[Tommy Williamsen]

I am mostly talking about green-side bunkers. Most supers seem to want them eight to ten feet from the putting green, so they can get a triplex mower in the space. When I was a member at Four Streams many bunkers either abutted the green or were only a few feet from the green. This required a lot of hand mowing. From a player’s viewpoint I prefer them either nestled into the green or merely a few feet from them. Too far away and they don’t come into play very much. Is it an either or proposition? 

[Tom_Doak]

If you are trying to challenge good players with the bunkers, they're of little concern to a guy with a short iron in his hands if they are ten feet from the green and 25 feet from the hole.


But then again, a bunker shot from right up against the green does not present much challenge to a good player.


It makes one wonder why architects build so many of them.


Note that on new courses, contractors are loathe to build bunkers too close to greens.  They will tell you they need at least five feet outside the green well to run irrigation pipes.  What they mean is that it's more work for them if it's tighter, and they don't want to go slower and be more meticulous.  The superintendent at one of our consulting jobs did the same a few years ago, inventing a rule about how much space he needed to turn around the mowers, so that the bunkers are further away from hole locations.

[Thomas Dai]

Are there any courses apart from some of the Aussie Melbourne sandbelt courses where the bunker edge is immediately adjacent to the putting surface?
I've only seen it once in the UK, on one hole at Little Aston.
atb

[V. Kmetz]

Like upon all the other features of GCA we exchange, I think variety is the key... in a theoretical Petri dish, perhaps those holes requiring short approaches ought to have the bunkers closer and the holes calling for longer approaches, with bunkers farther away. But that feels formulaic.


In the last 30-40 years, it seems architects and clients/grow-in managers have thought ahead on this... but courses in the 60s and 70s, structural design was not forecasted this way.

[SL_Solow]

You would love RB Harris courses.  In many cases he valued ease of maintenance above almost anything else.  Hence all green side bunkers were at least a gang mower away from the edge of the green for ease in mowing.  At Indian Lakes near Medinah, almost all of the bunkers were circular to allow mechanical raking and the greens were similarly shaped for ease in mowing.  I note that he bought and operated some classic courses and did not make extreme changes along those lines.

[Mark_Fine]

Maintenance and design clash all the time.  It is THE main reason many of us are busy these days   

[Don Mahaffey]

 I think it’s absurd that maintenance and design clash.
What that usually means is whomever is charged with hiring the designer, superintendent, and contractor made the decision based on something other than building the best possible team.


No architect I know wants to make the course hard to maintain across the board, but they usually would like freedom to push here and there.


No good superintendent I know is against features that require a little more effort and creativity provided they balance with lower maintenance areas.


And I won’t speak for any other contractor than myself but we’ve run greens irrigation loops outside the bunker many times as to not constrain the designers intent. Our job is to get the designers ideas into the ground in a way that will function for the superintendent. And it’s always easier when all are in agreement about the desired finished product.


Way to many projects develop hiring criteria that is not based on teamwork and projects inevitably develop adversarial relationships between the key participants. And it’s totally avoidable if the client sets the table properly - good ones do exactly that

[Peter Pallotta]

Perhaps: maintenance isn't the problem, design is.
Specifically: designs that focus on golfers already *in* a green-side bunker and/or on those simply trying to *avoid* them.
How about: in honour of Mark B's thread on 'carnivorous bunkers' (Mackenzie, Australia), green-side hazards that are actually part of the *greens* themselves, 'eating into them' and seeming to 'determine' the size & shape & contours of those putting surfaces.
I wonder: what could so puny a thing as maintenance do against such reckless brilliance as that?   
But: if the design tries to play it safe and to noncommittally hew a middle ground, others can (and will) jump in and take advantage of that luke-warmness, i.e. by redefining what is 'safe' and by 're-shaping' that middle ground.
Do I paint a correct picture, or do I exaggerate?
 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think it’s absurd that maintenance and design clash.
What that usually means is whomever is charged with hiring the designer, superintendent, and contractor made the decision based on something other than building the best possible team.


No architect I know wants to make the course hard to maintain across the board, but they usually would like freedom to push here and there.


No good superintendent I know is against features that require a little more effort and creativity provided they balance with lower maintenance areas.


And I won’t speak for any other contractor than myself but we’ve run greens irrigation loops outside the bunker many times as to not constrain the designers intent. Our job is to get the designers ideas into the ground in a way that will function for the superintendent. And it’s always easier when all are in agreement about the desired finished product.


Way to many projects develop hiring criteria that is not based on teamwork and projects inevitably develop adversarial relationships between the key participants. And it’s totally avoidable if the client sets the table properly - good ones do exactly that

That sure is the way to go. My guess is that Wolf Point was a test case for teamwork.

[Mark_Fine]

Don,
When I say the clash all the time I am talking mainly about how older mostly classic golf courses have evolved.  Much had to do maintenance practices and change over time.  You can’t argue with that can you?
Mark

[Tommy Williamsen]

Don,
When I say the clash all the time I am talking mainly about how older mostly classic golf courses have evolved.  Much had to do maintenance practices and change over time.  You can’t argue with that can you?
Mark

My son's club redid every bunker on the course so they could get a triplex mower between the bunker and the green and reshaped the bunkers so a sand pro could rake the bunkers, thereby eliminating any hand work in and around the bunkers. They banished a bunch of bunkers as well.

[Bernie Bell]

Don,
When I say the clash all the time I am talking mainly about how older mostly classic golf courses have evolved.  Much had to do maintenance practices and change over time.  You can’t argue with that can you?
Mark

My son's club redid every bunker on the course so they could get a triplex mower between the bunker and the green and reshaped the bunkers so a sand pro could rake the bunkers, thereby eliminating any hand work in and around the bunkers. They banished a bunch of bunkers as well.

Do you know what benefit this has had for maintenance costs?  How has it affected the playing (versus cosmetic) characteristics of the course, and for what percentage of the members does this matter?  If "value for money" moves more to the forefront of golf post-virus, won't there be more of this sort of thing?

[Joe Hancock]

Don,
When I say the clash all the time I am talking mainly about how older mostly classic golf courses have evolved.  Much had to do maintenance practices and change over time.  You can’t argue with that can you?
Mark

My son's club redid every bunker on the course so they could get a triplex mower between the bunker and the green and reshaped the bunkers so a sand pro could rake the bunkers, thereby eliminating any hand work in and around the bunkers. They banished a bunch of bunkers as well.

Do you know what benefit this has had for maintenance costs?  How has it affected the playing (versus cosmetic) characteristics of the course, and for what percentage of the members does this matter?  If "value for money" moves more to the forefront of golf post-virus, won't there be more of this sort of thing?

I don’t understand any of this. Kingsley Club has bunkers tight to the greens, yet they have mown their greens with triplex mowers for 20 years. Operators might have a few multi-point turns to make, but since mowing greens isn’t a race, it should be ok.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Don,
When I say the clash all the time I am talking mainly about how older mostly classic golf courses have evolved.  Much had to do maintenance practices and change over time.  You can’t argue with that can you?
Mark

My son's club redid every bunker on the course so they could get a triplex mower between the bunker and the green and reshaped the bunkers so a sand pro could rake the bunkers, thereby eliminating any hand work in and around the bunkers. They banished a bunch of bunkers as well.

Do you know what benefit this has had for maintenance costs?  How has it affected the playing (versus cosmetic) characteristics of the course, and for what percentage of the members does this matter?  If "value for money" moves more to the forefront of golf post-virus, won't there be more of this sort of thing?

I don’t understand any of this. Kingsley Club has bunkers tight to the greens, yet they have mown their greens with triplex mowers for 20 years. Operators might have a few multi-point turns to make, but since mowing greens isn’t a race, it should be ok.

My son's club hand mows the greens and uses the triplex fairway mower between the green and bunkers.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Don,
When I say the clash all the time I am talking mainly about how older mostly classic golf courses have evolved.  Much had to do maintenance practices and change over time.  You can’t argue with that can you?
Mark

My son's club redid every bunker on the course so they could get a triplex mower between the bunker and the green and reshaped the bunkers so a sand pro could rake the bunkers, thereby eliminating any hand work in and around the bunkers. They banished a bunch of bunkers as well.

Do you know what benefit this has had for maintenance costs?  How has it affected the playing (versus cosmetic) characteristics of the course, and for what percentage of the members does this matter?  If "value for money" moves more to the forefront of golf post-virus, won't there be more of this sort of thing?

From what I understand the club feels it saves a half time employee work day. The difference in cosmetics is pretty great. In terms of playability there are no tongues where the ball would mess with you stance.

[Mike_Young]

I don’t understand any of this. Kingsley Club has bunkers tight to the greens, yet they have mown their greens with triplex mowers for 20 years. Operators might have a few multi-point turns to make, but since mowing greens isn’t a race, it should be ok.

Joe,I agree.  BUT here is where myself and I'm sure others have had issues. While under construction the construction supt and the grow-in supt are constantly on site and therefore often have more influence on the owner than an architect coming in for a day a week or even less.  So often the owner will side with them once the project is complete and the archie is not there as much and all it takes is a new grow-in supt or a new supt coming in that wants to make their mark and "explain" to an owner how the archie made a mistake with mower width between green and bunker etc....I ma still of the opinion that on the average course in America the average supt doesn't respect the architect due to these types of things.  BUT, being a golf supt is one of the hardest and most thankless jobs out there in so many cases so I completely understand...

[Joe Hancock]

I don’t understand any of this. Kingsley Club has bunkers tight to the greens, yet they have mown their greens with triplex mowers for 20 years. Operators might have a few multi-point turns to make, but since mowing greens isn’t a race, it should be ok.

Joe,I agree.  BUT here is where myself and I'm sure others have had issues. While under construction the construction supt and the grow-in supt are constantly on site and therefore often have more influence on the owner than an architect coming in for a day a week or even less.  So often the owner will side with them once the project is complete and the archie is not there as much and all it takes is a new grow-in supt or a new supt coming in that wants to make their mark and "explain" to an owner how the archie made a mistake with mower width between green and bunker etc....I ma still of the opinion that on the average course in America the average supt doesn't respect the architect due to these types of things.  BUT, being a golf supt is one of the hardest and most thankless jobs out there in so many cases so I completely understand...

I get all that, EXCEPT you’re telling me these superintendents are willing to stick their necks out and take on the architect with an owner about the triplex turn radius, all the while they are willing to roll over when asked to do other, unnecessary things to the golf course? Things like square tees, extra heights of cut, grass faces that require fly-mo’s, etc?  Even I’m smart enough to never, ever throw an architect under the bus.....they’re higher up on the owners’ food chain. The argument about time savings is ridiculous as well.


If anything, I’m suspecting there’s been a fair number of architects who have rolled over on the issue with ownership, much to the detriment of architecture. But, compromise in design happens all the time....every time I build a green, its design is a compromise with modern day green speeds. That’s not always a bad thing, either, as design with no limits can get goofy in a hurry.


P.S. I experienced exactly what you describe at a PGA Tour- hosting venue I worked at. There was even a jig made out of PVC pipe to keep us honest.....and they walk-mow.

[Mike_Young]

I don’t understand any of this. Kingsley Club has bunkers tight to the greens, yet they have mown their greens with triplex mowers for 20 years. Operators might have a few multi-point turns to make, but since mowing greens isn’t a race, it should be ok.

Joe,I agree.  BUT here is where myself and I'm sure others have had issues. While under construction the construction supt and the grow-in supt are constantly on site and therefore often have more influence on the owner than an architect coming in for a day a week or even less.  So often the owner will side with them once the project is complete and the archie is not there as much and all it takes is a new grow-in supt or a new supt coming in that wants to make their mark and "explain" to an owner how the archie made a mistake with mower width between green and bunker etc....I ma still of the opinion that on the average course in America the average supt doesn't respect the architect due to these types of things.  BUT, being a golf supt is one of the hardest and most thankless jobs out there in so many cases so I completely understand...

I get all that, EXCEPT you’re telling me these superintendents are willing to stick their necks out and take on the architect with an owner about the triplex turn radius, all the while they are willing to roll over when asked to do other, unnecessary things to the golf course? Things like square tees, extra heights of cut, grass faces that require fly-mo’s, etc?  Even I’m smart enough to never, ever throw an architect under the bus.....they’re higher up on the owners’ food chain. The argument about time savings is ridiculous as well.


If anything, I’m suspecting there’s been a fair number of architects who have rolled over on the issue with ownership, much to the detriment of architecture. But, compromise in design happens all the time....every time I build a green, its design is a compromise with modern day green speeds. That’s not always a bad thing, either, as design with no limits can get goofy in a hurry.


P.S. I experienced exactly what you describe at a PGA Tour- hosting venue I worked at. There was even a jig made out of PVC pipe to keep us honest.....and they walk-mow.

Plenty of supts will take on a "regional" archie.  You ever see some of these presentations supts will give at conferences showing how to maintain a collar, as an example?  I'm talking about a normal course in America.  Let's say a new owner buys a course at auction or from a bank and comes in and the existing supt is there to show him everything.  Rarely does a supt get more than one chance to perhaps rework an entire project.  They will downplay that archie in a second.  I've had it happen a couple of times and it was after I recommended the same supt for the job maybe 15 years ago.  I had a new owner tell me he did not pay the architect to come back in to see the project.  He told me he had the best supt in the business and they had it all under control.  Then bunkers get sodded, collars enlarge, senoir tees pop up like pimples in the middle of fairways and a slideshow is given at the next annual state meeting...no being a cynic just the way it works.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

You would love RB Harris courses.  In many cases he valued ease of maintenance above almost anything else.  Hence all green side bunkers were at least a gang mower away from the edge of the green for ease in mowing.  At Indian Lakes near Medinah, almost all of the bunkers were circular to allow mechanical raking and the greens were similarly shaped for ease in mowing.  I note that he bought and operated some classic courses and did not make extreme changes along those lines.

Strongly disagree!  They weren't circles...….they were ovals.


He valued maintenance over design because he owned a few courses in the depression and wanted to max out and mow with a greens mower and a tractor pulled gang mower.  If that gang was 12 wide, every bunker was about 12 feet from the green.  I think i was he who wrote about "streamline" design in the 1950's.  I always thought he was talking about streamline mowing, but may have borrowed the reference from the streamline passenger trains that came out after WWII.


What other classic courses did he own?


As to the "how far from the green should bunkers be?" debate, I agree that anything much more than a few feet off the green, good players don't even consider in strategy, unless really, really deep. That said, most supers do argue in favor of 8 feet off the green if they ride mow the greens, because they like to turn them off the green, not on the green or in the collar, because the turn causes so much damage.  And their (increasingly) regional agronomy managers from their big golf management company are a pretty strong foe for most architects.  They have to live with it, and I figure anything they don't like will be changed to something easier to mow in 5 years or less. 


Again, I am not talking the high end courses that everyone here thinks everyone else belongs to.  I am talking Club Corp type clubs, or any public course trying to keep the greens fee under $50-75.  If the plan is to charge $100+, they will usually agree to some higher maintenance sand bunkers and collars, since they will be doing mostly walk mowing and a lot of detail hand work anyway.  Still, even then, the next super gets a bit impatient and may or may not care about the original design.


I agree with Mike.  The owner usually tends to start trusting the guy who is there every day, and apparently solving the most problems, and of course, it is easier for the on site guy (super or PM) to make his case.  And, while I don't want to throw every super under the bus, some, at least, make the case to the Owner than only a miracle worker could ever maintain this monstrosity of design....and poor construction quality, LOL.

[SL_Solow]

Jeff, I know of at least 2 from the era and I was told there were more.  One you are quite familiar with, my home course Briarwood, fka Briergate, a CH Alison in Deerfield Il.  The other with a lesser design pedigree, Jack Croke, was Thorngate, just outside of Deerfield. I believe the firm you started with did some revisions there as well. The family sold Thorngate after leasing it to a club. When the lease expired the property was sold to a developer.  The club found new property and became Ivanhoe.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I remember Briarwood well, scene of perhaps my third best golf story.


Dick Nugent loved good food, and Briarwood had it.  So, he would offer half day consulting visits for a nice lunch in the clubhouse.  We were doing a forward tee plan, which I was really working on anyway, he wanted to go to the Wisconsin Homecoming, since his daughter was there, and he sent then 25 year old me over in his place, unannounced.  They weren't pleased but we walked the course and they listened to my ideas. 


At lunch, they ordered lobster, filet, etc.  When it got around to me, one of them said, "I hear the grilled cheese is good here."  So, I ordered the grilled cheese.

[Matthew Rose]

My childhood muni was an RB Harris as well.

Similar aesthetic. Oval greens, oval bunkers, often well offset from the putting surface. The tees were square or rectangle but they had rounded corners. Everything was mowed with triplexes or larger. In 20 years of playing and working there I never saw a hand mower being operated anywhere except a regular rotary being used to cut the area between the parking lot and the clubhouse.

For the only 18-hole public golf course in a small city of 50,000 people, it worked pretty well, I suppose.

[Bernie Bell]

My childhood muni was an RB Harris as well.

Similar aesthetic. Oval greens, oval bunkers, often well offset from the putting surface. The tees were square or rectangle but they had rounded corners. Everything was mowed with triplexes or larger. In 20 years of playing and working there I never saw a hand mower being operated anywhere except a regular rotary being used to cut the area between the parking lot and the clubhouse.

For the only 18-hole public golf course in a small city of 50,000 people, it worked pretty well, I suppose.

Matthew, is it still operating?  What is the rate to walk 18 on a weekend?

[Tom_Doak]

I don’t understand any of this. Kingsley Club has bunkers tight to the greens, yet they have mown their greens with triplex mowers for 20 years. Operators might have a few multi-point turns to make, but since mowing greens isn’t a race, it should be ok.

That's only because the superintendent, Dan Lucas, likes them that way and is willing to do the extra work, and he's been there from the beginning.  [Plus, maybe a bit because the architect lives in town.]  Still, if Dan didn't like them, as Jeff B said below, they'd get changed to something easier to mow in five years or less -- and if his eventual successor doesn't like them, same story.


(Kudos to Dan Lucas.)


FYI, I've had a couple of superintendents on consulting projects INSIST on doing something in a way I really hated -- such as building tees with square corners, or green edges too far from the bunkers.  They had been there for many years and had the committee's ear, and I figured they were just going to change them if I insisted on my way, so I let it go.  Which I shouldn't have, since both guys quickly moved to other jobs after the renovation was complete.

[Matthew Rose]

My childhood muni was an RB Harris as well.

Similar aesthetic. Oval greens, oval bunkers, often well offset from the putting surface. The tees were square or rectangle but they had rounded corners. Everything was mowed with triplexes or larger. In 20 years of playing and working there I never saw a hand mower being operated anywhere except a regular rotary being used to cut the area between the parking lot and the clubhouse.

For the only 18-hole public golf course in a small city of 50,000 people, it worked pretty well, I suppose.

Matthew, is it still operating?  What is the rate to walk 18 on a weekend?

Yes Bernie, it is Riverside in Janesville, Wisconsin. I'd guess around $30-35.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()