[Duncan Cheslett]

Many modern architects set up their courses around the scratch player. I have always questioned this philosophy.


Dr Mac famously considered all abilities when he designed a course.

[Ben Stephens]

Many modern architects set up their courses around the scratch player. I have always questioned this philosophy.


Dr Mac famously considered all abilities when he designed a course.

Agree on this! Variety is the spice of life

[Duncan Cheslett]

Not to mention the fact that golf courses are paid for by players of average ability.

[Ben Stephens]

Not to mention the fact that golf courses are paid for by players if average ability.

They are the true clients in this regard.


One other thing have you talked to the green keeper - is the clean cut Fazio like bunker outlines a maintenance reason?

[Sean_A]

Many modern architects set up their courses around the scratch player. I have always questioned this philosophy.


Dr Mac famously considered all abilities when he designed a course.

Dr Mac will have considered average handicap golfers, but the courses would have been extremely difficult relative to today's standard.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

No comment on the bunkering etc but the old stone wall in front of the Clubhouse looks to my eye at least much nicer than the current hedge.
atb

[Sean_A]

No comment on the bunkering etc but the old stone wall in front of the Clubhouse looks to my eye at least much nicer than the current hedge.
atb

There is a hedge in front of the stone wall?

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

No comment on the bunkering etc but the old stone wall in front of the Clubhouse looks to my eye at least much nicer than the current hedge.
atb

There is a hedge in front of the stone wall?

Ciao

Nah.


There are a couple of bushes and some flower beds but that’s it!

[Thomas Dai]

No comment on the bunkering etc but the old stone wall in front of the Clubhouse looks to my eye at least much nicer than the current hedge.
atb

There is a hedge in front of the stone wall?
Ciao

Nah.
There are a couple of bushes and some flower beds but that’s it!

Further microscope viewing of the old and new photos posted above do seem to still indicate wall but of different colour. Maybe the coloured version of the old photo is out of kilter? Can’t think for the life of me who did it?!:)
Atb

[John Mayhugh]

Further microscope viewing of the old and new photos posted above do seem to still indicate wall but of different colour. Maybe the coloured version of the old photo is out of kilter? Can’t think for the life of me who did it?!:)
Atb

The colorized version looks much better than the real thing. Most wouldn't notice the contrast of the dark wall against the lighter clubhouse, but matching shades would be much more attractive.


Ben,

I don't believe every MacKenzie bunker looked like the ones at Cypress Point. A lot easier to do those shapes in sand dunes than in heavier soil. I think that MacKenzie wanted to draw the eye away from the target, and did it to great effect with irregular lines and flashed up capes. But I think historical photos from Cavendish would give a much better idea of what that course's bunkering looked like than referring to CPC as an ideal. Surely the implementation should vary by site.



Overall, I worry that course restorations or updates or improvements or whatever you call them are far too bunker-oriented. Sure, pretty bunkers photograph well, and I can see some value in that. But they get too much attention IMO.

The left bunker position on the 18th is somewhere between evil and clueless.

[Ben Stephens]

Further microscope viewing of the old and new photos posted above do seem to still indicate wall but of different colour. Maybe the coloured version of the old photo is out of kilter? Can’t think for the life of me who did it?!:)
Atb

The colorized version looks much better than the real thing. Most wouldn't notice the contrast of the dark wall against the lighter clubhouse, but matching shades would be much more attractive.


Ben,

I don't believe every MacKenzie bunker looked like the ones at Cypress Point. A lot easier to do those shapes in sand dunes than in heavier soil. I think that MacKenzie wanted to draw the eye away from the target, and did it to great effect with irregular lines and flashed up capes. But I think historical photos from Cavendish would give a much better idea of what that course's bunkering looked like than referring to CPC as an ideal. Surely the implementation should vary by site.



Overall, I worry that course restorations or updates or improvements or whatever you call them are far too bunker-oriented. Sure, pretty bunkers photograph well, and I can see some value in that. But they get too much attention IMO.

The left bunker position on the 18th is somewhere between evil and clueless.

John


Cypress Point is an example of Mackenzie bunkering and it comes up as different shapes and size with a similar style. If you look at the 18th photo from Duncan - the old bunkering has different shapes unlike the new ones which look too similar to each other.


If you are referring to clay base - didn't Augusta have similar shaping and style to some of the bunker at Cypress Point. The great thing is that Mackenzie designed less bunkers if the soil didn't suit the sand and likewise the other way if it was sandy he maximised that potential not only at Cypress Point but also Royal Melbourne.


At Royal Melbourne didn't Mackenzie recommend that half of the bunker was to have smooth edges and the rest to have a rough edge?


To me Cavendish bunkers is more Fazio-esque than Mackenzie. There will be a number of members and golfers that prefer this look and i have asked Duncan whether the sharp edges are more of a maintenance requirement.


Cheers
Ben

[Duncan Cheslett]

Ben,


I’m no expert on bunker construction but surely it is a little premature to be commenting on the sharpness or roughness of the bunker edges when we are only at the stage of the liners being installed?


The original bunkers had no liners and were dug by hand with shovels. Inevitably the look during construction is not going to be the same. Hopefully the finished look will be slightly less uniform.


It was decided that liners were essential because of the drainage characteristics of the soil, the presence of stones, and the prevalence of rabbits and other burrowing animals.


The ongoing maintenance of the bunkers is one of the main criteria in their design, and our course manager has been closely involved in the process.  While we in this forum witter on endlessly about authentic bunker edges and the like, the main desire for the overwhelming majority of golfers is for impressive attractive bunkers which most importantly perform well and give good consistent sand to play out of.


Personally I am not too bothered about the minutiae of the edges etc; I am more concerned that their overall shaping and appearance is consistent with the pedigree of the course and that they are sited in the right place from a strategic and historical point of view. I am quite happy to embrace modern construction techniques if it improves performance in the long run and saves time and money on maintenance.


MacKenzie’s original bunkers looked great but didn’t perform well on a wet windy site.  Many were grassed over within a few years of construction.


Our longest serving member joined the club in 1948 and still has distinct memories of the course at that time. Most of the changes to the original bunkering had already been made.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben,


I’m no expert on bunker construction but surely it is a little premature to be commenting on the sharpness or roughness of the bunker edges when we are only at the stage of the liners being installed?


The original bunkers had no liners and were dug by hand with shovels. Inevitably the look during construction is not going to be the same. Hopefully the finished look will be slightly less uniform.


It was decided that liners were essential because of the drainage characteristics of the soil, the presence of stones, and the prevalence of rabbits and other burrowing animals.


The ongoing maintenance of the bunkers is one of the main criteria in their design, and our course manager has been closely involved in the process.  While we in this forum witter on endlessly about authentic bunker edges and the like, the main desire for the overwhelming majority of golfers is for impressive attractive bunkers which most importantly perform well and give good consistent sand to play out of.


Personally I am not too bothered about the minutiae of the edges etc; I am more concerned that their overall shaping and appearance is consistent with the pedigree of the course and that they are sited in the right place from a strategic and historical point of view. I am quite happy to embrace modern construction techniques if it improves performance in the long run and saves time and money on maintenance.


MacKenzie’s original bunkers looked great but didn’t perform well on a wet windy site.  Many were grassed over within a few years of construction.


Our longest serving member joined the club in 1948 and still has distinct memories of the course at that time. Most of the changes to the original bunkering had already been made.

Duncan,




So the bunkers were shaped and lined with astroturf liners with no drainage below? I know Cavendish can be very wet at different times of the year and not having drainage below the bunkers can still flood.


Over time the astroturf liner (it looks astroturf to me) will move or curl up if there is nothing binding them together and attached into the ground. Having played hockey for many years on sand based astroturf it does not hold the sand in very well, if the match is windy sand blows everywhere in the face! No wonder why they now have water based astroturf 


To me it looks like the club are doubling the annual sand budget as it looks at least more than 50% increase in sand coverage volume wise.


If it is windy lots of sand will be blown off similar to what happened to the original Mackenzie bunkers additional sand will be needed each year. Sand prices are getting more expensive these days


The old bunker shapes were better to contain the sand in the bunkers and I understand the club wants to take the more aesthetic approach to make it look prettier.


Greenkeepers tend to straighten the outline of the bunkers over time as it is easier for them to maintain.


I am personally not a fan of using plastic on golf courses and avoid it where i can.




Cheers
Ben

[Duncan Cheslett]

Of course drainage was installed before the liners went in. Why would you think otherwise? The liner is perforated to allow water to pass through and drain away.


The liners and edges are being installed by Eco Bunker under warranty.


 

[Ben Stephens]

Of course drainage was installed before the liners went in. Why would you think otherwise? The liner is perforated to allow water to pass through and drain away.


The liners and edges are being installed by Eco Bunker under warranty.

Duncan




Thanks for clarifying re drainage as it is difficult to see from the photos.


Eco bunker reuses astroturf from old hockey pitches and at this rate they could run out as a lot of clubs are using them at present. Thats interesting that they offer warranty but for me the product is not great for the environment and I personally prefer natural materials.




Cheers
Ben


 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Ah, but it’s got the prefix  “eco” in the name...




...it must be good! 😉

[Robin_Hiseman]

Ben


This recycled artificial grass would otherwise be tipped in a landfill, so I think it is a terrific use of a waste product. I've not thought to use it as a drainage carpet on the floor of a bunker but have been impressed with its use as revettment.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I was firmly in Ben's camp preferring real grass to plastic. 


This summer I played out of a bunker at Longniddry and my host asked me what I thought of the artificial revetted face?  Ooops, hadn't noticed.  On closer inspection it was no more than 2' high and a few grass tufts we growing out of it, softening it a little.


I was quietly impressed.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Tony


The early versions of the artificial revetting were terrible, like stacks of green Ryvita. They have dramatically improved the appearance by making the layers much thicker. Very hard to tell them apart from real turf now.


Still haven't actually used it. Was much too expensive for the JCB job, given the quantity involved.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben


This recycled artificial grass would otherwise be tipped in a landfill, so I think it is a terrific use of a waste product. I've not thought to use it as a drainage carpet on the floor of a bunker but have been impressed with its use as revettment.

Robin


To me its being 'reused' not 'recycled' and its still a plastic material which really harms the environment (must be the eco-warrior in me!).

Using my risk assessment hat - it looks good however what happens when someone takes a heavy swipe at it and rips it off - you can touch up and repair with a small piece of grass but not with plastic. I have seen parts of hockey pitches patched up because they got ripped off if it was poorly done in the first place. I have small concerns whether it catches fire when someone stubs a cigarette on the revetted walls. Manufacturers tend to say that astroturf has very good fire protection properties however but not really 100% reassurance. Plus if a club goes through it could damage the golfers wrists more than grass faces.

It does save money in regards to maintenance and it looks neat/clean.   




Cheers
Ben

[Robin_Hiseman]

Ben


We're into semantics if discussing the difference in meaning between reused and recycled. The point being it is a worthwhile repurposing of an expired plastic product. Rather than throwing it away, it is being used in a positive, environmentally stable manner. It's a lot more expensive than natural turf revets, but if the blurb is to be believed you only have to 'build it once'.


The 'what if' arguments in your second paragraph are not things I cannot comment on with authority, but its been a while since I heard of a hockey pitch burning down!


Why don't you put your concerns to Richard Allen of Ecobunker? Adam Lawrence does his PR.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Actually, I've just done it for you. I'll let you know what he says.

[jeffwarne]

Many modern architects set up their courses around the scratch player. I have always questioned this philosophy.


Dr Mac famously considered all abilities when he designed a course.

Modern architects are burdened with clients/modern player's expectations of a course-notably that the 22 handicap should be able to potentially reach every green in regulation-if only he play the "appropriate" set of tee.
Dr. Mac was only designing for 1-2 sets of tees, probably on the same pod, and was thinking about how to plot different level and scale players around the SAME course.
Seems many today are trying to design each course(tee set) around players-which is absolutely impossible one the scud missile is fired. (like when an area is called "out of play")


I'm frequently shocked when I'm around "experts" who talk about "turn points", carry yardages, bunker placement-as if there are exact formulas and each tee has to match up to predetermined distances.(as if there is some magic yardage an 18, a 9 or a scratch, (and now a Tour player) hits it)


Expectations have made this harder, and loss of scale have poured gas on the fire.

[Sean_A]

Many modern architects set up their courses around the scratch player. I have always questioned this philosophy.

Dr Mac famously considered all abilities when he designed a course.

Modern architects are burdened with clients/modern player's expectations of a course-notably that the 22 handicap should be able to potentially reach every green in regulation-if only he play the "appropriate" set of tee.
Dr. Mac was only designing for 1-2 sets of tees, probably on the same pod, and was thinking about how to plot different level and scale players around the SAME course.
Seems many today are trying to design each course(tee set) around players-which is absolutely impossible one the scud missile is fired. (like when an area is called "out of play")

+1

I must say the use of plastic on golf courses concerns me. I don't have much of an issue with it used on bunkers as described above.  However, I do worry that its use will spread to tees (nevermind greens and fairways).  This effectively means the agronomy reason for removing trees near tees is dead.  I saw a course last year which had far too many trees around the tee, but a plastic teeing area was in play.  I shuddered when I saw it. It looked bad and gave an excuse to leave trees in play which should be removed.

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

Ben


We're into semantics if discussing the difference in meaning between reused and recycled. The point being it is a worthwhile repurposing of an expired plastic product. Rather than throwing it away, it is being used in a positive, environmentally stable manner. It's a lot more expensive than natural turf revets, but if the blurb is to be believed you only have to 'build it once'.


The 'what if' arguments in your second paragraph are not things I cannot comment on with authority, but its been a while since I heard of a hockey pitch burning down!


Why don't you put your concerns to Richard Allen of Ecobunker? Adam Lawrence does his PR.

Robin,


How many people smoke when playing hockey??

Plastics basically do catch fire, astroturf is said to be fire proof when sand is used which is not 100% guarantee however it does not prevent it from melting if there was a fire nearby.  A cigarette stub will make it melt and the exposed edges are not protected by sand.

There is a difference between reusing and recycling. The astroturf product has parts that can't be recycled and takes 1000 years to break down.   

There is also organic matter not sure you have taken this into account - plastics will definitely affect the soil and having no grass or dead grass stops the natural biological process happening which will affect the undergrowth and especially the trees in the surrounding areas. This is a real concern that plastic will affect the natural surrounding environment.

It would be interesting to see how much affect the astroturf blanket has on the nearby green and grass surrounds of the bunkers in the long term. Has this process been tested? I see in parks with astroturf areas under swings and the surrounding grass is basically dead not just of wear and tear but the organic matter process not working. 

EIGCA should have an internal vetting process to test products prior to using it on golf courses.

The person you are referring to is no biologist he has a highways, drainage, infrastructure and hydraulics background so any question raised with him is irrelevant in this regard as he is not expert in the exact material itself. He is using it for his own company's gain -someone else's idea in a different way.

Don't always get answers from companies/reps - find it out yourself its something I have really learned to do in the building industry.

I for one would persuade clients not to use this product because of the type of material it is and the potential impacts on the natural organic matter of the soils.

cheers
Ben

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()