[Tim Gallant]

I was looking through Mackenzie & Ebert's twitter feed, and came across this photo of work that they are doing at Hirono:





What really struck me, was how the edges of the new work in terms of movement seem to match-up closely to the old photo. However, there was one element that really caught my attention:





I was trying to think why I preferred the older photo the the new work, even though they seemingly look exactly the same. But upon further inspection, I realised that none of the bunkers shown in the new work go over the apex - ie - the highest point of the hill quite like the section I highlighted in the previous photo.


That led me to immediately thinking about the famous Egan bunker at Pebble Beach, where the back of the bunker falls beyond the ridge-line of the coast and 'spills' or merges seamlessly into the rocks below.





I appreciate there are maintenance issues around not having a formalised edge, but why do we not see more bunkers that roll over, or past natural ridge lines? Are there good examples of bunkers that don't stop at the apex or low-point?


Note: Not really picking on M&E as it's unfair to judge work before it's completed, and I actually like a lot of the photos that have come out so far! More just curious about why this isn't done more. To me it looks more natural if it's more random - ie, not every bunker is built into the hill / mound, but crests beyond, over, past, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:


We have built a few bunkers like that on our courses, and restored a couple elsewhere.


So, I can tell you from experience  . . . They don’t last very long.  The wind cuts the gap and tears them apart.  The right greenside bunker on #2 at Pacific Dunes started as a little peek-through; a couple of years of wind erosion and it was a six foot deep trench! 😀

[Thomas Dai]

We often see old photos. But these tend not to have been taken on a regular basis rather to have been taken be on opening day or when some event is being held. Begs the question what were the courses usually like, ie a few weeks before or after the event was held or when opening day was well past. Maintenance, particularly in decades gone by, did seem to have a tendency towards simplicity and ease especially when cash was tight and resources limited.
Atb

[Niall C]

Tim

Thanks for posting that. It does seem that M&E or going for a pretty faithful reproduction of how it used to be and appear to be succeeding quite well.

As an aside, as one of the anoraks on here who looks at a lot of early photos it constantly amazes me how much sand there was on the early courses and how little long grass. The grass can be explained by grazing animals and the animals could partly explain why there was so much sand, and with it, interesting shaped bunkers. I suspect the "need" or desire to contain or manage the sand as suggested by Tom probably has robbed us of some of the truly epic bunkers you used to see.

Niall

[Ryan Farrow]

I was looking through Mackenzie & Ebert's twitter feed, and came across this photo of work that they are doing at Hirono:





What really struck me, was how the edges of the new work in terms of movement seem to match-up closely to the old photo. However, there was one element that really caught my attention:





I was trying to think why I preferred the older photo the the new work, even though they seemingly look exactly the same. But upon further inspection, I realised that none of the bunkers shown in the new work go over the apex - ie - the highest point of the hill quite like the section I highlighted in the previous photo.


That led me to immediately thinking about the famous Egan bunker at Pebble Beach, where the back of the bunker falls beyond the ridge-line of the coast and 'spills' or merges seamlessly into the rocks below.





I appreciate there are maintenance issues around not having a formalised edge, but why do we not see more bunkers that roll over, or past natural ridge lines? Are there good examples of bunkers that don't stop at the apex or low-point?


Note: Not really picking on M&E as it's unfair to judge work before it's completed, and I actually like a lot of the photos that have come out so far! More just curious about why this isn't done more. To me it looks more natural if it's more random - ie, not every bunker is built into the hill / mound, but crests beyond, over, past, etc.

Tim,


Quinn Thompson, who previously worked with C&C for a number of years is doing the bunker work there and from what I have seen from him the work looks outstanding. I'm sure there is a reason for excluding that piece of the bunker from restoration but I do not know. I have never been there but the simplest explanation could be drainage. Perhaps the top line of the landform that the bunker is cut into pushes water around the bunker? It could be that extending the bunker back would place the bunker in this drainage pattern? Or the architect or client didn't want to do it.

As Tom said, wind erosion could be an issue, but that is only the case on a windy, sandy site. There could be plenty of reasons for it but we will probably never know and the work seems to be outstanding even if every square inch is not put exactly as it was. 

I like the feature and you probably do not see it more often because it is an elusive feature on the golf course and it the wild. With that said, it is quite common along the Oregon coastline which is the result of high winds and sand but it can also happen because of water erosion.

[Tim Gallant]

I was looking through Mackenzie & Ebert's twitter feed, and came across this photo of work that they are doing at Hirono:





What really struck me, was how the edges of the new work in terms of movement seem to match-up closely to the old photo. However, there was one element that really caught my attention:





I was trying to think why I preferred the older photo the the new work, even though they seemingly look exactly the same. But upon further inspection, I realised that none of the bunkers shown in the new work go over the apex - ie - the highest point of the hill quite like the section I highlighted in the previous photo.


That led me to immediately thinking about the famous Egan bunker at Pebble Beach, where the back of the bunker falls beyond the ridge-line of the coast and 'spills' or merges seamlessly into the rocks below.





I appreciate there are maintenance issues around not having a formalised edge, but why do we not see more bunkers that roll over, or past natural ridge lines? Are there good examples of bunkers that don't stop at the apex or low-point?


Note: Not really picking on M&E as it's unfair to judge work before it's completed, and I actually like a lot of the photos that have come out so far! More just curious about why this isn't done more. To me it looks more natural if it's more random - ie, not every bunker is built into the hill / mound, but crests beyond, over, past, etc.

Tim,


Quinn Thompson, who previously worked with C&C for a number of years is doing the bunker work there and from what I have seen from him the work looks outstanding. I'm sure there is a reason for excluding that piece of the bunker from restoration but I do not know. I have never been there but the simplest explanation could be drainage. Perhaps the top line of the landform that the bunker is cut into pushes water around the bunker? It could be that extending the bunker back would place the bunker in this drainage pattern? Or the architect or client didn't want to do it.

As Tom said, wind erosion could be an issue, but that is only the case on a windy, sandy site. There could be plenty of reasons for it but we will probably never know and the work seems to be outstanding even if every square inch is not put exactly as it was. 

I like the feature and you probably do not see it more often because it is an elusive feature on the golf course and it the wild. With that said, it is quite common along the Oregon coastline which is the result of high winds and sand but it can also happen because of water erosion.
[/quote


What Ryan wrote:





Quinn Thompson, who previously worked with C&C for a number of years is doing the bunker work there and from what I have seen from him the work looks outstanding. I'm sure there is a reason for excluding that piece of the bunker from restoration but I do not know. I have never been there but the simplest explanation could be drainage. Perhaps the top line of the landform that the bunker is cut into pushes water around the bunker? It could be that extending the bunker back would place the bunker in this drainage pattern? Or the architect or client didn't want to do it.As Tom said, wind erosion could be an issue, but that is only the case on a windy, sandy site. There could be plenty of reasons for it but we will probably never know and the work seems to be outstanding even if every square inch is not put exactly as it was.  I like the feature and you probably do not see it more often because it is an elusive feature on the golf course and it the wild. With that said, it is quite common along the Oregon coastline which is the result of high winds and sand but it can also happen because of water erosion.

Ryan,

Agreed - really like the look of the work so far, and I have 0 knowledge of the Hirono site / work specifically to comment on that particular bunker. I can absolutely see why wind erosion would be an issue on certain sites, but as you say, there are other sites where wind isn't likely as big of a factor.

I'll try to dig out some more examples from my travels. I seem to remember there being one or two restored bunkers at Alwoodley that went up and over a certain mound / hill / ridge line.

[Quinn Thompson]

" Just because it was there, it doesn't mean it was good"...Bill Coore.

[Tim Gallant]

" Just because it was there, it doesn't mean it was good"...Bill Coore.

Quinn,

Good point - I suppose Bill might have meant 'good' in a lot of ways: aesthetically, from a playability perspective, maintenance, variety, etc. I'm curious why, in general, we don't see too many hazards nowadays that sit above the ridgeline, or below, particularly for inland courses without much wind. Ryan made some good points, and that probably sums up most of the rationale on why not.


Reading some of Simpson's and Mackenzie's thoughts on GCA, their notion was about mimicking the characteristics of the links courses inland to ensure interest (in a broad sense). In that respect, I would think there may be bunkers that might not stop at a particular high/low line, just as exposed sand on dunes can (but doesn't always) crest a highpoint.


If we take the above photo of the eighth at PB - what is better? What is there now, which would be a ball in the hazard, or having the bunker extend down, offering a chance for recovery like it did for Mr. Ouimet below?

[Quinn Thompson]

Apologies, I should have scribbled a little more...it was late at night and my fingers were crooked.


When Bill Coore said that, we were standing in the middle of the 12th fairway at Old Town, looking at a HUGE bunker that was roughed in behind the green, because an old black and white picture depicted that the bunker looked like that at one time in the late 30's. We came close to building what was there, but it just didn't look good; perhaps things just look better in black and white photos ? After that, we filled in about half of the bunker and understood what the man was getting at, "just because it was there, doesn't mean it was good."


That bunker on the left of 7 at Hirono: yes, that's beautiful, what was there WAS good; aesthetically at least. I don't think the old photo depicts it being cut beyond the back of the bunker, I still think there's a couple of feet of grass beyond it, but it certainly is cut up there quite high, and that's where I kind of stopped...If the superintendent, Kitatani San, saw us cutting bunker edges up towards the sky, he would probably take away the keys to the excavator and never give 'em back. The wind wouldn't be a factor, and the soils are thick and sturdy, but it does rain quite a bit in Japan during the summer time, and last year saw a record (39?) typhoons pass through the islands. Something like that would likely wash again and again and that's just not fair to good people like Kitatani San. Plus, putting the "devil's divot" back down in the gully on the right is enough maintenance to worry about for one hole, though it will be more of a "waste" bunker, with "mountain sand" that firms up pretty good and should stay in place once it settles in...


Hope that makes sense, now it's too early and I'm rambling, though my fingers are still crooked.


Pinehurst #2 has a couple bunkers like that though, where the sand kinda walks out the back of the bunker...but the place is all sand and inland and low lying and the maintenance practices are a bit care-free so all in all, it kinda' works, meaning it can be done.

[Tim Gallant]

Apologies, I should have scribbled a little more...it was late at night and my fingers were crooked.


When Bill Coore said that, we were standing in the middle of the 12th fairway at Old Town, looking at a HUGE bunker that was roughed in behind the green, because an old black and white picture depicted that the bunker looked like that at one time in the late 30's. We came close to building what was there, but it just didn't look good; perhaps things just look better in black and white photos ? After that, we filled in about half of the bunker and understood what the man was getting at, "just because it was there, doesn't mean it was good."


That bunker on the left of 7 at Hirono: yes, that's beautiful, what was there WAS good; aesthetically at least. I don't think the old photo depicts it being cut beyond the back of the bunker, I still think there's a couple of feet of grass beyond it, but it certainly is cut up there quite high, and that's where I kind of stopped...If the superintendent, Kitatani San, saw us cutting bunker edges up towards the sky, he would probably take away the keys to the excavator and never give 'em back. The wind wouldn't be a factor, and the soils are thick and sturdy, but it does rain quite a bit in Japan during the summer time, and last year saw a record (39?) typhoons pass through the islands. Something like that would likely wash again and again and that's just not fair to good people like Kitatani San. Plus, putting the "devil's divot" back down in the gully on the right is enough maintenance to worry about for one hole, though it will be more of a "waste" bunker, with "mountain sand" that firms up pretty good and should stay in place once it settles in...


Hope that makes sense, now it's too early and I'm rambling, though my fingers are still crooked.


Pinehurst #2 has a couple bunkers like that though, where the sand kinda walks out the back of the bunker...but the place is all sand and inland and low lying and the maintenance practices are a bit care-free so all in all, it kinda' works, meaning it can be done.

Quinn,


Thanks for the rundown and great to hear some of the detail behind the Hirono bunker and others. I was laughing just thinking about a super yanking someone off a dozer - best not to mess with Mr. Kitatani!


I'll check out #2 and see if I can find any photos of bunkers breaking the apex.


Keep up the good work out in Japan and post some photos / reports if you can. Sure the group here would love any insights into the work / challenges faced.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()