[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey;

I think another crucial differentiator is the bunker faces and lips themselves.  In many cases, what had been sand to nearly the top, and then a frayed, uneven lip (looking like Mackenzie's? "ideal" analogy of the walls of a stream ripped away randomly by a rushing torrent) completing the picture have been replaced by...

What amounts to almost vertical, thick, bluegrass facing extending much lower into the sand line than before.  That sod was rivetted into place, and under that turf lies Bunkerwoll, which was laid wall to wall, no pun intended.  In other cases the 2-dimensional (length and width) shaping is ok, but then the outside surrounds of the bunker changed dramatically (i.e. the incongruous "mounds" outside the fairway bunker on 14) from what existed there before.    

Could Valentine or Kittleman hypothetically make them "evolve" into what they had been before?  Frankly, I wouldn't want to sell either man short, but I think it would be an enormous challenge.  

[Mike_Cirba]

That's ok, Patrick.  You don't have to give us your opinion on the aesthetics and playability of the bunkers, so I'll stop asking.  

As far as my "skirting the issue", I quoted directly from the only outside source that club officials have addressed these questions with, the local media, and I think it's pretty clear that they are both surprised by the criticism, but also aware of problems and hoping that things will "evolve" away from the modern look of the bunkers over time.  Are the club officials cited and quoted in the article, "Third parties"??

Even if the club had hoped with the best intentions to make the bunkers look as they did in 1930, what good is it if the work failed to achieve those ends?  

That's what I was asking you.  Do they look like classical 1930-era bunkers to you, or do they look like modern, mechanically created, assembly-line-produced, vertical-faced, bluegrass turfed, synthetically reinforced, white sand consistent ones??  And if it's the latter, do you think they'll evolve in a positive way over time.

I believe the term "bathtubs" was something I heard you call them before on here, and I also recall you saying that you thought they would need to be completely redone due to playability and access problems.  Do you think that was the case as well in 1930??    

[GeoffreyC]

Mike- what you said is exactly what I mean.  The shapes, sizes and maybe even the depths are the same but the edges, lips and surrounds are what is nearly identical in all the MacDonald work.

[wsmorrison]

I disagree with Geoffrey Childs and conclude from my own cursory analysis of BB in 1930s and today as seen in the aerials that the bunkers are only somewhat similar in 2D appearance but hardly what I would call quite alike.  I do not know what was mandated by the club for the Open restoration, but if it was to reproduce the bunkering in exact detail I would say they fell far short.  I see bunkers that look generally alike but far from identical.  There are bunkers that seemed to be placed differently and shaped differently as well.  Of course depth of the bunkers and height of the mounding is hard to discern.

As to Merion, the characteristics of the capes and bays are much different than what they were prior to the recent restoration and different from the 30s as well.  Perhaps the 2D dimensions are similar, I haven't seen recent aerials but the puffiness is very disappointing.  It alters the playability as do the changes to the depth and steepness of the bunkers.  Was this intended and known to the committeemen?  Who knows?  We do know Wilson's writings on the subject of bunkering and they don't correspond.  These writings were not available until recently, so nobody can be faulted there.  Wilson's writings on bunkers never made it into Piper and Oakley's book on turf for golf courses.  I also think that the types of grasses and edging practices are very different than they have been in the past.  Tom Paul is right, they have looked and functioned differently over time.  Perhaps they did not have the same grasses and scraggly look in 1930 but they sure looked good since then and had a distinctiveness that was the look associated with Merion.

MacDonald and Company did a poor job in restoring the bunkers at Rolling Green.  Granted the architect-construction crew relationship was not properly organized, but the results are not Flynn-like, they have puffiness (not to the extent that Merion does) where none existed previously, have poor construction causing many edges to literally fall off and sand flashings being reduced in height and quality with grassy rolls into the bunkers replacing flashed sand.  The heavy grassed rolls into the bunkers weighed so much that in many cases there was no way they could have remained without denser subsoils or artificial devices.  Gravity took its toll and they fell.  I find it hard to believe that this was intentional and a process for natural erosion/evolution.  Granted gravity is a naturally ocurring force, but more likely this was a misapplied construction technique and therefore not a design intent.  This work was done a year or more before Merion and there is no change over time, except that the bunker edges have been expanded by the foot or so that fell off the tops of the steeper faces.  

Maybe the edging and grass types will change at Merion due to the practices of the grounds crew.  To date the puffiness of the capes have not been discernably changed, nor would I expect a natural process to have any effect.  They will remain flawed unless they are changed.  Perhaps Merion could have saved the grass surrounds, perhaps they didn't need to be disturbed.  A number of people like the look, but it is not the distinctive and character-filled bunkers that existed previously.

There is work being done by one of the posters here on GCA that will allow a 3D analysis of features on a golf course, both depth and height if there are sufficient aerials to allow it to happen (need a parallax shift).  The results will be helpful and should provide all the information necessary to examine and allow an accurate facsimile reproduction of mounding, hollows, ridges, bunker depth, etc.  I wish him well on this exciting project and hope he posts some of his results in the near future.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

How many times must I comment on them before it sinks in.
I've commented previously, that strategically, they are fine.
And, from a playability perspective, they are fine.

I guarantee you that had you not previously known anything about their construction, you couldn't determine the methods employed without digging them up, and that 99 % of the people playing them don't have a clue with respect to their construction.

Entering and exiting them is a problem, which I had mentioned in previous posts.

I also feel that the wrap-around tops are almost unmaintainable, unless a substantial effort, in manpower, time and money is expended on them.  If anything will evolve, I think the wrap-around tops will, perhaps by default.

TEPaul and I saw other flaws that will have to be corrected as well.

In the strategic and playability context, I don't think that they are the disaster that you and others maintain, but corrections will have to be made as a result of their construction.

I can't comment on what they were like in 1930, as I don't have enough data at my disposal to draw a conclusion.

I have never seen a definitive, comprehensive statement with respect to the club's intent with respect to the bunkers, and until that is forthcoming, much of the discussion is strictly speculative in nature.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

I also feel that the wrap-around tops are almost unmaintainable, unless a substantial effort, in manpower, time and money is expended on them.  If anything will evolve, I think the wrap-around tops will, perhaps by default.

TEPaul and I saw other flaws that will have to be corrected as well.

In the strategic and playability context, I don't think that they are the disaster that you and others maintain, but corrections will have to be made as a result of their construction.

Patrick;

Thank you for your answer.  I knew we agreed on this.  

Your answer also makes clear your belief that you can't see them "evolving" positively over time without additional, substantial construction work and "corrections", which was my original point.  

Rumplestilskin aside, time cannot spin straw into gold.

Now, perhaps we can move off of Merion and onto some other examples, such as the Road Hole Bunker that was the original point of this thread.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You're conclusion is incorrect.

It is through the inability to devote, time, manpower, and money that the bunkers WILL evolve, perhaps as they did in the past.

The devotion of the resources, and the will to preserve the current bunkers is still in question.

Money has a funny way of influencing the evolution of golf courses.

I don't know that anyone outside of the inner circle at Merion knows the direction they intend to go, thus our discussions are no more than speculation.

But, there is another issue that some had raised.
Will corrective work to the bunker's access and egress be expanded to correct other features, when it's undertaken ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I'm somewhat confused by your response.  

First you state that the new, modern bunkers need money, time, willpower, etc., to preserve them as they stand.

Then, you ask whether additional corrective measures will be undertaken at the same time they correct bunker egress (i.e. vertical shaping) issues.  I'm assuming you mean the "wrap around tops", which you called basically "unmaintainable" earlier?

I thought these bunkers were reasonable 1930 facsimiles, and not a "disaster"?  

It's been only eighteen months since the work was completed and you think these are the only choices left?  

I can't imagine that Hugh Wilson, Flynn, Valentine, et.al. would have built something unmaintainable or otherwise in need of major surgery in 1930 or any other year...can you?
        

  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You're confused.
You're spending too much time with TEPaul, which can cause massive confusion.  

The work I believe is needed has nothing to do with the wrap around tops, it has to do with facilitating getting in and out of the bunkers.  I think the backs of the bunkers will have to be softened in order to accomodate the members trafficing them, especially older members.  And, at the same time that work is done, some of the bunkerwoll will have to be repaired as well.

The wraparound tops appear to need lots of TLC to survive.
If they don't get that TLC, they may evolve.
With TLC they will remain as is.  
The question is, what does the club want ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

As far as the "wrap around top", sheer, vertical bluegrass facings, are you confusing "evolving" with "collapsing"?  

I'm asking the question because I truly don't know.  Why would brand new bunkers have such structural deficiencies?  

In your opinion, it seems the club is left with the dilemma of either pumping a ton of money into ongoing maintenance, or watching them "evolve", presumably deleteriously, or at least inconsistent with their 1930 goal, if that's what they believe the bunkers are consistent with now.  Is that a fair interpretation?  

In either case, you mention that they have to correct egress problems, but also asked, "Will corrective work to the bunker's access and egress be expanded to correct other features, when it's undertaken?"  

What other corrective measures need to be taken beyond what you've described, in your view?    

[T_MacWood]

While I agree an over reliance on aerials can produce poor results, I don’t think that is the problem with many of these high profile 'restorations'. I don’t believe the specialist attempted to accurately restore the bunker shapes and locations at Bethpage. This comparison shows a few bunkers that look very similar in shape, notably #5, #13 and #17, but those bunkers were not restored they had that shape and outline from the air before the ‘restoration’ began. (As Geoffrey has pointed out although the 17th looks the same from the air, on the ground the bunker was altered depth-wise) There are numerous bunkers added that bear no resemblance to those in the old photo; even more outside the view of this frame. (Rees acknowledged he redesigned the greenside bunkers in a Winged Foot mode and sent the boys to WF for study so they might emulate that look).

Although the work at Hollywood was limited, there was no attempt to replicate the aerial shape of the bunkers, in fact numerous newly designed bunkers were added. The same is true at Riviera, they obviously were not interested in copying the exact position and shape of Thomas’s bunkers. Aronimink ignored both the aerial and ground photos. I have not seen an aerial comparison of Merion, but the ground photos I have seen from the 30’s do not appear to have the same shape, based on that I would suspect the aerials was not slavishly followed.

[GeoffreyC]

My contribution to this discussion was a theory regarding machine made bunkers vs. those whose surrounds, lips and edging relied much more on the personal touch of man. I still contend that the machines can get the shapes correct (at least for the more simple ones typical of Tillinghast, Flynn, Raynor, Ross).

At Bethpage there was certainly artistic liberty taken with regard to the 1938 aerial as well as bunker movement due to (my interpretation) creating a US Open test.  However, the bunkers at least by 1969 had evolved into simple shapes very much different from those seen in the 1938 aerial   . Exceptions were the fairway bunkers on 5 and 7 probably due to their large size and less traffic (my interpretation).  To say that Rees/MacDonald & Co. didn't recreate and quite well the general outline of MANY new bunkers at BB is to not believe the two aerials and not to know what the course looked like just before he got there. My interpretation of the WF analogy and some of the bunkers that are obviously different then the old aerial is the desire to homogenize the style and cape and bay shaping of many of the old bunkers to the entire course (I would not agree with this but that's my best guess for why it was done). In fact, I've said before how shocked I was to see the new bunkers for the first time and I was almost equally shocked to see how close the two aerials were to one another. I expected much more liberty taken with the shaping.

However, this discussion is not at all about the merits of the new work, nor the intent of the BB or any restoration.  Its about evolution of bunkers. It seems to me that the edging, lips and surrounds of a bunker are AT LEAST as important as the shape which in my opinion can be or has been largely recreated by machines based on aerials. I think its well known that I GREATLY prefer more carefully crafted bunkers as seen at Fenway and Plainfield to name two that I am quite familiar with.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Deprived of water and TLC I see the below grade lower wrap around grass withering and dying in the summer heat.

I can't visualize what they will evolve to look like because I can't predict what remedial measures will be undertaken to deal with those conditions.

I don't know what those charged with the responsibility of caring for those bunkers will do, but my gut tells me that the effort will be made and the money spent to preserve them as is.

Time will tell how they fare.
I have my theories on their future, but would prefer to discuss them with you personally.

Tom MacWood,

The reality is that pure or true restoration might not have been the intended goal of each club.  I know for a fact that it wasn't at Hollywood.  I am not familiar with the intent at Bethpage and Riviera.  It is my understanding that Aronomink wanted a sympathetic restoration to Ross's PLANS.  I haven't seen any indication of what Merion's goals were prior to the start of their work.  

I think that there has been a genuine tug of war amongst memberships.  A struggle between trying to restore their courses while at the same time modernizing them to offset or deal with the advances in equipment.

Clubs have internal struggles to determine their direction and often compromise is the result

I don't know of ONE club that has said, we're going to restore our golf course to its ABSOLUTE ORIGINAL FORM, do you ?

And, I don't think that is going to happen in the future.
I think the struggle between well intended restorations and the very real desire to deal with modernization will continue.

What you and many others appear to forget is that a club's first obligation is to perpetuate itself, to avoid becoming a NLE
And that process means that as a priority clubs must attract and retain members.  Some feel that modernization is an integral part of that process, the process of survival.  You may not agree with it, but you're not charged with preserving the ongoing welfare and survival of some of these clubs.

However, I would imagine that a golf course such as Bethpage could have an advantage in the restoration versus modernization dilema.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[T_MacWood]

Par
You're right no club has said they want to restore their golf course to an absolute original form - even they did say it it would be impossible to achieve. I would also submit there are very few courses that were at their architectural peak the day they opened. however there are clubs that have attempted a sensative, accurate and thoughtful restoration - Cypress Point as an example. It doesn't appear they are in a great hurry, it appears they have an appreciation for the greatest of their golf course past and present. They have performed the work deliberately, carefully and in-house. The importance of architectural integrety and the carefull approach of Cypress Point would have been good model for Yale, Merion, Seminole, Riviera and Hollywood.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
The work you mentioned at your club included the word
"CONTRACTOR"  who is the contractor doing the work at GM ?
Evidently, YOUR club felt it in their best interest to go to an outside source, a specialist for the work, rather than do it
In-house.  WHY?"

Pat:

The contractor GMGC is using for it restorartion is Pennick Arimour. They worked on Inniscrone (I believe) and Applebrook with Hanse & Co. Gil Hanse's Co is comprised of Gil, Rodney Hine, Jim Wagner, Bill Kittleman and Rodney's wife Caroline. That obviously isn't enough people to do all there is to do on a restoration project or new construction project nor would they ever do all that. So a contractor is always necessary which for us was essentially a labor crew and a foreman. Our super and his crew were constantly involved in the restoration project as the course was closed but the important thing was either Rodney Hine or Gil were there at all times. Rodney and Gil did all the basic and finish architectural bunker shaping and every time I went out there either Gil but mostly Rodney was there at all times working on each bunker with Pennick Arimour's crew of laborers as they all went from hole to hole bunker to bunker for a couple of months. And Gil did all the shaping and finish shaping on the redone #7 green. There was one Mexican guy who obviously ran the labor crew for Pennick Arimour who was really good at detail handwork but nevertheless Rodney who is unbelievably good and knowledgeable on all bunker and particularly hand-workd was there all the time to oversee everything. This to me is about as good as it can get on a restoration project and there's no chance anything will get missed or slip through the cracks with that kind of constant oversight. We got lucky with the heat breaking in the middle of August with the green expansions and green regrassing, the weather basically cooperated with the construction work so the first phase went well other than some sod slippage on some bunker faces due to the fall rains and the rough winter but that was all guaranteed by Pennick Arimour and it's all been repaired and fine now. So the first phase of the restoration looks really good and the new A-4 expanded greens looked really good when the covers came off and the course will reopen for play May 3 on schedule.

[TEPaul]

GeoffreyC, you asked;

"Bunker wol aside, do you think that someone like Bill Kittleman or Valentine could take the surrounding and edges of the current MacDonald Merion bunkers and "evolve them" into the white faces?"

Geoffrey:

That's a good question and one certainly thought of by some I guess. I would sort of doubt that the new bunkers would be able to be edged much up the way the Merion bunkers may have evolved from say around 1930. I believe the reason would be due to the architectural structure and the grassing over of the tops of the surrounds where the grass comes down to the edge and meets the sand. If one went much into that they would probably hit a sod structure lapped over.

But again, the club has opted for a bunker look that's closer to the 1930 bunker look that mimics the little random waviness of the edges which isn't exactly like the look of the bunkers in later decades nor that much like 1999. There's obviously a different shape to the tops of the surrounds under the sod layer that's apparently rounder than those of the original bunker surrounds. That's what obviously gives the new bunker surrounds more of a puffy look than the old ones ever were either in 1930 or 1999. But the grassing on the new bunker surrounds is beginning to look pretty darn good--it's grown out and matured some as was expected and looks more rugged than when first done.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Cypress Point isn't your typical club.
I would doubt that they need membership incentives or drives.
They enjoy one of the most unique sites in golf.
I would also imagine that they enjoy a mostly non-resident membership and that their membership is rather well off.
I would also imagine, that the club comes before the members.

Do you think that Yale or Riviera have similar circumstances, similar memberships, similar leadership, a similar willingness to spend money on a true restoration ?

At many clubs the memberships have changed radically over the last ten to forty years, often disconnecting them from their history.

Cypress Point should be applauded for their work, but Cypress Point is a rare/unique club in many ways, and few clubs are in the same position to follow their lead.

[TEPaul]

Pat asked:

"By the way, who did ARONOMINK use for their bunker construction work ??  In-house or specialist ?
And, how did it turn out?"

Pat:

Aronimink used architect Ron Prichard and bunker contractor Macdonald and Co. The course was shut down so I would assume the club's maintenance crew was completetly involved in the restoration. The whole thing appears to have turned out very well, expanded, regrassed greens and bunkers rebuilt to Donald Ross's original drawing specs.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Thanks for sharing and clarifying your thoughts.  Personally, I believe that it's going to be difficult for the grass faces to evolve in a positive way, but I look forward to hearing more from you when we talk next.  

I appreciate the interesting discussion.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It sounds as if you have the ideal mix, a knowledgeable architect, his staff, a competent contractor and his staff, and a competent green superintendent and his staff.

My only question is, how did you get in the mix ?  

Hopefully the weather will improve, and you'll meet your target date.  But, if you don't, it's no big deal.
It's better to get the work right, and not open up prematurely.
Mother Nature doesn't always adhere to our time tables, and opening up June 1st or some other date isn't the end of the world.

TEPaul,

It is not unusual, when work is done in the off season, for the contractor to put some of the green/grounds crew on their payroll.  This practice often creates the continuity in the staff to make sure that the early stages of the finished project get treated with TLC by knowledgeable, experienced staff.

[TEPaul]

"It is not unusual, when work is done in the off season, for the contractor to put some of the green/grounds crew on their payroll.  This practice often creates the continuity in the staff to make sure that the early stages of the finished project get treated with TLC by knowledgeable, experienced staff."

Huh? We have the people we needed all around--and we're paying the bills anyway which include architect, contractor, and our crew. Why would the contractor put our guys on his payroll? We're paying for everything anyway. We have our guys on an insurance policy and such--so why would they go on the contractor's payroll? If you have some fancy extra-legal gimmick up your sleeve Pat, I don't want to know about it.

You wanted to know how I got in the mix, did you? Because I speak Spanish Amigo! These guys are good, particularly the hand-working detail guys but I want to see those hands in the dirt making great bunkers not in the air trying to communicate.    Actually Rodney's Spanish works just fine!

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I grow weary of arguement for the sake of arguement. I look forward to the day when your desire to debate equals your interest in architecture.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

That post should become a bit of a classic!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

When you use a ridiculous example of a very unique club, with very unique circumstances, and hold them out to be the model for average clubs, or Yale or Bethpage, I'm going to disagree with your position and your conclusions.  It's an unrealistic approach to viewing the ability to acquire the resources/funds necessary to embark upon an extensive project.  But, you do excell at theory and fall short on reality.

TEPaul,

It's all very legitimate and can serve all parties quite well.

Are you saying that your entire green staff is retained and paid 365 days per year ?  That's some luxury.

[TEPaul]

"Are you saying that your entire green staff is retained and paid 365 days per year ?  That's some luxury."

Pat:

No, I never said that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()