Interview 2012 Ecco Tour Championship

I've done some radio, and a couple television, interviews.  For me, it is a difficult thing.  Perahaps I'm unable to express myself well in sound bites.  When asked a question, I immediately feel a 5 to 10 second response is expected.  I feel myself rushing through the answer. 

 

Many years ago, I saw an TV interview of Pete Dye, when the Tour was debuting PGA West.  On national television, the interviewer gave a glowing overview of this unusual and fantastic new course.  He then turned to Pete and asked, "What was your thinking, your philosophy for this design?"  At the time, I thought; this is it, a watershed moment for a golf architect to make an absolute defining statement to the golfing world. We were about to recieve true pearls of design wisdom from the master.   Petes answer was truly forgettable and uninspiring. 

 

I laughed out loud and thought; 'he just layed an egg on national television'.  It took me a long time to understand, on that day Pete Dye provided the answer the network was seeking - not the meaningful, meaty, substantive answer I was interested in hearing.  He provided the "sound bite" - the 'sensational' little tidbit suitable for the television audience.

 

It was a lesson which took a long time for me to comprehend and appreciate.  Thanks Pete!  Now, if I could only put it into practice....



Interview excerpt from the final round of the 2012 ECCO TOUR CHAMPIONSHIP at Stensballegaard Golf Club

 

The full video can be found here: 2012 ECCO TOUR CHAMPIONSHIP 

STENSBALLEGAARD BUNKER POLICY PART V

So, we arrive at "Part V" of this four part series....  Curious right?  It was foreseen Part IV would be the final installment, and all updates would be added to that post. 

Then, comes an unforeseen development in the story.......

Recently, the owner of Stensballegaard Golf Club (SGC) called to inform me that he and green committee are engaged in talks to "slightly" modify the bunker policy......

The possibility of compromising the Bunker Policy is not surprising, but it is disappointing.  Discussions about the policy have been ongoing.  There are definitely golfers who don't understand or appreciate the policy.  When the European Challenge Tour played at SGC (August 2012), there was hightened concern and focus on the bunkers.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, there were concessions made for the Challenge Tour - including "rake-toting bunker senturies" posted throughout the golf course.

email to: H,

When we spoke recemtly, we discussed the bunker policy and the decision to put rakes in the bunker.  I said I wanted to revert back to you on this point.  I guess I was hoping for some enlightenment, which would provide an indisputable argument for not changing the policy.  But, it never arrived.

I do understand your feelings and concerns, which are all rational. 

If you remember, when I arrived at Stensballegaard from the Architects Forum in Scotland in 2010, I mentioned my discussion with Ron Whitten, Architecture editor of Golf Digest.  He also owned a course where he implemented a similar policy.  And, he said he eventually succumbed to player pressure – first with rakes, then with more grooming.   For him, the increased bunker maintenance really hurt his operational cost.  He really hoped we would be successful.

I realize – at this stage – you are not talking about increasing bunker grooming.  But, it is the next logical step (and “slippery slope”) which we discussed previously and which must be considered, if concessions are made and the policy is compromised.

I still focus on the distinction the Bunker Policy has brought Stensballegaard; positive publicity, helping establish SGC on the international golfing map.  I worry changing the policy, which brought the course notoriety and which identifies SGC internationally, could also compromise this distinction.    Even the Rolex guide highlights this point: “Of specific interest is their bunker policy.”  So I worry; when this policy is compromised, we lose an important trait, which identifies SGC. 

And, mostly I worry because changing this policy will not:

1.        stop golfers from saying negative things about Stensballegaard.  In our discussion, you mentioned this is  “the only negative point” you hear about SGC.  But, if the policy is changed, I think you will find there will be other negative comments.  This is simply the nature of things.  The bunker policy is an easy target – because it is unique and separates SGC from other courses.  But, there will be people who don’t like the golf course. And, negative commentary is always the loudest.  Changing this policy will not stop negative commentary about SGC.

2.       materially increase revenue. 

Having said this, my deepest fear is:  Once the compromise is made, there is no way to undo the damage to SGC’s reputation. And, yes, I do feel it will hurt your reputation.  I admit my perspective is not the same as yours, since we don’t deal with the daily issues.  But, from where I sit, the bunker policy is an identifying trait for SGC, providing SGC with distinction. 

 SGC is admired for having the courage and veracity – that others lack – taking a stance on this issue.  I know you said you can’t carry this weight for the golf industry.   But, even on this point, please remember you are in good company – with Pine Valley and remember the USPGA Tour event played at Kiawah 2012 – where they treated the bunkers differently.  The tide is turning.  And, SGC is the forerunner in this campaign.  It would be sad to lose this distinction.

So, that’s my pitch.  At least it is food for thought.  I really do understand your concerns of economic sustainability – which is the first priority.  But, I really question the idea of changing the bunker policy.  I just don’t sense this will provide the increase in revenue from green fee players. 

Finally, I offer this suggestion:  As I don’t really agree with compromising the bunker policy:  If you decide to change the policy, please find a way to explain the modification which doesn’t involve our sanction.  Perhaps, in this way, if/when you discover the compromise is not rendering the results you seek, we “might” (and this is a BIG might) be able to reinstate the policy.  Again, if you decide to compromise, I hope you can think of a way to make it positive – or controversial – either way it needs to bring good publicity for the club.  Maybe compromising without our agreement is controversial and can provide interesting publicity….

After you’ve had a chance to read this, perhaps we can talk again.  I am available at your convenience.

Best regards,
Rick

Message from Green Committee Chairman "C", in response to a query for his opinion, from his time dealing with the Bunker Policy, and his feeling about the discussions to modify the policy:

Dear Rick,

Thanks for your e-mail. I know H's concern about the reputation of the course as well as of the bunkers. It is a very very difficult subject and frankly speaking I don't think there is any straight forward answer.

The bunker policy is correct, however, many players disagree and they don’t take our instructions about smoothing out their footprints seriously – I think it is like a kind of punishment towards to club/course – to show their disagreement about the no rakes policy. This attitude comes not only from greenfee guests but also from some of our own club members. There is a vocal group who had disagreed about the no rakes policy from the very start and they still keep the negative attitude alive. Then there is all the comments on the web. This is really the most serious part as many of the active golfers who play on green fee tends to participate in the chat on the these web portals. In general few players have created a lot of hype against our course.

If we look at the problem from H’s side, it is a question if he can afford to continue to support the no rake policy.

This year’s turn over in green fee sales was down, quite a lot. The weather has been bad and we “lost” at least two weeks sales due to ECCO and Challenge Tour tournaments. On the other hand if we look at all the other clubs their green fee turnover has also gone down, so it is a general trend all over Denmark. Weather and economy have generate less turnnover in green fee than last year.Anyway, H needs to promote the course best possible and it is correct that there is a general dislike of the no rakes policy from the guests side, however, problem is that we only get the negative news. The guests leave comments like wonderful course, but a pity that the bunkers are un maintained! I don’t think we ever got a positive message like “wonderful bunkers without rakes!”.

Personally I was not very happy with the no rake policy in the beginning, however, today, I don’t find it a problem. When playing,  I really do my best to avoid the bunkers! They are fierce hazards – and foot prints, well there are quite a few footprints but in many bunkers the sand has settled and the foot prints is no problem. After all there is also a lot of animal footprints and no one complain about these.

Today I will find it a pity if we put rakes in the bunkers, however, it is my personal feeling – if we ask the green committee I think the majority will vote for rakes in the bunkers!

Another issue is the rating of the course, if we remove the rakes the course will have to be re rated and I am sure that course will be rated as less difficult.
What worries me most is that I am really 98% sure that we will not get any more green fee guest by putting rakes in the bunkers! The problem is that the course in no longer a novelty, most players have visited Stensballegaard and some like the course and some not, meaning that we will not see any major growth in green fee guest just because we announce that from 2013 – now with rakes!

The situation for golf is much more complex than just rakes or no rakes. 

Try to think about this small fact app. 3% of the population in Denmark play golf – that is app. 155.000 persons. In the municipality of Horsens there is app. 85.000 inhabitants – 3% of this is app 2500 persons.

We have today 1009 members in Stensballegaard Golf Club, Horsens have app. 1300 members, then there are quite a few still being a member in the old Horsens Golf Club (now Juelsminde) – and some is a member in Odder! We are very close to the statistical number of players in our area – this show, I think why it is so difficult to get more new members – at least it is I my guess! Rakes or no rakes!

Conclusion – personal opinion!

1. Rakes have very little influence towards the average club member
2. Mens sections members are very much against no rakes – the better the player, the more opposition towards no rakes
3. No rakes have created a lot of negative comments on the various internet portals
4. Some players dislike the visual appearance of bunkers with footprints.

C

In response to the above message from C:

C,

I have been thinking about the bunker policy these past weeks.  And, I want to again thank you for your very thoughtful words (above).  I believe you are precisely correct in your assessment.

 

I spoke with H a couple days ago.  Nothing significant.  But, I had sent him my thoughts and we just touched base following that.  I believe he forwarded my email also to you – at least I hope he did.  I expressed my concerns and asked that he please not reference me/vHSB -  if/when the policy changes.  As you mention, it is not a black and white problem.  I certainly understand the need to increase revenue.  But, I also believe this is not the proper target. 

 

Even if we have made progress in shedding light on this issue, we have more work to do.  So, after much thought, I find it illogical to support and concur with a bunker policy modification.

 

After re-reading your message, I have the feeling we could have – and should have – done more to create pride about the bunker policy within the membership.  After all, the members are the ambassadors and salesmen for the club.  Perhaps we overlooked the impact of their opposition to the policy?   Perhaps, we could not have changed this.  But then again, you being one of our more traveled and most sophisticated members – and, as you say, you were also uncertain about the policy in the beginning.

 

I am of course saddened by this development.  I’m not sure if this feeling is for Stensballegaard, for me or for golf in general– or all three.  I hate that we will end up like many others that have made similar attempts.  I had really hoped we would be successful and Stensballegaard would rightfully claim it made a significant impact, resurrecting some of the original spirit of golf.

 

In many ways, this debate is indicative of the state of golf today.  The golf industry, over the past 20 years, established a standard and golfer expectation which is unaffordable – unsustainable.  The problem is, golfers don’t realize this.  The industry does, but now we can’t figure out how to inform the golfing public that we really can’t provide the perfectly manicured golf courses they have come to expect.  So, most of the industry is struggling to figure out how to change golfers expectations.  In the meantime, the various professional tours are still advocating the same imagery of perfectly maintained golf courses – blissfully neglecting to divulge the true cost of this image.   

 

The bunker policy parallels this.  Golfers have come to expect perfect bunker conditions.  Why not – it’s all they see every week on TV – in magazines…it must be the right way…  When will it stop?

 

Okay, actually I didn’t start this – thinking to get on my soapbox again…. 

Hope this message finds you well.  

Rick

 

And, C's response:

Dear Rick,

Thanks your e-mail, first of all I haven’t seen your mail to H, however, we had a lengthy discussion about the rakes or no rakes in the green committee.

 

I think the final conclusion will be that “a tool” will be supplied to help the player smoothen his foot prints – it’s not a rake – and I find this point important. We will still have no rakes, however, we will provide a more suitable tool to make a more even surface than what can be made with a club or a shoe. I hope this initiative will keep the no rakes policy alive as well as maybe, if we are really lucky, close the discussion about rakes!

 

I agree with you that maybe we did not work hard enough on making the club members our ambassadors, however, on the other hand most professional and also many golf magazines was against the idea from the start. I totally agree with you that maintaining the quality of course which is seen on television from big PGA or Euro Tour events is unrealistic so is the quality of the bunkers, even I, being a rather average player find it simply to make a bunker shot from these bunkers where you have exactly ¾” sand on top of a very hard bottom. But if you have this kind of “hazard” is it then really a hazard?

 

I love highly maintained courses, however, I think links type and more natural golf courses will be the future. Having the environment and the green thinking in mind, there seems to be no other way in the long run!

 

Regarding hickory play – I hope that you and Chris will be in Denmark again next year on the 31^st. August, as we will play the Danish Open Hickory Championship at the oldest golf course in Denmark – at Copenhagen Golf Course – right next to the queens hunting castle and a lot of deers.

 

Best regards,

C

This  message arrives from our client:

Hej Rick.

The following  is not official yet, but this is what we might end up with:

 

Revised Bunker Policy at Stensballegaard Golf

 The bunker policy at Stensballegaard Golf has caused a lot of discussions among members and greenfee guests, as well as in the press, both national and international.

 

Chief Architect Rick Baril designed the golf course to be played strategically and avoid the bunkers: which should be viewed as natural hazards and not as safe, well kept landing areas.

Positively,  this concept has caused discussion in the world press, among others: “The Rolex World Top 1000 Golf Courses” has attached importance to the idea, that the bunkers should be hazards, not to be raked. Golf Inc. also commented on our bunkers, when the course was elected ”The Worlds best new course in 2010”.

The negative has been; it turned out to be very difficult to make the golf players level their footprints with their foot or their golf iron, and therefore several deep footprints are left in the bunkers. This is certainly not fair to the following players, landing in these footprints. At the same time, this made the course look neglected.

We have therefore decided to introduce the “Stensballegaard Bunker Shaper”.

The Bunker Shaper is a tool to level foot prints in  the bunker.  But, it is important to make it clear, the bunker still shall present itself as a natural hazard and hereby be a challenge the golf player should avoid.

It will therefore as  always be up to the golf player to act sportsmanlike, and of course make sure the footprints one has made in the bunker is leveled with the “ Bunker Shaper”.

I have done my best to translate, hope it makes sense.

I think I am as disappointed as you, but I am sorry to say so, we are the only two and N.

Best regards,

H

 

And, my response:

Greetings H,

I have read the notice (above) and made some small edits.

I’m obviously interested to see the “bunker shaper”….

As you know, I worry this step will not provide the solution or answer you seek, on this point.  In fact, I worry this concession will encourage even more discussion, dissent and criticism related to the bunkers.  I sincerely hope I am wrong.

In the social “golf” media, I am seeing more commentary related to the disconnect between golf course maintenance and golfer’s expectations.  As an owner, you are keenly aware of this issue:  Mostly unaware of the increased costs and dwindling resources confronting golf, the average golfer continues to expect better golf course conditions and more grooming.  Certainly, the poor global economy is bringing more awareness to this issue.  But, the golf industry seems to segmented to truly provide the cohesive message, which is truly needed to influence golfer expectations.  It is likely the necessary change in golfer’s expectations will not occur until it is literally forced on them….  And this, in a nutshell, is what we have experienced with the “bunker policy”.

I am proud of the statement we made with the “Bunker Policy”.  Even if we haven’t been successful, we did the right thing.  And, in the process, we caused golfers to think, re-think and consider this issue.  Hopefully, we’ve brought this problem one step closer to a rational evolution and solution.

 

Hope Spring comes early in Denmark!  All the best to you and the family…

Regards,

Rick

STENSBALLEGAARD "Bunker Policy" 1 of 4 part series




Stensballegaard Golf Klub  Horsens, Jutland, Denmark

At Stensballegaard Golf Club (opened May 2010) we implemented:

Stensballegaard Bunker Policy  

"The sand bunkers at Stensballegaard Golf Club are an important part of the tactical challenge. The bunkers will be minimally maintained. This means: only enough grooming to limit plant growth, and sustain the “sandy” aspect. The sand bunkers are designed to impose a penalty*.

Upon leaving a sand bunker, players may smooth their footprints and depressions as a courtesy to following players. However, rakes or other implements to smooth the sand will not be provided by the golf course.

In recent times, excessive maintenance practices have caused sand bunkers to lose their meaning in the game of golf. Golfers have come to expect a perfect lie, allowing the golf ball to be easily played and easily extracted from the hazard. This compromises the purpose of the sand bunker.

Bunkers are hazards, as defined by the rules of golf. As such, bunkers represent an important element in defining tactical challenge. In order for a hazard to effectively define strategy, there must be sufficient reason for a player to avoid the hazard.

At Stensballegaard Golf Club, the fairways and roughs are designed with significant width, providing players with a variety of options to approach the green. Sand bunkers are used sparingly and primarily exist to define the strategy of each golf hole. The sand bunkers are located at strategic points within the golf course and it may be advantageous to challenge the bunkers by playing close to them. But, sufficient width has been provided to play safely around these hazards as well. This option, whether to challenge the bunkers by playing close to them or playing safely away from them, is a basic tenet in golf strategy.

The decision to incorporate this challenge, by reinstating bunkers as a true penalty,* is a choice to celebrate and uphold the heritage of golf. It is our deepest hope the members of Stensballegaard Golf Club will embrace this approach and challenge.


*penalty - is a relative term. There is not a specific penalty (for example; one stroke) intended for each hazard. The intent is for the hazards, if entered, to have a negative effect on a player’s score."
 

The decision to implement this policy has been controversial and has spawned important discussion about the role of bunkers.  The process has also been illuminating for me and it has been interesting how my perspective of bunkers has changed.

It is clear, there is a "perception" of how bunkers "should" be maintained.  And, this has evolved (or devolved) to a point of absolute absurdity.

I can still remember how golf courses were maintained when I started playing golf 40 plus years ago. Sand bunkers were places to be avoided. If your ball entered a bunker, your recovery expectations were nominal. But, this was normal. After all, you did hit your ball into a hazard.

As golf maintanance standards have improved, so did our expectations concerning bunker maintenance.

Today, bunkers can be the second most costly item in golf course maintenance, often representing as much as 20-25% of the maintenance budget (putting greens being the most costly). Can you believe it? Hazards are the second most costly item to maintain!


Ask any golf course operator, “What do your golfers complain about most?” The #1 or #2 complaint will be condition or maintenance of the bunkers (greens will be the other answer).


A couple points;
1) Golfers will say, “The sand in the bunkers is wrong or bad”. (In fact, there are only general guidelines for bunker sand. Any “sandy” material can be used in bunkers. There truly is no right or wrong sand.)
2) Golfers will say, “The bunkers aren’t well maintained”. (In fact, there is no standard for bunker maintenance. )

The most compelling part of this entire "Stensballegaard Bunker Policy" process has been the discussions with golfers. Once you acknowledge bunkers are really hazards, it becomes impossible to accept there should be "maintenance standards” in the bunkers.

A hazard should be maintained to an “acceptable” standard.  Why?  What standard?  For what purpose?

Perhaps the most compelling issue, related to 'over maintained' bunkers is: Bunkers have lost their value as a strategic element in the game of golf.  This is a well known fact in the golf industry.  Good players aim for bunkers, often using them as safe haven.  When better golfers use hazards as a form of relief from problem or penalty, we know they have lost their intended value to the game.

So, how has the golf industry compensated for dumbing down bunkers to the point where they are not longer a factor?  One solution has been to lengthen golf courses, to 're-instill' challenge!  But, we forgot, adding length to golf courses; 1) makes the sport more difficult for the other 98% of golfers, 2) increases the time necessary to play golf and, 3) increases the cost of maintenance.  Not good.

So, maintaining bunkers as HAZARDS makes perfect sense.  We won't need to lengthen golf courses.  This will help reduce costs, reduce the time required to play golf and make the game more interesting for beginners. 

Stensballegaard Golf Klub has taken a very brave and honorable stance in this regard and it is an honor to join the club in this extremely worthy campaign!

Bunkers are hazards.

Bunkers are hazards.

Bunkers are hazards.

STENSBALLEGAARD "Bunker Policy Part II"

REALITY SETS IN.....

Discussing the concept of 'low maintenance bunkers' is one thing.....  It's another thing when players actually begin to experience the bunkers.  A few months after Stensballegaard's pre-opening, we recieved a letter from the Green's Committee, outlining their initial concerns. 

This is where 'the rubber meets the road' as they say.  Suddenly, a lofty concept becomes reality, and we need to deal with a new (or is it really the original, more natural) way of playing golf........

Att: Mr. Rick Baril 

Horsens, 15th November 2008 

Dear Rick,

It is with great interest that the Stensballegaard Golf Club board members has read and discussed your very interesting and well made memorandum ”STENSBALLEGAARD BUNKERS”.

We have had a very wide and open discussion about your point of view as well as we have tried to take into consideration the expectations which our members have to the new golf course.

First of all, it is our opinion that most of the members have an expectation which goes in the direction of an “American style course”. For us this means a course which is extremely well maintained with fairways and greens as well as hazards of a very high quality. Though perhaps not with white crushed marble in the bunkers, but at least a course which gives the impression of high quality.

If we understand your memo correctly we feel that we are moving towards a course which is much more like Scottish links, a more wild and nature-like golf course -a course which even though the fairways and the greens might have a high quality gives the impression of open nature. These links do have their own and often very beautiful sceneries but we fear that this is not the course our members really look forward to play on-nor is it the kind of course which from the beginning has been promised.

Looking at the bunkers of the Stensballegaard course we find that many of the fairway bunkers are pretty deep actually "pot hole" types -this mean they are not easy to play and you will definitely always loose distance by playing into them.

That a bunker is a hazard and should be avoided is of course correct but by having these fairway bunkers without a rake, we will add a new and even more difficult dimension to the bunkers as well as to the entire course. The golf club board will support the idea.

We will try to have the fairway bunkers as minimal maintained bunkers, however we think it is imperative that the bunkers may never give the impression of being neglected, grass growing unevenly into the bunker areas etc.

The golf club board has contacted the Danish Golf Association (DGU) and we have discussed the issue about minimal maintained bunkers. Everyone agree that from an economical point of view there can be saved a lot of money. However, as your memo point out -by choosing the old type of bunkers we will return to a more hazard-like attitude towards bunkers.

DGU suggests, and we in the golf club board agree, when we are looking at green bunkers, we will have to consider these bunkers differently. If the course should be used for tournaments in the future there will be an expectation that at least the green bunkers have a certain standard and that they are equipped with rakes. We are also certain that our members have an expectance about rakes in these bunkers.

Maybe even more important, we fear that the overall impression of the course will be of a lower standard than we want if we admit “minimal maintenance” bunkers around and near the greens. We do want visitors to have the impression of a very well maintained course and we need a lot of green fee visitors to make ends meet as well.

To conclude: The golf club board suggests that we in cooperation pin point the bunkers which will be “minimal maintenance” bunkers where as the remaining bunkers will be equipped with rakes.

Yours faithfully

Chr. Juel

Re: Bunkers

Dear Chairman and golf committee members,

Thank you for your letter, in response to our “Bunker Policy” memorandum. We are very pleased by your serious and open-minded approach to this issue and thank you for your thoughtful response.

Your letter clearly conveys your desire to ensure Stensballegaard Golfklub achieves its intended status. We hope you will also consider our response in the same spirit.

We feel it is important for you to understand the original design intent of the golf course, and know we will always gladly participate in any effort to improve the quality and perception of the golf course. We understand we are not the final word on these issues and policies. We are simply grateful to be included in the discussion.

Now, to your letter:

We agree and support the member’s expectations for a more “American style course”, in maintenance terms. The intent from the beginning has been; extremely well maintained fairways, semi-fairways, tees and greens. American style maintenance tends to mean “always green and groomed”* (see comments at end of letter).

As you have noted, what is very important is: The tees, fairways, fair-rough and greens must be maintained at very high standards in order to be successful with the bunker policy we are advocating. Players must be capable of easily recognizing the bunkers are being treated and maintained different from the play surfaces. This “contrast” in maintenance standard is what we envisioned. This will; 1) provide the important visual contrast (color, texture, etc) between play surfaces and “hazards and strategic signals” and 2) increase the incentive for players to avoid bunkers, fearing an unpredictable lie.

We must clearly state: The idea for “minimal bunker maintenance” was not originally conceived or presented with the intention of reducing maintenance and saving money. The idea is truly to reinstate bunkers as a strategic element and hazard. We hope the resources normally intended for bunker maintenance will be redirected toward improving maintenance of the other play surfaces.

We would strongly recommend you to treat ALL bunkers the same. We are concerned that any “compromise” (treating green bunkers different than fairway bunkers) will confuse players and likely result in this program being unsuccessful. When you provide rakes in any bunker, it conveys an expectation to “fix or smooth” the sand. And, what happens when a player doesn’t? Do his companions become upset? Does the next player in the bunker register a complaint?

The idea of minimal bunker maintenance is probably “radical” at this time. But, we believe this will be very common in the near future. Golf is “returning to its roots” in many ways. Our hope, in proposing this concept for Stensballegaard, is to place Stensballegaard at the forefront of this return to strategic bunkers. We firmly believe this will also create significant (good) publicity for the golf course. It is a return to “real golf” and we are convinced this will be seen as a true significant step for any golf course brave enough to lead this trend.

General comment about the golf course:

What we see today is not the final appearance of the golf course. The “out-rough” areas are more homogenous today than they will be in the future. These (out-of-play) areas were re-established with Fescue, following construction. In the coming years, these areas will be invaded by other species of grasses and plants. This will result in a more natural and diverse appearance in the out-rough.

American style maintenance: “Green and groomed”

For Stensballegaard, the original intent, which has not changed to our knowledge, has been to maintain the golf course to the highest possible standard. When you mention “American style course” the impression we receive from this “style” of course maintenance, is the ability to control and manage nearly any factor that would affect the appearance of the golf course.

In this case, it is important to remember, we must rely on rainfall to provide water for most the golf course. Consequently, a mitigating maintenance factor is “irrigation”. As you know, a full irrigation system was not permitted on this property. This will mean the golf course will be at “Mother Nature’s” mercy in terms of water supply, particularly during drought times. Unfortunately, drought conditions can initiate stress related issues (weed production and invasion, turf fatality, disease, etc.).

Kindest regards,

Richard A. Baril

This is part II of a IV part series.  Look for part III and IV to be published very soon....

Stensballegaard Bunker Policy Part III

THE PROCESS....

 It's been an enlightening and gratifying experience, initiating the STENSBALLEGAARD BUNKER POLICY.  I truly wish everyone could have 'taken this journey'. 

Today, we can't know if our campaign will be successful.  We can say, treating bunkers as hazards has:

1) made bunkers relevant again
2) aggravates players, causing them to avoid the bunkers

3) demonstrated there is a sustainable solution to bunker maintenance

4) quite possibly saved a significant amount of sand during a recent wind storm

5) will increase the life expectancy of the bunkers and sand 

Today, it is easy for me to say this "Bunker Policy" is the right way for bunkers to be treated.  Having been through the debate, I now realize my perspective about bunkers and bunker maintenance had devolved to an illogical and unsustainable expectation - like so many golfers.  Having the opportunity to objectively discuss this issue and then help define and defend it, has been a revelation for me.

It would be too presumptuous to say; we hope this step we have taken, will ultimately lead to a 'global' re-evaluation of bunkers and bunker maintenance.   But, I do sincerely hope this policy will help encourage other golfers and golf courses to seriously consider implementing a similar policy.  

In this, the 3rd part of this series, we provide more of the communication related to the bunker policy, exchanges with our client and the also the Green Committee Chairman:

Henrik (client),

While I was thinking about wording for a Bunker Policy sign: We’ve talked about Stensballegaard’s bunker policy being the precursor to a new trend of reduced bunker maintenance. I was thinking; One of our difficulties is explaining the concept. This lead me to thought that we might want to coin a phrase which would describe this type of bunker maintenance. The idea that came to me is – “Heritage Bunkers”. I thought this might immediately imply a “historical” context. The idea is: if we use this phrase whenever we talk about the bunkers, it might become an accepted term for Stensballegaard type bunkers. Think about it. It might be better than “bunker policy”.

Anyway, to your request for wording for a sign for the first tee…

HERITAGE BUNKERS

Stensballegaard’s bunkers are hazards and therefore maintained with minimal intervention.

We invite you to embrace the intended challenge of these hazards.

You will not find rakes in the bunkers.

We ask that you smooth your tracks upon leaving a bunker, in consideration of following players.

The above is the suggestion you asked for – short and to the point. As always, feel free to modify it or write a different one…
Rick
.................................................................................................................................
After the above, there was a conversation and revision to the statement.  Below, is my response.
..................................................................................................................................
To: Henrik (client)
RE: Heritage Bunkers....
Two points for discussion:
1. I'm not sure the original version (below) adequately informs green fee players that Stensballegaard bunkers are NOT “maintained” – or, not maintained like other courses?

2. It’s true, the course is designed with large fairways (in places). I know you’ve said, stressing the “very wide fairways” helps players comprehend/accept the bunker policy. But, saying this also compromises the intent of the bunker policy. We are essentially saying; "Accommodations have been made in the design of the golf course to compensate for the bunker policy". We cannot promote this policy by saying; "Bunkers are intended as hazards" and then say "Therefore, we have modified the design so you can avoid them." This is a serious compromise to the policy and potentially to the golf course. It makes it sound like the golf course design is not normal and would be inappropriate without this policy.

We need to communicate to the players; it's their responsibility to challenge the hazards or avoid the hazards - this is the most basic tenet of strategic golf.

We need to communicate to the players: "bunkers are hazards" - this means they are NOT intended to be maintained to a high standard and players should NOT expect to find a good lie in the bunkers.

We need to communicate the DGU has provided extra compensation for the bunkers. (While handicapping the golf course the DGU made allowances for the bunker policy.)

We need to communicate to the players; You can play short of the bunkers. You can play away from the bunkers. You can play strategically to avoid the bunkers. But, if you challenge the bunkers or if you hit a bad shot and arrive in a bunker, do not expect a perfect lie and playing condition.

Below are two alternate options - to the original version - attempting to incorporate the above thoughts.
original version

BUNKER POLICY

Bunkers at Stensballegaard are HAZARDS.

Therefore play strategically: Avoid them.

The course is designed accordingly with very large fairways.

There are no rakes in the bunkers.

In consideration of following players, you are therefore kindly asked to smooth your tracks.

OPTION 1

BUNKER POLICY

Bunkers at Stensballegaard are HAZARDS and maintained as HAZARDS.

Therefore play strategically: Avoid them.

There are no rakes in the bunkers.

In consideration of following players you may smooth your tracks.

OPTION 2

BUNKER POLICY

Stensballegaard is designed for, and rewards, strategic play.

Stensballegaard bunkers are maintained as HAZARDS.

Players should avoid them or challenge them and accept the consequences.

There are no rakes in the bunkers.

In consideration of following players, please smooth your tracks.

.....................................................................................................................................
Thanks Rick.

I have certainly bought your points.

I am away this afternoon and not back home until around 6,30pm.

I shall try to call you, when back home.

Henrik

......the result of the above discussion/exchange.......

Next, came an exchange of letters.......with the Green Committee Chairman:

Christian,

I wanted to thank you for our meeting at Stensballegaard during my recent visit.

The ongoing debate about Stensballegaard’s bunker policy, which cannot always be easy for you, is certainly important for Stensballegaard and perhaps more important for golf's future.

Of course, we couldn’t know exactly how this debate would evolve when we started down this path. But, when we conceived the bunker policy, we were confident it was an important (if controversial) endeavor and statement. Already, we have realized a measure of success, in the form of debate and lucid discussion about hazards and their intrinsic value to the game of golf. This, by itself, is gratifying.

In the world today, there are many ongoing debates about how technology is changing golf. Most of the debate centers around golf clubs and golf balls. But, golf course maintenance has also undergone technological improvements, which have changed the game; both positively and negatively. What we are learning is; all of this innovation is making it more difficult to keep golf affordable - sustainable. Golf industry service providers are busy trying to reconcile all these issues and the resulting impact on the game of golf. At some point in the near future, golfer’s will also need to face this reality and decide what is important. Eventually we all need to accept changes if we are to make golf sustainable. Along with ‘technology’, limited water and oil resources will dictate changes in golf development, maintenance and management. Ultimately, this will change the way golf is played.

We have seen a recent trend of golf courses adding tees and lengthening golf holes to keep them relevant for today’s equipment. However this trend, to lengthen golf courses, marginalizes the beginners and average players. Instead of designing and maintaining golf courses in a manner which promotes shot making skills, the trend is to simply lengthen golf courses to “defend par”. This trend widens the gap between average golfers and proficient golfers. Making golf courses longer, at a time when the industry is trying to figure out how to introduce new players to the sport seems schizophrenic and contradictory. Creative rational solutions like Stensballegaard’s bunker policy will be required if we are keep golf relevant in the future.

It is important for all of us to remember, this policy is not “revolutionary”. It is being practiced, to some extent, in many areas. I believe I related my discussion with Golf Digest’s Architectural Editor Ron Whitten. Ron owned a golf course for some years and also attempted to implement this policy. He was marginally successful. When I discussed this with him, he offered his sincere support. He is also confident this is the way forward – for many reasons.

As you requested, we send “bunker quotes” from “Golden Age” golf architects. I will search for more and send them as I find them……

“Often the highest recommendation of a bunker is when it is criticized. There is no such thing as a misplaced bunker. Regardless of where a bunker may be, it is the business of the player to avoid it”
Donald Ross, Golf Architect

“The true hazard should draw the player towards it, should invite the golfer to come as near as he dare to the fire without burning his fingers. The man who can afford to take risks is the man who should gain the advantage.”

John Low, Golf Architect


“The risk of going into a bunker is self-imposed, so there is no reason why a player should condemn a bunker as unfair.”
CB MacDonald, Golf Architect


“The great value of a hazard is not that it catches a shot that has been missed but that it forces a miss upon the timid player; its psychological worth is greater than it penal value.”
Bobby Jones


“The golf architect is not at all concerned with chastising bad play. On the contrary, it is his business to arrange the field of play as to stimulate interest, and hence, the province of hazards is to chasten the too ambitious.”
Max Behr, Golf Architect

It is our most fervent hope that Stensballegaard will maintain the bunker policy. In doing so, Stensballegaard is taking a courageous and significant stance; protecting and preserving golf’s heritage. This honorable objective can only achieved by by taking the first brave step and then continuing with determined perseverance.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance in helping improve Stensballegaard Golf.
Rick

......................................................................................................................................
From Stensballegaard’s Green Committee Chairman Christian
Dear Rick,

Thank you so much for your kind e-mail. We are very happy to receive your comments and they are exactly what we need. We will show your comments to our members hoping that this will enable them to better understand the philosophy behind the bunkers.

I think that one of our big challenges in the years to come, will be to teach our member to use the bunkers correctly. During our meeting I mentioned the problems with footprints and that this problem grow as soon as one pair of footprints are visible then it suddenly becomes legal just to leave one’s own prints un done. This behavior is self imposing and we need to avoid it, strangely enough if there is many animal prints no one complain!

Anyway, we will publish your letter on our web page and also use the nice quotes you have sent us – they are simply super.

I am sure that if we keep the focus on why the bunker police is necessary then in the end our members will start to treat the bunkers better and some might even end up loving the old style bunker maintenance.
(Green Committee Chairman)
..................................................................................................................................
Dear Christian,
Thank you. During the writing of my previous letter to you – it occurred to me that we need to write a comprehensive “open letter” to the Stensballegaard membership about the bunker policy. Now that the first season is nearing an end, and everyone has lived with this policy, I think it’s a good time to summarize some “bunker” experiences, comments and discussions.

Most of all, I hope I have communicated the great pride we have for Stensballegaard and the membership. It is also our hope the membership begins to love this style of bunker and we are really looking forward to the day when this policy becomes a matter of pride. I sense this day is not far away!!!

Finally, we want you to know we are here to support you and make this trip with you…. So, please let us know if you think there is anything we can do to be of assistance.

Kind personal regards,

Rick