Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Emil Weber on April 25, 2009, 03:38:11 PM
-
Looking at some photos of Doak courses I noticed a difference in the bunker style between some of his older and more recent courses. While the bunkers on the older courses look more conventional yet well varied, his newer ones (PD, Sebonack, Stone Eagle... and Yes, I know, the sites he was given in the recent years were much more spectacular), for me, are pure artistry. It seems like Pacific Dunes was the turn. Does anybody know what I mean? Tom Doak: Can you comment? Or am I just a fool :P
-
My best assessment would be:
Everyone's style evolves but the supposed chnge in styles would have far more to do with the site than philosophy or design style. One site might be best suited for more "traditional" style bunkers (while still placing them in areas where they seem natural) while another might appear much more like grassing around a bunker that has been there for decades and leaving the scruffy surrounds as they appear naturally.
I would guess virtually all of Tom's bunkering fits that scenario...
>Fit seamlessly into the terrain
>Compliment the surrounds in terms of style
>Similar in strategy / penalization
-
Emil:
One man's pure artistry is another man's overkill.
However, the difference you are probably noticing is that Pacific Dunes was the first course where we started building all of our bunkers with excavators instead of with a bulldozer or backhoe.
And since then we have had an army of talented guys to build those bunkers -- all of my associates plus Tony Russell, Chris Hunt, Kyle Franz, George Waters, Kye Goalby, and Jonathan Reisetter -- each of whom has been responsible for a significant portion of the bunkers at one of those courses.
The only problem is they keep building them! Jim and I were talking about that the other day in Bandon -- it's hard to build a course with fewer bunkers when you've got one or two guys assigned to bunkers!
-
it's hard to build a course with fewer bunkers when you've got one or two guys assigned to bunkers!
What would you assign those guys to do if it weren't bunkers? Could they be making interesting rolls and contours, or some other such thing? Could they be assigned to making grass hazards?
-
Charlie:
I suppose we could contour a whole course like St. Andrews with the same manpower ... but that's against my general philosophy, because there aren't many pieces of property where such a wrinkly surface would fit in. [Perhaps a links course built from scratch.]
Grass hazards (if you mean bunkers) generally wouldn't require nearly as much shaping time as the bunkers we've been building.
The solution would be spreading the guys out over more projects, but in this economy, that's not likely to happen for a while. So, the younger guys have been moving on to others' projects ... building the bunkers at the Cal Club and at The Prairie Club, among other places.
-
Tom,
Can you expound upon the difference between excavator bunker and bulldozer/backhoe bunkers. My only real guess would be depth. But as a Jr. member, my knowledge is somewhat lacking in the actual equipment area of GCA
-
Tom, I actually don't have anything specific in mind (though definitely not contouring a whole course). I was thinking more along the lines that if we are going to see a new type or style of hazard come about it will be from getting some creative folks thinking about it, trying out ideas, bouncing ideas off each other, all without worrying about doing their regular jobs on top of that. I'm not saying you should do that, but rather, that I wonder what some of the best young minds in golf would come up with if told to create something new or different or wild or interesting or subtle as a hazard with the stipulation that it can't be a standard bunker or water hazard.
-
In the east, ie Riverfront & Beechtree RIP, I would have to describe the bunkering perhaps as 'parkland formal' and sharply edged. The fairway bunkers are not fun.
-
Carl: What do you mean that "the fairway bunkers are not fun"? Just curious. For what it's worth, I thought the bunkers at Riverfront were our best to that date in time.
Ben: An excavator (aka trackhoe) is a large hoe on tracks, which we usually outfit with a "wrist bucket" for more dexterity while digging bunkers. The good part about the excavator is that you can dig a bunker into a ridge or natural feature and leave the back of the bunker undisturbed by equipment ... and the excavator's long reach allows you to throw the material out into the fairway to be shaped as you get it away from the bunker. With a bulldozer, you generally use the excavated material to build up the lip of the bunker; while a backhoe can't throw it nearly as far as an excavator, and is not as easily maneuvered.
-
Tom,
Thanks. After your description I see what you mean. Was it your idea to move to that particular piece of equipment, or one of your associates? Based on your bunkering since Pac, it seems that whoever made that call deserves a beer. Also, how's the book on Pac coming?
-
Excavator:
(http://sugarmtnfarm.com/blog/uploaded_images/PondExcavatorInDigDSCF6864-726042.jpg)
Backhoe:
(http://central-plant-hire.co.uk/cat-428-backhoe-loader_4.jpg)
Bulldozer:
(http://classroomclipart.com/images/gallery/Science/Farms/caterpillar-bulldozer-10.jpg)
P.S. Tom do you think you'll ever have a project large enough to need one of these? ;D
(http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/apod/image/0611/trencher2_smd.jpg)
-
Kalen,
Did you sign a contract with Caterpillar? ;D Thanks for the pics, though I was actually more interested in what they did that was different on a golf course, not necessarily what they were. I've been playing with mini versions of those machines since '82
-
Ben,
I too like the big "tractors"...but a quick google search was all thats needed to produce those pics.
If you look at the first one, I think it makes it easier to visualize the length of the arm and how far it can extend to dig out a bunker without having to get into the bunker and repair the edges later.
Compare that to the backhoe where every time you want to use the rear arm, you have to set the rear pegs, get them stable, and dig. If one is constantly moving the machine around, it can be very time intensive for setup each time. In my experience the backhoe is more an all-purpose machine that comes with the bucket scoop on the front. Kind of a hybrid between a front end loader and an excavator.
-
Kalen,
It most definitely makes sense that looking at the machine should give you a better idea of it's uses. I am fortunate enough to have a family property back home in Georgia that my grandfather lets me shape using his skid steer Bobcat (and an attachable backhoe) in a little 3 acre natural amphitheater with a creek fronting it. When I am on leave I usually give up two days or so and just tell my family to let me be on the tractor for a few hours. I have shaped and reshaped, dug and filled, probably seven iterations of that green and 15 or so different bunkers. We've never grassed it or put any sand in the bunkers, but its great fun. Let me say that operating earth moving equipment with dexterity enough to produce artwork it much harder than performing a jet to its full potential.
-
The bunkers at Tumble Creek are very different from the other Doaks I have seen. Very reserved in style.
-
Ben,
That sounds awesome. I've worked plenty of construction sites myself, but never seen one put to use in a golf course construction setting. While I've always had fantasies about my potential skills in that application, reality has set in and I realize I likely couldn't do it anywhere as well as these guys.
Either way its awesome looking stuff, and I still hope to semi-retire someday and work on a course site from beginning to completion.
-
Sean,
Looking at the body of work, Mr. Doak (like most architects) has many different styles of bunkering depending on many variables. Most notably among those topography and the scale required (large or small) for a project. The style of course also dicates bunker strategy. If you look at pictures for Doak's new course for the Colorado Golf Association (Common Ground), it's bunkering is designed to be slightly less dramatic and intimidating, in my opinion of course.
Over the course of screwing around with my little "play pit" back home, I've learned that scale of undulation and bunker size and shape play a huge part in the aesthetic value of the hole from a hundred yards back up the field. Another reason why Dr. MacKenzie's military experience may have been his best weapon against the golfer.
-
Tom,
Sorry, for the out of context remark. "Not Fun" means I have to hit a PW or 9 Iron out of the bunker and can not hit the green. All the fw bunkers at Riverfront define and/or defend the line of play. Down the road at Sleepy Hole, the fw bunkering by contrast is pre-school.
-
Carl:
Thanks for the clarification. I'm surprised that all the fairway bunkers play as you described, but certainly a lot of them were designed with the notion that you'd have to hit a great shot (and risk leaving it in the bunker) in order to reach the green.
Ben:
Both Jim Urbina and Bruce Hepner had suggested using excavators to build bunkers ... in fact I guess we did use them to build a lot of the bunkers at Apache Stronghold. But we converted at Pacific Dunes because Tony Russell (who was providing most of the equipment for the job) owned excavators! I personally spent more time on the bunkers at Pacific Dunes than any other job we've done ... I flagged them out and kept re-flagging them for Tony, and I think he dug 95% of the ones that weren't already there.
Sean and Ben:
As you commented regarding Tumble Creek and Common Ground, we are always trying to do something a bit different, depending on the site and on which guys I assign to the bunkers for a particular job. The "reserved" bunkers at Tumble Creek were built mostly by Brian Slawnik, who had just come back from Australia and was tired of jazzy bunkers; we started the job thinking that Washington didn't have too many golden-age courses and we should do bunkers and greens more like Winged Foot (although we ad-libbed once we got going).
Common Ground and Old Macdonald also have very different styles. In part we are reacting to the fact that so many other architects are trying to do jazzy bunkers now, so we think it's time to move on; but oviously the client's input and the site have a lot to do with our choices.
-
Tom,
A cynic might suggest that your success and the success of a few others has created a short-cut for lesser designers to cash in on the naturalistic/minimalistic fad by simply throwing some jagged edges and a bit of fescue around the same old poorly placed bunkers they have always built.
It sounds like you have recently drifted to a bit simpler bunkers, but is there any chance you will ever go entirely in the opposite direction by building very plain, simple, and possibly even geometric bunkers to distinguish yours from the impersonators, and to reemphasize that there are more to your courses than pretty bunkers; and that your bunkers are crucial strategic components of interesting golf? Haven't you written to that effect in the past?
Do you think any of your developers would ever go for something like this? Would your shapers revolt?
-
You've got that right Slag. In the winter or even when cold water gets on them there is some serious shrinkage on those circumcised dick bunkers of Barkley's. One of the best descriptions of that shrinkage process and result actually took place by Elaine on one of Seinfeld's shows.
-
Boys, please, no fighting in my backyard.
David M: I would not be likely to turn to "geometric" bunkering because I am a big believer that a golf course ought to look like it belongs in the landscape. Fewer bunkers, yes; simpler bunkers, maybe. I am really out to build good golf courses more than I'm out to prove any particular point.
However, I have been thinking that someday when we get a really blank-slate site (whether it's just flat or industrial or something), that I would love to build a course that doesn't look much like a golf course at all, but plays like one. I would likely need to collaborate on that with a landscape architect who doesn't play too much golf, so I can be the "shot values and strategy" guy.
-
Just from reading this thread, it seems like Tom's "bunker style" is the product of the businessman-Tom, the craftsman-Tom, and the artist-Tom, with the three parts working together, in some kind of equal measure. The first, because the style is influenced by the client and by the managing of staff; the second, because the style is influenced by the equipment and by practical necessity (i.e. the need for bunkers to actually work, and not collapse); and the third because the style is influenced by the best of what Tom has seen and loved, and by what he wants to create.
Are the bunker styles of all/most/few architects past and present the product of a similar 3-part harmony?
Peter
TE - Just to say, what some people forget is that the Coyote's full name was "Wily. E. Coyote, Super-Genius" - at least, that's what his businesscard read. And indeed, he WAS a genius, in my opinion. But it wasn't enough. It was NEVER enough....
-
"TE - Just to say, what some people forget is that the Coyote's full name was "Wily. E. Coyote, Super-Genius" - at least, that's what his businesscard read. And indeed, he WAS a genius, in my opinion. But it wasn't enough. It was NEVER enough...."
PeterP:
Thanks for reminding me that his name was Wily E. Coyote, Super Genius. I sort of forgot that. It's interesting that I was just watching a History Channel program on some of the cartoons of the past and that one was featured prominently. They explained how well all the delayed reactions or delayed realizations were done with Wily E. Coyote such as when he would step off a cliff and be suspended in air for a number of seconds before he even became aware of what the f... he'd just done or what was about to happen to him. And then how after he crashed and burned time after time he actually scrapped himself up time and again from the bottom of the canyon or whatever and just totally floored it all over again on his ultra-rapid way to some other unforseen disaster.
His was a great parable actually! ;)
But what I need to know now is whether Doak is somehow conflicted between the differences of Wily E. Coyote and UNDERDOG who I don't know much about. This is all extremely important and no doubt massively fundamental to the deep understanding of Tom Doak golf course architecture.
I also absolutely and positively must know how little 5-6 year old Tommy Doak was able to navigate for his father with some map when he in his little short pants couldn't even see over the dashboard. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about why Doak is so facile with topo contour maps and why he can route a golf course in New York on a Saturday evening back home in Michigan with Wily E. Coyote or UNDERDOG on the TV in the background, I just can't imagine what would!
-
Wasn't it Wile E. Coyote?
-
Anyone else wondering if we all have too much time on our hands to be debating the name of the roadrunner's arch nemesis ??? Mr. Doak gets the prize, however.
-
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:J1RY_y01cqIhPM:http://media.comicvine.com)
-
I would say at Lost Dunes the most interesting thing about the fairway bunkers is that they mostly add to the visual experience and many times are not really in play with anything but a poorly struck drive. (Mind you I have only played the tips and even still I'm not the longest hitter in the world, but not the shortest either).
Perhaps a good example of this is 7, with the (very cool) bunker off the tee making the hole look tighter than the gigantic fairway behind it would let you believe. And the tee shot on 12 with the two huge bunkers framing the landing area and laying out the strategy of the hole.
-
David M: I would not be likely to turn to "geometric" bunkering because I am a big believer that a golf course ought to look like it belongs in the landscape. Fewer bunkers, yes; simpler bunkers, maybe. I am really out to build good golf courses more than I'm out to prove any particular point.
Makes sense. If I was building a course (having one built) I'd want the same thing.
However, I have been thinking that someday when we get a really blank-slate site (whether it's just flat or industrial or something), that I would love to build a course that doesn't look much like a golf course at all, but plays like one. I would likely need to collaborate on that with a landscape architect who doesn't play too much golf, so I can be the "shot values and strategy" guy.
This is perhaps a bit more what I had in mind with the question. This would be very interesting, especially if the course was really a kick to play. I have a hard time imagining the developer who lets you do it though.
___________________
The feature I have always found most interesting about the bunkers built by TD's crew and a few others is that the inside of the bunkers are actually contoured to the land, so that the inside of the bunker will have internal slopes and movement. IMO this not only blends better and makes the bunker feel more natural, it also provides for more interesting bunker shots.
Is this feature found in many golden age courses? If so which ones and by whom? Or is it a more modern contribution to quality gca?
-
whoops.