[Mark_Fine]

Royal Ashdown Forest was mentioned before.  It is quite interesting playing that golf course.  It really doesn't need bunkers (they are actually not allowed on the property but I won't get into why).  However, just because there are no bunkers doesn't mean there are no hazardous situations to be encountered.  Heather can be much more difficult to deal with than sand.  I found it a great learning experience to play there and it is a course every architect should see.  You can overcomplicate golf holes with bunkers and sometimes simpler is better.  

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

I am not an agronomist or similar. Therefore, I have little knowledge of plants that may be used. However, the grasses in the fairways often not part of the natural environment in which they are planted. That suggests a couple of things. First, there may be enough contrast to the natural vegetation of a site to use that natural vegetation for bunker like areas. Second, since the grass is not native to the site, using another non native plant material is not going too far astray.

Interestingly reading Tillinghast last weekend, I found he was surprised upon arriving in Oregon to find the grass from Oregon that worked so well elsewhere not being used in Oregon because of negative characteristics it had in its natural environment.

[TEPaul]

"(they are actually not allowed on the property but I won't get into why)."


Mark:

Why not---it doesn't take much of an explanation?

There's a prohibition against sand bunkering on that course apparently emanating from an old Royal Edict.  

[TEPaul]

Garland:

Obviously everything is looked at in degrees but I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from on the use of grasses indigenous to a particular site and steering away from grasses that aren't even if used for the purpose of creating much greater color contrast than grasses would have that are indigenous.

That subject came up on the Maryland project I'm working with Paul Cowley on.

In real out of play areas I said just go with a grass that's indigenous to the area--a real horse area. Maybe something like Timothy.

But one of the architects recommended fescue because at certain times it has so much greater color contrast than Timothy ever would.

[Mike McGuire]

It would be simple to change the contrast of existing turf. Simply add or subtract nitrogen; as anyone who applied fertilizer improperly to a lawn can attest.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom P,
Usually you can't get away with such a simple explanation  
At one time the members had put in a practice bunker so they could at least practice sand shots for when they played other courses.  It had to be removed because of the ordinance.

[wsmorrison]

Royal Ashdown Forest is on crown land and the original charter prohibits any man-made alterations whatsoever.

[Steve Lang]

   are there any gca inclined sheep roaming there?

[TEPaul]

"I've thought about it a couple of times, and I think Huntingdon Valley could lose at least 80% of its bunkers and not suffer at all...the remaining 20% could go as well just to make a point. If the areas now bunkered were replaced with short grass, the course would be much tougher...for the beter player and probably easier for the not so good..."

Sully:

That's a pretty thought provoking statement. Why don't you list the bunkers you think are important and discuss why you think they should stay?

Right off the top of my head I don't think I'd want to see the bunkers removed around #1 green, on #4 and certainly not on #15. I also think the bunkers on the tee shot on #11 even if they may not be original or in the same place as originally work very well on tee shot options.

[Jim Nugent]

I've thought about it a couple of times, and I think Huntingdon Valley could lose at least 80% of its bunkers and not suffer at all...the remaining 20% could go as well just to make a point. If the areas now bunkered were replaced with short grass, the course would be much tougher...for the beter player and probably easier for the not so good...

Would the course get tougher for good players because the ball would run to even tougher spots than the bunkers that are now there?  Or is it easier to play these shots from sand than from short grass?  

Bunkers really can be hell for not-so-good players.  

[TEPaul]

JimN:

I can tell you right now that if a course like HVGC with its topography decided to mow about 75 acres of the course into fairway with very little bunkering the course would probably be mindbendingly interesting to play. It might even force players to actually shape some shots into topography just to reduce and minimize runout.

It would be really interesting to me to analyze that place and the topography on various holes to see where some of the flatter spots may be and if turned into fairway how bad their angles for the next shot might be.

The book on HVGC and its players over the years is that one of the reason they are generally all such good ball strikers is because they play off far more uneven fairway lies than most any other course.

If for some reason they decided to create so much more fairway area that balls could get into flatter spots even though producing bad angles it would be most interesting to see how their better players would go about dealing with that strategically and in shot value.

The occasional problem with that kind of thing is one has to be careful that too many balls don't inevitably end up in small flat spots or those areas begin to look like war zones of divots.

[JESII]

I've thought about it a couple of times, and I think Huntingdon Valley could lose at least 80% of its bunkers and not suffer at all...the remaining 20% could go as well just to make a point. If the areas now bunkered were replaced with short grass, the course would be much tougher...for the beter player and probably easier for the not so good...

Would the course get tougher for good players because the ball would run to even tougher spots than the bunkers that are now there?  Or is it easier to play these shots from sand than from short grass?  

Bunkers really can be hell for not-so-good players.  

Jim,

I say that because of where the ball would go if the bunker didn't stop it. I am betting the not-so-good player would prefer a pitch from 25 yards wide of a green from grass, with nothing but grass in between, than a 10 yard bunker shot. I think the good player feels the opposite.

[JESII]

#1 - I think the only important bunker is the fairway bunker, I'd lose all three around the green.
#2 - I'd lose them all
#3 - I'd lose the short bunker, the left "Redan" bunker, and the back right bunker
#4 - Of the 9 bunkers, I would keep the four around the green and the one big one that juts into the fairway at about 80 yards
#5 - I'd keep the short right one and lose the rest
#6 - I'd lose them both
#7 - Lose the first of the three left bunkers on the tee shot, the first of the two short right of the green (further from the green) and lose the left greenside bunker. Lose three of the six
#8 - Only keep the front left greenside, lose the other two (we have recently removed one as well)
#9 - Lose the two on the hill and keep the one above the green
#10 - Lose the three along the left and rear and one of the two guarding the front right
#11 - Lose the right greenside bunker and one of the two behind the green. Keep the two in the driving zone
#12 - Lose the one right greenside
#13 - Lose the back left and right bunkers, keep the left greenside
#14 - Lose the second of the three guarding the right fairway, and the left greenside...keep four of six on this hole
#15 - Lose the short right bunker guarding the tee shot, keep the big one. Keep the middle (110 yard) layup bunker and lose the two big buffer bunkers on the right and both greenside bunkers.
#16 - the only bunker I would keep is the 70 yard bunker on the right, the other four can go
#17 - Lose both greenside bunkers
#18 - Only keep the left greenside bunker...lose the other seven.

I think most of the low side bunkers out there were put in as buffers to keep balls near the hole being played...this would eliminate much of that. I think this would retain 26 of 81 so a bit higher 20%.



Wayne,

Feel free to post pictures of any of the holes of interest and we can discuss in greater detail.

[Tom Huckaby]

You'd need to also reconsider the USGA course rating system if you didn't have sand bunkers.  Or would you even care?

Not true, if you are talking one course.  Bunker ratings for each hole would be zero, which on the face of things would decrease the rating... but we'd have to assume that other hazards get added, which would bring it back up.

Now if you mean ALL bunkers are removed EVERYWHERE... well then yes, an adjustment to the course rating methodology would be required.  One of the obtacle ratings is indeed "bunkers" and it is based on the presence of sand.

TH

[wsmorrison]

I thought it would be best to post the hole drawings from the large routing map so the topo lines can indicate the slopes involved.  As you can see, the lines are at 5' intervals and the fairway drops and cants right to left.  This topo does not represent the final design plan, though it is close.  I recently found an earlier design routing plan for HVCC but have not located the final one as yet.  However, most of the holes are in their final form.  

Here is hole #1.  There is a bunker behind the green that is relatively recent and it should certainly go.  I like the left fairway bunker and the left greenside bunker.  I could see removing the small bunker on the right front corner even though it gives players that push the ball right something to think about on the approach.  The overall topography and the green sloping away from that angle of play is probably enough of a problem, especially with the fairway cut wrapping around the right side of the green.

[JESII]

Thanks Wayne,

Agreed on the back "backstop" bunker that is not drawn. The left greenside bunker is no more than a side rail for balls heading that way, and the front right of the green is protected by enigineered shaping that steers water flow around the green. The fairway bunker does a nice job of dictating strategy off the tee because you really do want to approach the green from the left side.

[wsmorrison]

Hole 2 with a green that one time sloped more precipitously from right to left requiring a fade off of a draw lie or a precise shot over the bunker and mound on the right to feed onto and hold the green.

[wsmorrison]

Hole 3 with a Redan-like green that also has been muted with a build-up of the left side of the green.

[Peter Pallotta]

JES - thanks very much for your post #63; especially in the context of the rest of the thread, it's one of the neatest posts I've ever read here. Really fascinating to see what someone who knows (and plays) a course so well thinks that course can do without...and why.  The 'theory' of naturalism in a concrete nutshell.

Peter

 

[JESII]

Including an added bunker in the right rough just short of the written '300', tell me why any of those bunkers are needed.

The hole is about 370 at the shortest and 440 at the longest, the control needed at the green end is high enough (especially if the green were restored) to dictate success on its own.

EDIT: after missing the window, this is for #2

[JESII]

Hole 3 with a Redan-like green that also has been muted with a build-up of the left side of the green.

Another low side bunker that simply keeps balls near the green. A tough bunker for higher handicaps, but not too scary for better players. Lose it and keep the grass short and the player will find a ball played aggressively at the green and slightly pulled a full 25 yards from the green...but...with no other obstacle between he and the hole from there. This will result in the same 3 or 4 for the better player, but reduce the average player's aggravation by a factor of three...

There currently is a back bunker into the right hillside that serves virtually no purpose other than to give Kyle Harris a spot to place the pin a few feet from...

[TEPaul]

"Including an added bunker in the right rough just short of the written '300', tell me why any of those bunkers are needed."

Sully:

I'm sure you're aware that the bunker in the right rough you mentioned around the 300 mark has often been referred to as "the Sigel bunker" because he recommended it.

[Mark_Fine]

I have to say that the topic of superfluous bunkering is very interesting.  Everyone has a different perspective on what is needed and what is not (and usually no one is right or wrong).  I'm convinced the best architects can envision all the different perspectives.  I wonder what Mr. Flynn would think if someone said that 80% of his bunkers on one of his better designs could go away    I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with JES.  I just find it interesting and conversations like this come up all the time with club committees.  

[wsmorrison]

The added right fairway bunker on 2 gives width definition and an aiming point.  Tom Paul knows the origin of that one.  I don't think it was Kirkwood.  The hole is better without it as the result is a fairly wide corridor with no guideposts.   The lack of framing is unusual these days and would be welcome.

Low side bunkers serve the purpose of preventing balls from caroming too far down the slopes, in the case of pulled shots on this portion of the golf course.  I don't know that they're all worth taking out.

I don't like the second right greenside bunker at all on 3 that is not in the drawing and is not by Flynn.  Kyle used to put pins near that?  No wonder Scott tanned his hide with a divining rod.  I'd get rid of the fairway bunker, but would keep one of the greenside bunkers.  Jim, if you had to keep one, which would you keep?    

[JESII]

"Including an added bunker in the right rough just short of the written '300', tell me why any of those bunkers are needed."

Sully:

I'm sure you're aware that the bunker in the right rough you mentioned around the 300 mark has often been referred to as "the Sigel bunker" because he recommended it.

Yep!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()