Eyebrows for Bunkers - Yea or Nay?

[Jim_Coleman]

I'm sure this has been covered here, maybe ad nauseum. If so, I apologize.  What's the consensus on "wild-look," fescue-like eyebrows over bunkers?  I know Hanse loves them, and Merion has them.  They want to put them in at my course - Rolling Green (Flynn).  I don't think they look that great, and I think they're terribly unfair.  Balls get stuck and leave unplayable shots, if they can be found at all.  Am I nuts?

[E. Jean-Marc Monrad]

I have played many rounds at TCC which has the eyebrowed bunkers you describe.  I played it almost every time in some sort of competition and found them to be completely fair.  Yes, i have seen people lose balls in them.  Have you ever seen a person lose a ball in a marsh defined as a hazard.  If that is not unfair why is it unfair to lose a ball in a sand bunker defined as a hazard (though one could argue that the lip of a bunker is not the hazard itself but this is really just a technicality).  it just makes the hazards more penal...and thus more of a true obstacle/hazard.  

And taste wise, I think they look fantastic at TCC but they would not work at other courses.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Yes, you are nuts.... Most people are.

Go pick-up the Life & Times of Bobby Jones and open up the section when he won his US Open at Inwood and tell me if those bunkers on the 18th looked unfair. They presented a challenge to Bobby, and he won the US Open. I never once read of him complaining about them either.

Why are you constantly complaining(I say this not so much at you Jim but most every country club in Golf in general) that hazards need to be fair and manicured and neat and proper, otherwise 'people might actually think our course is in neglect?'

Sand Hazards are meant to be ugly pits of dispair, wanting you even more to stay out of them. This might be--in most cases--beautified ugliness. If I had to put it in better terms--think of the actress Ellen Barkin. Don't tell me you wouldn't mind playing her everyday! (with all apologies to your Mrs. if there is one.)


"People tend to remember my performances, not me."--Ellen Barkin

My point of contention is that bunkering, while a vast different chapter in any section of this world, should reflect its surrounds, or in some cases or the Big World Theory of GCA (TE Paul) this would mean the bunkering that fits the crime. This doesn't neccesarily mean one type of bunkering throughout the course, but more bunkering that fits the scene or dilemma the golfer has managed to get himself involved with simply because HE FAILED.

This is where we must learn to be better golfer's, not the convicting type who will knowling and willing put their pride before their humility. This is where one must accept that the architect had a specific reason why to make a bunker so fearsome.

It also happens--when they are constructed properly--increase the dramatics of playing the Sport more then threefold. Yes, we have been through all of this before and I never tire of talking about it!

Great thread. Now go pick-up Architectural Side of Golf or The Links and read a bit more about the subject. You won't regret it.

[ForkaB]

It looks like Ms. Barkin trims her eyebrows.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I hae to be so disgusting Rich, but that's probably not the only thing she trims!

[TEPaul]

"And taste wise, I think they look fantastic at TCC but they would not work at other courses."

Jim:

Jean-Marc Monrad's remark above is very sensible and is the way your course, or any Flynn course, should approach this subject----eg the course should maintain their bunker surrounds in such a way that fits the basic look and feel of the golf course.

Flynn didn't exactly have any tightly defined bunker surround look---his bunker surrounds (grassing) was generally intended to be sort of evolutionary and kind of site specific. At least there's no question that's the way his first course (Merion) was treated bunkerwise.

TCC does have some of the coolest looking Flynn bunkers we've ever seen, they do have surrounds that're pretty rugged looking with longish eyebrows. It took a lot of dedication and effort from super Bill Spence to get them that way. But they fit the look of TCC generally and they aren't necessarily the look that's appropriate on every Flynn course in my opinion. Shinnecock's bunkers look really good now too but the Shinnecock look isn't what Rolling Green should have for obvious reasons.

I'd suggest if you guys want to grow eyebrows on your bunkers (and I think you should) to do it no more than about 2-3 inches where the grass shows below the sod and where it meets the sand-lines. No ball will get lost in that and that will make them look a bit more natural than a really clean constantly trimmed edge.

If you want a really good maintenance model and look for what I just suggested above for Rolling Green I'd suggest you guys just go over and see Mike McNulty at PCC. Your bunkers being Macdonald & Co shaped have a bit more "roll" on the tops of some of the surrounds and they are a bit more grassed down than PCC's in-house project but the look of the eyebrows could easily match.

In my opinion, you certainly don't want "eyebrows" or grass bunker surrounds at Rolling Green where you'll lose a ball. Something that rugged just wouldn't fit the general look of the rest of that golf course.

On the other hand, over the years there have been a number of Flynn courses that maintained their bunkers surrounds and bunker edges in a highly trimmed and clean manner and look. My feeling is William Flynn, being the true buff he was on all kinds of grasses, and with the evolutionary grassing approach he took to bunkering, would not have appreciated that highly maintained and trimmed bunker edge look. Plus back in his day they just didn't have the type of equipment (Fly-mowers and weedeaters) to do that kind thing so obviously they never had that super clean and trimmed look.

Or here's an alternative answer for you Jim.

I hear you have a really good super over there now who's apparently doing a lot of what was needed on your course. So, instead of agonizing over all these little things like eyebrows why don't you just ask Andrew how he'd recommend maintaining the bunker surrounds and their eyebrows and just go with his call?  

You guys at Rolling Green are lucky---because you have one helluva golf course and architecture over there. To do that course real justice and up it's exposure and its reputation even more than it already is all you need to do is keep going on the things you guys already know full well you should concentrate on----eg just keep at your tree removal program bigtime, keep working on firming up that golf course bigtime, particularly "through the green" and maybe grow some bunker eyebrows a bit like PCC (which definitely aren't going to lose any golf balls) and you guys will be home free and you'll have that great golf course of yours back where it belongs maintenance-wise and playability-wise.

Again, for an over-all look at Rolling Green just keep exposing that general "look-through" from around the golf course of the great looking natural topography and the great looking architecture you have. Trees are a dime a dozen but the type and look of the architecture and topography you guys have over there is rare.

EXPOSE IT AND SHOW IT as mush as you can.

(But always remember, DO NOT EVER EXPOSE what is all around and just outside your boundaries. Keep those boundary-line trees bigtime).

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I think Tom's advice is right on the mark.  Tom and I, with the help of John Capers III, found about 10 early aeral photographs of Rolling Green at elevations and angles that had never before been seen and we brought them over to Charlie Carr and to David Staebler for their use--Charlie on the golf course and David for record keeping and reference material.  These photos show the course in early stages but it is clear there is some longer growth on some surrounds--mostly on the rear toplines as you'd expect.  

However, it is important to bear in mind that Flynn believed in preparing bunkers in a certain fashion and letting them evolve naturally over time.  The grasses used and the heights maintaned changed over time.  As Tom said, the McDonald work is different from the original look.  The high sand flashed faces have been lost in a number of cases.  With David Staebler's collection of photos you can learn how the bunkers evolved (prior to maintenance issues impacting decisions) and decide if that's the look wanted.  

With water costs and other costs rising, its hard to say what the balance is between desired look and budgetary contstraints.  I would hope that the intended look is captured and some longish grasses, preferably in the turf type tall (doesn't have to be kept long) fescue is appropriate for our area.  Again, if you want to see excellent Flynn bunkering in terms of original scale and surrounds, look at Mike McNulty's work at Philadelphia Country Club based on Forse's master plan.  

Rolling Green can be even greater with the tree management plan continuing and a return of the bunkers to the size and shapes they once were and in some cases placement.  Take a look at the aerials we found in the Library Company of Philadelphia--some will be a real surprise.  If you want a copy, drop me a line or get it from David or Charlie as I made them disks as well.

By the way, I'm playing today with three Red Sox:  Schilling, Wakefield and a player to be named later.  I hope you get a chance to catch some games this week.  It should be a great series.  The Phils are coming in today from Milwaukee after a game while Boston is here and rested.

TCC bunkering is awesome and Spence is outstanding at capturing the look and feel of the club.  It is not necessary to mimic that style.  I think it most important to return the flashed faces.  This along with the turf type tall fescue with their fingery look along the sand-surround margin would be perfect.  RGGC can be a top 50 type classic course.  The right decisions need to be made.  Charlie seems like just the expert to weigh in on the subject matter and you have an outstanding historian there in David Staebler.  I hope the club uses these valuable resources.  So many clubs don't have these kinds of resources, I hope their value is added to the decision making process.

[cary lichtenstein]

yes to eyebrows

[John Gosselin]

Jim, as you probably recall we had these same discussions about 10 years ago when trying to decide on the look of the bunkers prior to us rebuilding them. At that time Gill Hanse was our architect on retainer and had developed, in my opinion, a fantastic master plan. He pushed very hard for the unmaintained look of of the bunkers. Basically sod with older type fine fescues that were not to be mowed or trimed throughout the season. We did  just that on #16 for most of the season prior to the rebuild, as a trial or test to get the members feed back before we proceeded. The powers to be at that time felt that this was not the look for RG. The feeling was that if we were to have bunkers that were that type of character than we would need to keep that theme throughout the rest of the course. More native areas, natural stream banks, and a more minimalist approach to overhaul maintenance. The outcome was that RG was an inland, parkland type golf course and to force a seaside links type look would for the first time in it's history was not in keeping with Flynn's desire for RG. (we can only speculate what Flynn's desire was from his drawings). RG was just not interested in the Merion look and did not feel it needed the Merion look to be a great golf course.

The final approach to the bunker rebuild was to use the aerial photographs and exploratory digging to determine the basic shapes and size of the bunkers. With that being said we guarded against undoing 70 years of evolution of how the bunkers aged. We treated the bunkers as antiques. We recreated the sand build up on the high side of the bunkers and how the bunkers tied into the green and the green surrounds. We found the old depths or floors of the bunkers and went back to that level. The combination of the two created a much deeper and more visually intimidating bunker. It also kept them from looking like new bunkers, which would have been a mistake in my opinion.

The work was completed by McDonald & Sons and RG's greens staff. McDonald did the old sand removal, rough shaping and drainage. RG greens did all the finish shaping and sodding. A lot of hand work went into these bunkers to create the older evolved look, as well as, to establish an eyebrow appearance to the top sides of the bunkers. The sod is a turf type tall fescue.

Much of the look, good or bad, over the last 6 or 7 years is related to the maintenance practices not the construction. The bunkers were not remolded as some would like to phrase it, rather every effort was made to keep the look of old. We just did not want to go back to a bunker that was exactly the same shape, same depth, and same look as the originals. We felt the bunkers evolved along with their surrounds, greens, and the rest of the course. The last thing we wanted was new bunkers, even if they were just as Flynn built them, on a 70 year old golf course.

Although the tops of the bunkers seem to be rolled over the sand line may be closer to the original than people think. This is because as I said we recreated the sand build up on the top side of the bunkers so the bunker itself is a lot higher than original.

There are a couple of bunkers that need to be tweaked and a couple that need to be rebuilt that did not turn out how we imagined. Anyone who has built bunkers before can fully understand how difficult it is to take a vision in your head and recreate it on the ground.

[mike_malone]

 John,

  Thanks for your detailed post.

[John Gosselin]

Jim/Mayday, this may help.


http://turf.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2000/000530.pdf

[Mike_Cirba]

Man,

What a great thread.   Some really cool information here that could serve as a guidebook for any club considering bunkering issues.

[mike_malone]

 John,
 I preferred the work you did on #13 through #16 to what the construction company did.  It looks less upholstered. Is it true that they began on #2 and #3 and were told to tone down the "himalaya" effect of the bunker sides?

[wsmorrison]

John,

That was a very honest and in-depth discussion and most appreciated by all of us on the site.  Experts such as yourself add a lot great deal to the knowledge base presented on this site.

The photos from the Library Company of Philadelphia are much better than the Dallin photographs at the Hagley.  I'll drop by sometime and give you a disk.

What do you think about the sand flashed up to the top on a number of bunkers that used to have that look that don't any longer?  Not all of Flynn's bunkers at RGGC were flashed to the top, but some of the better ones that were are not now.  There also seems to be as a result of rough shaping and surface drainage concerns high leading edges to the bunkers that hide them and don't allow balls heading into these bunkers to go into them--also as a result of the wide margins of rough.  I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I was hoping the former visibility could be restored and the playing implications for errant shots brought back into the equation.

I also agree with Mike Malone, imagine that, that your work on 13-16 was outstanding.  However, they did get the rough shaping wrong on 13.  The bunker orientation is off.  I'd rather not see a bunker there at all even though it was Flynn.  Flynn's bunker in the drawing was much larger and elongated along the line of play.  It flared out away from the fairway as did many of his greenside bunkers.  This look would be a lot better if there is to be a bunker.  I'd rather not have one if it is like it is today.  There's enough going on with the ground around that green that it simplifies a rescue shot if you end up in the bunker.  Longer shots that miss are penalized much greater coming out of the rough on such a downslope.

[mike_malone]

 BTW ,when Ron Forse visited the course for the first time he commented that the #13 bunker was originally designed as a "comma" which moved   away from the green from top to bottom.. I can't look at the current way that it curves toward the green. We have never been able to get clear views of this area   in the 1926 photos.

[wsmorrison]

See my post above.  Since you can't look at the photos because that area was too obscured, even in the photos I just found--look at the drawing.  It wasn't a comma in the drawing and Craig's National Archives photo gives a half-decent view that looks like the drawing.  It was 20 yards long and draped over the downslope towards the landing area.  This is a lot better than the MacDonald version that was 180 degrees off.  However, put the MorrPaul bunker in and take this one out and the net change will be zero and the course improved dramatically  

[Jason Topp]

I like the look but think they should only be used if they can be maintained with very thin dry grass that allows one to find the ball and have some hope of hitting a shot out of them.  

I've played a couple of courses where it was thick long grass.  While fairness is considered by many on this site to be an irrelevant consideration, I would hate to be playing in a stroke play competition and then make a big number because I lost a ball or had to hack repeatedly at a ball in this stuff.

[RJ_Daley]

The answer is, it depends.  Some courses do not look good in bunkers surrounded or lipped on the high side by long grasses, fescues, blues, or natives.  It depends on the style and setting of the course.  I've used Riviera a couple of times in recent days for n example, but I'll return to that again.  It has approx 2-2.5 of well maintained and consistent rough grass rimming its exquisite bunkers.  

Some bunkers are meant to be gathering bunkers.  Like mid fairwaybunkers with a surrounding gathering slope or depression into them.  Some are bunkers cut into the bowels of greens, Aussie style with green height mowed lips right into the edges.  Even Wild Horse and Sand Hills have a couple of a few bunkers with short mowed lips to gather balls.

I think a native lip is a good thing in windy environments to somewhat protect from blowing sand in and out of the sand pit.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim and others,
This is a very interesting thread and I wish I had more time to comment on it with some detail but am getting ready to leave on a trip to Ireland/Scotland.  I will say, however, that I was just at TCC at Brookline and Bill is being pushed to finely manicure all his bunkers    I spoke at length with him about it and wrote up my recommendations stating strongly that I believed doing this would be a mistake.  TCC is in my opinion, one of those Flynn courses that looks great with the ragged looking bunkers and they tie-in and maintain continuity with the rest of the golf course.  This just shows that even at great course like TCC with a very knowledgable and capable Superintendent, that there are strong membership issues/concerns with bunker edging that must be delt with.  I hope Bill can hold them off and maintain the rough and natural look.  I'll keep everyone posted.

I was also just at Fox Chapel this week.  They are having all kinds of issues with balls hanging up on the faces and unplayable lies resulting.  We discussed this during the round and afterwards during a dinner presentation.  I don't have time to get into details but it again shows that bunker edging/grassing is a major issue for many golf courses.  

I hope things work out for the best at Rolling Green as it is an excellent golf course.  

[Paul_Turner]

I thought St Germain in Paris had an interesting approach to the eyebrow question.   For fairway bunkers they kept the eyebrow, but for greenside the bunkers were sharp edged.

Seemed sensible.

[John Gosselin]

Wayne/Mayday, the green side bunkers 13 through 16 were completed all in house with RG greens staff and all by hand. The biggest piece of equipment we used was a sand pro. Although that was a lot of fun it wasn't practical in rebuilding the rest of the bunkers in the time frame the members wanted them completed.

Wayne, I would love to see any older photos of the bunkering from eye level. We searched high and low for photos like that to help guide us, all to no avail. There was a box of photos taken by Orin Burly over the years that his wife supposly gave to someone on the greens committee, in the early nineties, that we could not track down. Mrs. Burly describe one photo of players on the eighth green. No big deal, except the photo was taken from the back patio of the club house.

My post was not intended to sound defensive, but rather to explain our intentions. I certainly would do some things different today. Hopefully ten years later we are a lot smarter and the available resources, along with the current trend to restore rather than wipe out and begin new, would have gone a long way in protecting Flynn's intent. Resources like this website would have been a great help, not to mention all the information you now have on Flynn that we were just not aware of 10 years ago.

Although it is probably time to revisit the bunkers from an architectural point of view, the construction quality should still be intact.

In the end the current bunkers are much better then what was out there when we started. We undid many well intended alterations or attempts to modernize the style of bunkering including the Donald Ross look built by one of the architects brought in over the years.

Did the club abandoned Gill Hanse's master plan and if so why?

[Jim_Coleman]

    John:
I wouldn't say the club has abandoned the Master Plan.  It is still used as a reference.  I would say, however, that the club is not wed to it, nor bound by it.  Lately, we have been using Ron Forse's shop as a consultant for new tees, some new bunkers (#17 is in; #7 is under consideration); and tree removal advice.  Many of Gil's ideas are being used, but some new ideas are also being considered.  I think this is a good thing.
    Thanks for your recollection on the bunker issue; mine is the same.

[Dan Herrmann]

Some places (courses) they fit, sometimes they DO NOT.

Just like every woman ought not be a DD (except for Lichtenstein), every course (even C & C) ought not have eyebrows (unless your name is Naccarato).

The worst ball-eating eyebrows that I have ever seen were the original ones at French Creek.  They used a naturally occurring sod found on the site that had this "Elephant grass" and god knows what else, but you could lose a two-year old in those things!

I hit into one on a fairway bunker on #17 and from 8 feet away I could not find the ball. (Someone else was close by to confirm that the ball did not deflect elsewhere).

What's the most dense/penal/scary that  all of you have encountered?

Bill,
We've cut the eyebrows down.  There were a mistake and never should have gotten that bad.  To be honest with you, it was a growing pain caused by lower than optimal budget.

When Gil saw those things, he told the staff in no uncertain terms to lose them.

Things are much better now.

[TEPaul]

I don't know what the hell some of you guys think "eyebrows" on bunkers are but from the way you're talking it sounds like you think "eyebrows" are full length hair and a full length beard. That is not what I call "eyebrows". To me "eyebrows" are only about 2-3 inches long and is just the grass that hangs down below the sod where it juxtaposes with the sand. A golf ball should never get lost or hung up in what I call "eyebrows".

The more I get into this subject of golf course architecture and maintenance practices the more I realize almost every single thing HAS TO BE specifically DEFINED or it will be misunderstood by almost everyone.

I used to think the term "firm and fast" was descriptive enough and now I realize it isn't. You have to make the distinction between "through the green" and the greens themselves or everyone seems to think you're only talking about the green surface and you have to actually explain what kind of rollout you're talking about in yards too or some might thing you're only talking about five or ten yards.

It's amazing. This stuff is definitely not rocket science but it needs specific definitions for people to even remotely get on the same page.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Right or wrong, in our book we define "eyebrow" as "The back lip of a bunker when arched and left to rough high grass that when viewed from the front, resembles an eyebrow; any grading feature that resembles an eyebrow.  

I didn't count the actual number, but there must be close to a thousand definitions of terms associated with golf architecture/hazards in the book's glossary.  Coffin bunkers, chipping swales, cementlike approaches, deception bunkers, moon creaters, pan bunkers, sideburns, water bars,...we had fun with it.  Time to breakdown a get a copy