"The new bunker sucks, but it will evolve."

[Mike_Cirba]

With apologies to Rich Goodale for quoting him directly, I wanted to get the group's thoughts on this general concept.

The title of this thread is based on Rich's answer to my question about the latest "renovated" version of the Road Hole Bunker (which Rich has seen first-hand), ostensibly done by the Links Commission because they "don't want to make the best players in the world look foolish", which means to me making it more "fair and consistent".

I heard the exact same line of reasoning a year or so ago re: a famous course that had completely redone all of their bunkers, with the aesthetic and functional results being questioned by many.  "Give it time", was the frequent response of the work's defenders.

How true is this premise based on what other's have seen?

Has anyone seen an unsightly, awkwardly-presented, disintegrated bunker suddenly turn into a swan overnight?

If this theory holds, it seems to me that all bunkers built before, say, 1970 should by now have evolved somehow alchemistically into gorgeously integrated, artistically presented, beautiful enhancements to their courses.

This theory seems to be saying, it doesn't matter what you build...in time it will look great anyway.

While I can see some truth to this at a Pacific Dunes, or Sand Hills, with their dynamic, precarious environments and high winds playing shifting games with the landforms, I think those are by far the exceptions.

Can time really spin shite into gold?  

[ForkaB]

Mike

Please note that I did not make a value judgement as to whether the new RHB would evolve for good or for evil.  I feel the same way about the bunkers at Merion and Pacific Dunes and Applebrook, etc.  IMHO, this has a lot to do with the quality of the construction/architecture, the nature of the environment, and most importantly, the quality of the long term management of the course.  Particularly in envrionments like TOC and PD, it is hubris for anyone to think they can build a bunker that will withstand the fickle forces of nature without lots of TLC, humility and lateral thinking......

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, To me it is just like Cher's or Michael Jackson's many experiments with plastic surgery. Hopefully they too will evolve.

[NAF]

Mike,

I will be at TOC in 3.5 weeks and shall be able to procure a picture and hopefully my friend Jim Reilly who played there before can comment on the changes.

[TEPaul]

To be honest all I can see in that photo of the Road hole bunker is a dark hole and there's no previous photo to compare it to anyway. So seeing as the Road hole bunker is a clean revetted bunker and I presume was pre-recent change I can't exactly see what the huge problem with this one is anyway.

And regarding MikeC's first post--I think all of us on here if we're going to offer specific criticism about certain bunkering and certain restored bunkers, their differences in playability, aesthetics, the effects of maintenance and evolution on the look and playability of them have got to start to do a bit better job of explaining exactly what we mean.

When criticism such as this is offered;

"" We don't want to make the best players in the world look foolish", which means to me making it more "fair and consistent".
I heard the exact same line of reasoning a year or so ago re: a famous course that had completely redone all of their bunkers, with the aesthetic and functional results being questioned by many.  "Give it time", was the frequent response of the work's defenders."

First of all when a remark like "fair and consistent" is offered as a criticism of bunkering as a give-away to the best players that criticism is nowhere near specific or accurate enough.

To me when anyone offers constructive criticism of bunkering, restored or otherwise, they should break that criticism down into at least two very distinct categories--perhaps even three categories.

1. the consistency or lack of it of the sand areas of bunkers.
2. The actual architectural construction of bunkering including the dimensions of the angles of sand areas but very much including the surrounds of bunkering that are not sand.
3. The grass make-up and maintenance of the grass surrounds of bunkering

To critique bunkering without making these categorial distinctions regarding bunkering is frankly missing a great deal about any bunker and all that goes into making them work well, play correctly and look good.

Take bunkering like Merion East's new restored bunkers. Today the sand surfaces are far more consistent and probably "more fair" for anyone to play out of than they used to be pre-restoration.

However, architecturally Merion East's bunkers are now much harder to play out of than they used to be. Why? Basically because most of them are now deeper than they used to be and that part of the question is architectural, not maintenance which involves far more the "look" of them.

So if you considered them today compared to pre-restoration which would be considered more fair and consistent to play out of? That's a good question and if you asked me I would say they certainly are harder to play out of today if anyone thinks that has anything to do with fairness and consistency. The reason they're harder to play out of today is because they're far more architecturally demanding although the sand areas are far more consistent and fair to play out of than they used to be!

Then there's the distinct category of the grass surrounds and how they're constructed and maintained and what they look like. If they're immaculately edged by maintenance week after week they can be expected to change a good deal in look and probably playability over the years. That was unquestionably the case with Merion's bunkering over the decades.

There's no question at all that Merion's bunkering pre-restoration in 1999 didn't look much like the jaggedy, lacy edged bunkering of Merion in the mid 1930s that some thought was the best look of all. Others thought the more edged up look of Merions's bunkering in the mid 1970s was the best evolved look of all.

Frankly, that 1970s look or even the 1999 look was not all that different from some other older courses around here but the point is those pre-restoration Merion bunkers were part of the entire evolution of Merion and there was a great deal of interest and aesthetic respect for that probably largely because they were simply MERION'S---an extremely famous golf course with a lot of history attached to those evolved bunkers.

The bunkers today that have been restored actually look a lot more like the 1930s bunkers but only from about 2000 ft. On the ground the construction of the grass surrounds don't really look that much like the rugged, jaggedy edged bunkers of the 1930s and certainly not much like the more edged-up look of the 1970s or 1999. And another reason probably has a lot to do with what some call on ground "three dimensionality" which has everything to do with the construction (and maintenance) of random alterations in height of the top profiles "lines" of the bunkers in combination with the juxtaposition of how the grass "lines" meet the sand around their circumference.

That and the grasses used and the lengths the grass is maintained at has everything to do with the overall aesthetic and look of most bunkers.

But the sand areas, how it's maintained as well as the actual architectural sweep and construction of those sand areas is something else altogether.

So whenever any of us talk about and critique bunkering we should always remember to be specific about what exactly we're talking about--ie the actual architecture of them or the maintenance of the sand areas within them and the grass surrounds outside the sand area. The one is very different from the other and can have enormous differences in both look and play distinct from one another. I go by Merion all the time and the bunkers looks a lot better than they did a year ago because they've grassed out some and gotten a bit more jaggedy around the edges but that puffy look is still part of the surrounds and that's architectural not maintenance.

So how they evolve into the future will be interesting to see. But one should face facts and realize even if they never do look the same as the bunkering of Merion in one of Merion's other eras it won't be the first time the bunkers or Merion have looked different from another era of the golf course. The point is the bunkers of Merion in the teens looked quite different from the bunkers of Merion in the 1930s which looked quite different from bunkers of Merion in the 1970s which looked somewhat different from the recent pre-restoration bunkers of 1999 which look a lot different from the bunkers of Merion today.

As for who likes which look best--well, that's a good question and many different people have many different answers and opinions about which they like the look of the best and which they like to play out of the best.

And I'd assume the same is true with the different looks and playabilities of TOC's Road hole bunker--perhaps the oldest man-made (architectural) bunker in existence.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Thanks for your detailed response.  However, I think you, and I, and most others here understand the term "sucks" implicitly, and for most here that means in visual, aesthetic terms that are historically inconsistent with ANY previous incarnation of bunkers at a historic or classic course.  I purposefully didn't mention Merion (again), because I've seen it (as I'm sure you have, as well) at other well-known courses, and just as disappointingly.  One can see such results in Westchester County, in southern CT, or in Pacific Palisades and Monterey, to name a few.

I also think that your statement that bunkers are always evolving, and always have different looks, and sort of "one is as good as another" sounds suspiciously like Rich Goodale's  philosophy.  What has he done to you??  

[Lynn_Shackelford]

TE Paul

Shouldn't you add a 4th category--location?

All bunkers evolve, but I wonder if the talented shapers can't get it right during construction or reconstruction.  

You should see my bunkers.  My golfers don't know how to get out of them (par 3 course, bad players), the build-up on the lips is about an inch every 6 months.  We wash the build-up back into the bunker regularly.

[TEPaul]

"I also think that your statement that bunkers are always evolving, and always have different looks, and sort of "one is as good as another" sounds suspiciously like Rich Goodale's  philosophy.  What has he done to you??"

MikeC:

I see the smiley but I never said I think one bunker is as good as another about Merion or any other course. I'm on record all over the place about the Merion bunker project so there's no need to go into it again. I've said many times what I think would have been a better way to execute that bunker project and in that particular case it wasn't in hindsight either.

And if you're implying that Macdonald & Co's bunkering has an interesting way of making bunkering on a number of courses by various architects look suspiciously similar I agree with that too.

But I stand by what I said in the post this morning--which is for any of us to critique any bunkering properly and intelligently we should discuss the subject using the categories outlined--because it's the most realistic and accurate way to discuss bunkering.  

[TEPaul]

"Shouldn't you add a 4th category--location?
All bunkers evolve, but I wonder if the talented shapers can't get it right during construction or reconstruction."

Lynn:

Sure location is important most particularly in restoration--and definitely a unique bunker restoration project such as Aronimink's. Not just from the shaper's perspective but also from the architect's perspective before and during communication with shapers.

I just taped about 1/2 hour of telephone messages from Ron Prichard going into this unique problem at Aronimink (and other courses) in real detail. It's something I posted on here about six months ago directly from Ron Prichard's messages from the Aronimink bunker restoration project. There's great detail in those messages one would've thought the contributors to Golfclubatlas would've been interested in because they can get so doctrinaire sometimes about exact restoration. But in that case hardly a single contributor responded or seemed interested in the construction/restoration details.

I wonder why.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

The smiley was intended to let you know that I couldn't resist pulling your leg a little bit.  

I completely agree with you regarding the different attributes of bunkering that needs to be considered in any type of bunker creation or restoration, and all too often one sees only pieces of the puzzle done correctly...with other's conspicuously absent or incongruous with how the course is aging or evolving otherwise...it's "character" for wont of a better term.

Your detailed explanation was appreciated by me and I'm sure others here.  It's almost a primer in bunkering issues.

It's just that Rich and some others have argued that bunker creation is not really all that important...because over time, they'll change anyway.  THAT was the initial precept that I was attempting to challenge with this thread, and I still stand by my contention that it's very difficult for a house to age gracefully if the foundation and structure aren't supportive of that end result.  In that case, the best they end up looking is like very homely women applying way too much makeup to go out in public....or, to not be sexist here, a balding man with a really bad toupee.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Some very good points here. But in my view the Road Hole Bunker has changed plenty in its life. We (our generation) is a mere grain of sand among a spoonful.

While we are on the subject of TOC bunkers — here is some writing for you to enjoy:

"Help, I Can’t Get Out!" [Edited from "Routing the Golf Course"]

...

• n this recent visit [to TOC], I was fortunate to meet the general manager of the Links, Alan McGregor. Alan is responsible to the Links Management Committee and the Trustees for carrying through their policies. The Trustees are responsible for setting policy, for new developments, and for ensuring that the Links, the largest golf complex in Europe, is run in accordance with the Act of Parliament. The Links Trust employs 200 people, including about 70 greenkeeping staff. In addition, about 150 self-employed caddies and bag carriers are licensed by the Trust. Alan told a favorite story, which I have repeated now more times than I can recall, during my visit.

When Alan first came to St. Andrews, he met with some of the local members, and it surprised him a great deal to hear a few complaints about the bunkers on The Old Course. "Some are too deep and we can't get out," they said. Alan was quick to suggest, among other solutions, that perhaps they shouldn't be hitting their balls into the bunkers in the first place. After all, this was The Old Course. Challenge and shot-making are part of the game and its grand design. The discussion continued, and it was not until later in the conversation that one gentleman saw through Alan's view of the situation. "Alan," he said, "You don’t understand; they are having trouble physically getting out of the bunkers." It seems The Old Course’s bunkers had gradually been getting deeper, due mainly to continual wear and tear. To a senior citizen, the task of getting into a bunker might be far easier than the process of climbing out. One can only imagine the event that led to this discussion. "Say, Bob, where’s Lord Mackerel? He was over there by the Spectacles the last I saw him."

[Forrest Richardson]

Evolving is a "natural" process in the context of golf. Courses are living and breathing — and they extend to include those responsible (or unresponsible) for directing or allowing their change. Part of the maddening aspect of golf is that you do not get to weigh in on the change — or where the pin goes each morning, or the tee markers or even the weather. Improvement has not much to do with this natural process, but fortunately it often comes with the change.

At the Road Hole I have not seen the revised except via pictures. But it doesn't look too bad at all.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I don't recall your post when you transcribed Ron Prichard's comments....but if you bring back up to the first page I'll be glad to respond. Maybe I did respond and I just don't remember.

Mike
You normally get the attitude you've described from those not really interested in the architectural details. They enjoy golf and great golf courses, but would prefer not to get entangled in the study of particular architects and their architectural elements - including the appearance of a bunker which directly or indirectly to its function. Obviously bunkers evolve, but not usually from bad to good without the help of talented craftmen.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

What were the names of those talented sheep ?

Would you think that bunker construction novices, under the supervision of Fazio, such as the green crew at Pine Valley, talented craftsmen ?
They sure combined to do some very nice work.

Mike Cirba,

If one is going to enter into an informed, detailed, analysis, regarding bunkers at a particular golf course, one should have all of the substantive facts and personal experience at playing to and out of those bunkers.

Much of the criticism leveled toward Merion was unfounded, primarily because of a lack of first hand experience.

The bunkers at Merion are NOT the failure that some had indicated.  They are strategic, and more difficult to extricate oneself from.  In addition, 1930 represented a historic date for Merion, and I can't find fault with the club targeting that date for a restoration.

TEPaul,

I hope you're sitting down.
I agree with you.
But,
I do have one question, or statement.
In a restoration, we can't applaud the moving of bunkers on one course, and almost universally bash it on other golf courses.  Careful, site by site evaluation must take place, not blanket condemnation.

There should be a standard, but with tolerable deviations.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I'm not clear exactly what you're referring to at PVGC, what little I know about the work at PVGC is that it was done by inhouse craftsmen. I could be wrong, did they bring in outside agents? I was under the impression work was performed and supervised by PVGC employees - not unlike what has transpired at Cypress Point - but like I said I'm not certain. IMO that is the best way to go. You seem to be intimate with PVGC activities, what was Fazio's involvement and do you know how often he was on site?

[TEPaul]

"Careful, site by site evaluation must take place, not blanket condemnation."

Pat:

Absolutely. When have I offered blanket condemnation? If you're talking about something like what I've said about a company like Macdonald & Co I haven't even offered a blanket condemnation of them. I've only said there're certain types and styles of bunkering they can do and restore quite well and there're are some types and styles they can't restore very well, in my opinion. Not only that but I think I know exactly why that is.

[ForkaB]

Tom and Mike

I don't always remember (or want to) what I said, but what I think I do believe re: bunkers is that while their specific shape is mutable (due to wind, rain, splash up, getting in and out of, etc.), their placement is relatively fixed.  So, to me, if you get the latter bit right, how pretty they look on day 1 or Year 200, is of far less importance.

[TEPaul]

"So, to me, if you get the latter bit right, how pretty they look on day 1 or Year 200, is of far less importance."

Rich:

I think most of us are very well aware you feel that way!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

If one is going to enter into an informed, detailed, analysis, regarding bunkers at a particular golf course, one should have all of the substantive facts and personal experience at playing to and out of those bunkers.

Much of the criticism leveled toward Merion was unfounded, primarily because of a lack of first hand experience.

The bunkers at Merion are NOT the failure that some had indicated.  They are strategic, and more difficult to extricate oneself from.  In addition, 1930 represented a historic date for Merion, and I can't find fault with the club targeting that date for a restoration.

Patrick;

I've played Merion prior to the bunker recreation and after.  I've been in the old bunkers and the new ones.  I've studied them on many other non-playing visits, as I work nearby.

I would like to say that I purposefully didn't want to mention Merion here, simply because the issue is much more universal and the question I asked was non-specific to any particular course.  In fact, it was based on Rich's comments re: The Road Hole bunker, if you want specificity, but the larger point could be applied to historic courses and bunkers anywhere.

I also tire of the Merion bunker issue.  I've stated my honest opinion here (which differs from your's which is ok, too) many times in the past, and that horse has left the barn, frankly.  

However, please be assured that my comments are based on first hand observation, which is why I was originally asking Rich about his own impression on what he has seen at The Old Course.  

I assume you also played Merion prior to the bunker work?    

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

They have rebuilt the sod walls of the bunkers at the Old Course every 5-7 years for the last forty years, to combat the natural deterioration of the sod walls.

The "talented sheep" you refer to was Walter Woods, who was the greenkeeper of The Old Course from 1970 through 1995.

Since Walter retired, they have rebuilt all the bunkers again (as part of their continual rotation), and in my humble opinion, they've focused too much on making them steep and deep and not quite enough on artistry.

I suppose I could be accused of "bias" in this thread, for favoring the bunkers as I remember them to their current form ... like an old ballplayer who says everyone in his day was better.  Certainly, it's a subjective thing.

I wish we'd had Rich G. on hand when we were building the bunkers at Pacific Dunes, so he could have told us it was just a waste of time trying to make them look good!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

How do you come to define the grounds/green crew at Pine Valley as bunker construction craftsmen ?

What was their prior experience at designing and building bunkers ?

Fazio supervised the project.

If you have talented people working for you, and you give them instructions on the design and construction of bunkers, how many visits do you think are necessary to successfully complete the bunker project ?
Either they know what they're doing and don't need much in the way of supervision, or they don't know what they are doing and therefore need constant supervision.   And if they need constant supervision and multiple visits by the architect, then they aren't the craftsmen that you think they are.  You can't have it both ways.

TEPaul,

You're getting far too defensive.
Where did I say that YOU made blanket condemnations ?
I thought that I used the term "we", not you.

Mike Cirba,

Citing Pacific Dunes and Sand Hills is a ridiculous example.
Those sites enjoyed unique qualities that lended themselves to certain types of bunkers.  Try building those babies in South Florida on the edge of the Everglades.

This notion that you can export a given bunker look to virtually every location is absurd.

Sites dictate the look in many if not most cases.
Let's not look with disdain, at those bunkers that don't fit your ideal mold.  Look instead at the property, and what it offers in the way of limits or potential.

How would Applebrooks bunkers look at GCGC ??

[Paul_Turner]

I agree with Mike, especially when it comes to sod-wall revetted bunkers.  There's absolutely no way that bunkers like Hell, The Road Bunker and The Spectacles at Carnoustie are going to evolve quickly just from the forces of nature (unless they're left completely unmaintained!).  My bet is those bunkers will look much the same in 10 years unless man's hand changes them (which is evolution, but different from natural erosion...)

Was there any criticism in the UK of the bunker redo work in 1999/2000?  It really was a very poor bit of work.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I really don't understand why it's so hard for you to understand some of what's said on here about bunkering. Why in the world do you assume Mike Cirba is advocating a particular type or style of bunkering everywhere (like Applebrook's at GCGC)? Frankly, it looks to me as if he's saying that the new bunkering of Merion looks a lot like Macdonald restoration bunkers on many of the other courses they've done---courses that were done by different architects who had different and original bunker styles and looks. I do think that a style and type bunker such as Aronimink or even Oakmont they could do very well. with bunkering like some of the best of Flynn, though, I think they struggle to get right.

You also keep mentioning PVGC's short course bunkering and the Fazio organization. The actual bunker work was apparently done in-house and I'm not real sure why you think the PVGC crew isn't talented in doing that kind of work. Many of them have obviously maintained the main course and one should probably assume they know what they're doing. What it takes to make good bunkers like those ones is to first understand the technique of making bunkers like that. To acheive a natural and rugged bunker look like that simply takes completely understanding the technique as well as a lot of dedicated hand-work in the final stages and definitely in the grassing stage. This stuff isn't rocket science it just takes a good eye and to know how to do it and to spend the time doing good hand-work. This is why Doak, Hanse and Coore & Crenshaw do it so well. You should go out to their sites and watch them do it sometime and you'd probably understand the process better.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
"How do you come to define the grounds/green crew at Pine Valley as bunker construction craftsmen ?

What was their prior experience at designing and building bunkers ?"

I define a craftsman by his results, not by someone prejudices or by 'experience'. What did MacKenzie look for in a laborer? I'm not sure there has been a better bunker craftsman than Morcom in Melbourne. MacKenzie built a prototype bunker for him and the rest is Sandbelt bunkering history - startling. The crew at PVGC has more than enough prototypes to model their work. I'd rather have a carefull in-house crew building bunkers than a professional contractor in between jobs.

How many days did Fazio actually spend at PV?

[TEPaul]

"How many days did Fazio actually spend at PV?"

Who knows but I think we can all be pretty sure that Tom Fazio put everything he had into that PVGC short course project. He said himself at first the whole thing made him real nervous and he didn't want to do it--too much pressure doing something at Pine Valley next to that architecture was his own reasoning.

But he claims he sent everyone he had in his organization in there and they didn't miss a beat. But he also said that all the actual construction work was done in-house by Pine Valley.

So Pat, what do you think that untalented Pine Valley crew did--go somewhere for about a year to learn the finer points of constructing architecture and bunkers like those at Pine Valley? It's probably safe to say that any good architect might like to have some of the people on Pine Valley's crew building some of the details of their architecture for them. Have you ever met PV's super Pat?