that is a pretty rough looking putt putt course. 

[George Blunt]

Jon,
I agree - perhaps Niall will prefer the rough "Colt like" edges to the ones to be found on the course??
George

[Brian Finn]

Funny...I had the privilege of playing there a couple of years ago, and the bunker cited was notably my single favorite on the course. In person, it proves to be beautifully done and very much coherent to the rest of the course. The critique via photo needs to stop.  Talk about rubbish.

[Ronald Montesano]

All right, I'm throwing the towel.


Niall expressed himself, then a fair number of folks in the know offered a clearer picture (see what I did there? Good.) of the bunkering at Paramount. Steve addressed it as I expected, offering up a knockout punch of experience. The rest is piling on, hitting a man when he's down (I love that someone named "Blunt" commented.)


Before this gets out of hand, let's all chip in to a gofundme to bring Niall to Paramount.


Peace!

[Phil Young]

Steve,

In all fairness to Niall, you stated, "Colt may have gone for rough edges, but Tilly... certainly did not."

Actually Tilly did use this style of bunker face edging  on occasion. That is why restoring Tilly's work requires more detailed research than almost any other architect. Here's a good example. Its the 7th at SFGC, the Duel hole. This photo was taken just after the new Tillinghast course opened for play in 1925. The rough and raggedy edges seen are typical in the numerous photos of the course taken that day.

[Mike Policano]

Phil,


Gil Hanse is in the midst of restoring all the bunkers and greens at Ridgewood, another Tillinghast course. Like Niall, I like the look of rough edges for classic courses. However, aerials from the 1935 Ryder Cup (6 years after the course opened) clearly show large form capes and bays. The grasses and maintenance then made the bunkers look like the edges were not clean.

Ridgewood is faithfully restoring the look complete with fescue around the appropriate sides of the bunkers.

And Niall, if you visit Paramount, please come down the road 30 minutes and play all 27 at Ridgewood.

[Brian Chapin]

No offense, but that is a pretty rough looking putt putt course. 

Jon, it seems you've made the same mistake as Niall... Judging the merits of a course from a single 2D image rather than experiencing the design first hand. 

[Keith OHalloran]

I have not been to Paramount, and I have no problem with the bunker in the  photo. That being said, I am not sure why we need so much negative  feedback on someone judging from photos. Isn't a large portion of this site based on judging places on photos? Why else would we have so many photo tours? If Niall came on to ax poetic about the bunkers, would people be mad at him for loving them having only seen them in pictures?
Don't get me wrong, I give more weight to people that have been there, but I do not completely disregard comments based upon photos. I look at a lot of photo tours to determine whether I would like to see a course.

[Steve Lapper]

I have not been to Paramount, and I have no problem with the bunker in the  photo. That being said, I am not sure why we need so much negative  feedback on someone judging from photos. Isn't a large portion of this site based on judging places on photos? Why else would we have so many photo tours? If Niall came on to ax poetic about the bunkers, would people be mad at him for loving them having only seen them in pictures?
Don't get me wrong, I give more weight to people that have been there, but I do not completely disregard comments based upon photos. I look at a lot of photo tours to determine whether I would like to see a course.

Counselor (I think you are?) Keith,


  You almost make my point for me, but before I go there, I'll admit my zealousness as a partner at Paramount may have led to taking too defensive a posture. Human nature I suspect. I'm sure Niall is a very decent fellow and I'm sad we didn't get together for a game at Moray years back.


  Photos are an excellent resource and unquestionably should, and do, provide food for thought and are as such, open to questioning. Yet we know many amateur photos, no matter how well intended, often fail to accurately portray their subject. Light, distance, and angles can easily distort and misrepresent. In this very case, Ran's shot lacked the definition and perspective that Joe Bausch's so fairly presented. That inherently points out the flaws in making intellectually dishonest judgements (yes judging off a single photo is just that) and using terms like "rubbish," and "insipid" are hardly benign by nature. Questions about the subject are fair game, but detritus statements carry little or no validity in my book.


  I'd wager a pretty penny that the authors of most photo tours, especially by the likes of Jon Cavalier, Joe Bausch or Benjamin Littman, wouldn't even remotely agree with you that their otherwise excellent portfolios are posted so snap judgements can be made. I'd bet even Ran would pretty much agree that the reasoning any single photo is posted is to encourage harsh judgements is absurd. Using photos to determine whether you'd like to see it is an exercise of personal taste. Putting a place down on one photo isn't.


  Lastly, as someone who has always invited any and all GCA'ers to see and play Paramount CC as my guest, I've never asked anyone to "love it," "like it," or competitively rate it (we are not and never will be a Top 100 anything...except for maybe fun!). Hell, I've seen more than a few well known GCA'ers come away muttering about the complexity of our greens and the shock of their scores.  But please, Keith come see it with your own eyes., and Niall...come see it for yourself before you knock it. I suspect you'll both enjoy yourselves.


   Disclaimer......Paramount CC has always been a labor of love for a number of us (Phil, Jim U, Brian, Steve Scott and myself). We all feel most proud of accomplishing the most "paramount" of tasks of care taking a golf course: "leaving it a much better place than we found it!" That was and is the goal to this day.


  PS....We are searching the national archives for early photos of the miniature course before we begin work on it. So far we've had no luck, but remain faithful to the job of finding ties to it's original architect....Theodor Seuss Geisel. Any help from the sleuths found in these parts would go greatly appreciated!


Cheers,

[Jon Cavalier]

Here are two additional photos of the bunkers at the 5th at Paramount, which I hope add to the discussion.  The second photo shows the way the bunkers lay on the terrain, which has a great deal of movement.








One caveat -- these photos were taken very early this year, and Steve and Co. are always working on this course.  So I will leave it to him to say whether these are still accurate.


Last, here's a photo of the first green, in the snow, which proves both how early I was there and how stupid I am.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil, Mike, et. Al.,


Aren't the rough or jagged edged bunkers pictured, more a product of maintainance practices in the 1920's.


Today, very few clubs, even those designed during the "Golden Age" by the "ODG's" maintain their bunker edges in that style.


I would imagine, in light of what golfers see on TV every week when watching the PGA Tour, that members at local clubs would be up in arms should their bunkers have rough, jagged edges.

[Ronald Montesano]

Oh, The Places You'll Putt has some early looks at the putting course. That was before the use of automated hoo-honkers replaced the traditional Goo-Goo Eyed Tasmanian Walghast as pulled by flu-flunkers. That was a sad day in miniature golf GCA.


http://www.drseussart.com/taxidermy/

[Phil Young]

Pat,

The photo of the 7th green at SFGC from 1925 shows the bunkers as they were right after they were built. The look had nothing to do with any "maintenance practice," Rather that is what maintained that look to them for many years as can be seen in various photographs...

I've seen far too many photos of holes on courses taken during the 20s to believe that the "raggedy edges" to bunkers was caused by a "maintenance practice." That clubs went away from this look may have actually been caused by new maintenance practices adopted by those clubs over the years.

That look was simply a choice made by club and architect back then just as changing to a different look for the same holes/course years later was...   

[Niall C]

As I get older I need a bunker tongue to enter and exit and make raking easier.  The ones in the picture look efficient for that purpose.  The ragged bunkers you prefer also collapse under my weight.  Looks smooks.

John


Ever thought of accessing exiting the bunker from the rear ?


Niall

[Niall C]

Niall, they are just fine to my eyes. 


But that is why there is chocolate and vanilla ice cream.   


I really like Paramount.  Some pics:


http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/Paramount/

Joe


Absolutely, the world would be a much less interesting place if we all had the same taste. BTW, loved the photos and bunker style aside it does look like a nice course.


Niall

[Niall C]

Funny...I had the privilege of playing there a couple of years ago, and the bunker cited was notably my single favorite on the course. In person, it proves to be beautifully done and very much coherent to the rest of the course. The critique via photo needs to stop.  Talk about rubbish.

Brian


This site is about discussing golf course architecture in a frank and fearless manner. If people couldn't comment on photos to make a point then this site would be a lot less worthwhile. Anyway, thanks for your input.


Niall

[Niall C]

Before this gets out of hand, let's all chip in to a gofundme to bring Niall to Paramount.

Ronald


That's very kind of you. I've just checked my diary and think I can just about fit it in anytime between January and December next year. Just let me know when suits.


Cheers


Niall

[Niall C]

Steve


Apologies if I touched a nerve and in fairness I was using the photo to make a wider point about that style of bunkering and not just Paramount. To clarify what was a hasty post before spending the rest of the weekend off line, my objection, if that's no too strong a word, is not just that the top lip of the bunker is uniformly maintained in contrast to the "County Down" style as exemplified in photo 38 of Joes photo tour but also that the tongues appear to fold down almost flat with the sand rather than jutting out.


Photos taken from the side suggest this is not quite the case but not far from it (IMO). Also in the cover photo the tongues appeared almost symmetrical which kind of jarred but clearly that's not the case with all the bunkers as Joes photo essay shows. On the plus side the bunkers show sand faces which in my book is a big plus. It adds contrast, variety and helps define the challenge. Much better than modern style bunkers that have the sand flat on the bottom with the bunker surrounds all humps and bumps as though modeled on cartoon pictures of the Loch Ness monster, but then that's just my taste.


Of course bunker styling isn't the be all and end all but it does play a role in strategy in terms of how they are perceived. Now I've no idea how well Jim and Brian did in recreating what was once there, all I'm commenting on is what I see. Yes, I'm citing the old dead guys ideas on what for me is a better look but that's not to say I think we should be hide bound by what the ODG's did before. We should certainly learn from it but go with what we think best and sometimes practical considerations come into play. Perhaps that is what happened with Tilly and his design, no idea, Tilly isn't someone I've studied. I've studied MacKenzie and to a lesser extent Colt, and both advocated the type of look I'm referring to, at least in the early part of their careers.


Re Ran, Brad, Jim etc., as arrogant as this sounds I think I do know as much and probably more about the early days of golf at least as it pertains to the UK, through countless days spent going through archives, old mags and books. But I don't think that is what this discussion is about. It's about personal tastes on bunker styling which in the grander scheme of things is perhaps not something any of us should get to stressed about.


To end, I too am sorry we didn't meet up at Moray that time as there is certainly scope for a lot of bunker chat there ! Unfortunately I'm no longer a member there but if you ever find yourself in the west of Scotland I'd be very happy to host at Gailes.


Niall


ps. there are some cracking bunkers on Mach Dunes which I think exemplify what I mean, all be it to the extreme. Hopefully someone might have any photos they can share ?






 

[John Kavanaugh]

As I get older I need a bunker tongue to enter and exit and make raking easier.  The ones in the picture look efficient for that purpose.  The ragged bunkers you prefer also collapse under my weight.  Looks smooks.

John


Ever thought of accessing exiting the bunker from the rear ?


Niall

I feel like I should enter where I disturb the least amount of sand.  Raking is tiresome and slows play. I do make a point to rake every footprint.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()