Bunkers: Necessary?

[Dan Kelly]

In the thread on Eye Candy, TEPaul writes: "Bunkering is an apparently necessary golf feature that is the sole vestige from the original linksland where it was extremely natural to those sites even before golf was played on them. It is not natural in the farm fields of Pennsylvnia or the Rocky Mountains of Canada. But still it seems to be a necessary feature requirement of any and every golf course."

Which has inspired me to raise here, for your discussion, a question I've often mused upon:

Wouldn't it be possible to build a perfectly wonderful golf course without a single bunker?

My answer, perhaps implied by my question, would be: Yes -- at least theoretically, given the right piece of land.

Consider, for the purpose of discussion, the back 9 at Augusta National -- without ANY bunkers. Isn't it still a great nine holes?

Has anyone attempted such a thing as a bunkerless course -- or is it just too radical (and/or foolish) an idea?

[THuckaby2]

Royal Ashdown Forest in England is indeed bunkerless, but that is due to edict, not plan... see the review on this site.

Beyond that, it would take guts but would be really cool if done in an interesting way, wouldn't it?

TH

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Interesting and ironic--I was thinking the same thing you were from the "eye candy" thread and like you I've been thinking about a bunkerless course or an alterntive to bunkering for about four years now and I was thinking of making a post today on whether bunkers were really necessary but you beat me to it.

All this first occured to me when reading Hunter, Behr and Thomas who all mentioned that real naturalness from the linksland is obviously what the linksland was before golf. Sand dunes and hollows, the precursor to golf's bunkers were there but certainly tees, fairway and greens were not.

They identified these four things as not inherently natural to other sites as well but obviously concluded that tees, fairways and greens were essential to golf but thought of bunkering as not exactly essential but simply an odd vestige of linksland golf that had become something seemingly essential to golf but not really. They never exactly spoke of not using bunkering or any alternatives, they just mentioned the fact that bunkering was an odd vestige from strictly the linksland.

During the Ardrossan planning I asked Coore if he thought Ardrossan Farm could ever be done without bunkering simply because the topography was so interesting but he said he thought the site was one that could have really good bunkering so I dropped the subject.

But I've looked at sites like Ardrossan that are basically open rolling farmland with beautiful stands and lines of trees here and there and thought maybe something else could take the place of bunkering or be done with nothing like it at all. Mounds and grassy hollows are certainly a logical alternative along with what's referred to as "gravity golf" in the more topographical areas that could be used for golf.

But more recently, I was thinking of the concept of bunkers, of a kind, but without the sand. Simply removing the sod, hollow the shapes out like bunkers but use the indigenous subsoil in place of the sand. Obviously this would be hard-panish and such and would have one helluva playbility but it certainly would look more inherently natural and indigenious to the site.

Sand bunkers are so much part of golf architecture though that they are also seemingly a real part of the rules of golf. Bunkers without sand might be a little confusing therefore but so what.

The other interesting news is indigenous soil based bunkers would be much easier to make rugged and natural, they would be inconsistent of play, I'm sure, and they very well might be places where golfers would definitely not want to go thereby bringing necessary strategy back to golf architecture.

I was also thinking of the possibility of making them smell too but I thought I might forego that for the time being!

[harleykruse]

When I hear of bunkerless courses I think of the decriptions by Mackenzie of his work at The Jockey Club in Buenos Aires where the course(s) was planned and  opened as a bunkerless layout.

Mackenzie at the time predicted it to become one of the worlds truly great golf courses with bunkering to happen at a later date.

I'm not familiar with other attempts for layouts completly 100% bunker free.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, sand bunkers are so commonly considered as necessary golf features that I can't think of a single very good golf course anywhere that's without them. Obviously Royal Ashdown is an unusual example due to the edict disallowing them.

But other than extremely simple courses does anyone know of a golf course anywhere that has used some intereting alternative to bunkering or more specifically sand bunkering?

An interesting alternative to be seemingly more indigenously natural that I've seen though are some bunkers that have red sand (indigenous) or even black sand (I think, also indigenous).

I'm also interested in anyone's thoughts on any other method of making a golf course feel more inherently natural to it basic site--the ideal that many of the "Golden Age" guys were hoping more advanced construction methods could take us to. Much of this is spelled out in GeoffShac's new book.

Of course we have gone in the exact opposite direction from this ideal of the "Golden Age" guys. Bunkers today are mostly a mere symbol of what they were and were supposed to be. But what else could the old guys have been thinking about for total naturalness?

[Paul Turner]

Berkhamsted (close to London)is a pretty good woodland/heathland course without sand.  Instead the course has grass bunkers, lot of little pits and hollows.  But the course would probably be stronger with bunkers since it is rather flat.

Generally you would need pretty dramatic terrain like at Royal Ashdown for a no bunker course to work.

[Dan Kelly]

Mr. Turner --

Seems to me that pretty much all of the Modern Classics are being built on "pretty dramatic terrain." Am I wrong?

I want to see Coore and Crenshaw, or Doak, or somebody build a course with no sand bunkers -- or very few. Let the terrain stand by itself.

The ultimate in subtle strategic design!

[ed_getka]

When I think of good bunkerless holes I have played they were generally very demanding holes. I don't think I would want to play 18 holes that difficult in one round. A bunkerless hole(s) adds variety, but a whole course might be a bit much. Although I haven't played them, imagine playing #14 or #5 at ANGC or the like for 18 holes. The only holes I generally dislike are water holes since the possibility of recovery is removed.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,

When watching golf played on desert courses I have often wondered why they bunker anywhere! Seems to me that all the sand and rock and cacti could be brought right up to the greens and snuck into the fairways too.
Wouldn't that seem more natural, even with the green grass in the middle of it all?

Here in Connecticut we are blessed with rock. Lots of it. An excavator friend is fond of saying that on the seventh day God didn't rest, he put all the rocks in Ct., at least in our part of the state.  
At Shuttlemeadow in Kensington, Ct. there is a wonderful green on the par four 5th hole, that abuts a tall outcropping of rock to it's left side. This rock is at least 15' high and is partially covered with vegetation. The tee shot is over the edge of a pond that is left in a very natural state. The hole fits the site so naturally that it seems the highest use of the land has been achieved.
I hope this is a good example of inherent naturalness.

[Mike O'Neill]

TEPaul, I think you need the sand to cover the drainage in what would otherwise be a mud hole at times.

By the way, nothing in golf seems "necessary" to me except some sort of a green (with a flagstick) that allows some sort of putting and a route from teeing area to green. We do not need level tees, fairways, sand and the like. In the end however, those are all great things for the game of golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

I don't know that I would agree that the back nine at ANGC without bunkers would still be a very good course.

Jim Kennedy,

My wife worked on the greens crew at ShuttleMeadow when she was 21.  Is Bob Silva still there ?

My course in New Jersey had no fairway bunkers until various green committees put them in.  Our 10th hole was the only par 5
I had ever seen without one bunker on it.
One of the courses interesting features was an abundance of bunkers to the rear of several greens.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I love your idea of bringing the desert (sand, rock and cacti) into the lines of play of holes instead of having it way out on the flanks. This I think would be using indigenous and natural features in the golf holes and overall would be a very natural blend and tie-in. But, Oh My God, what would they say about the lack of perfect consistency of playing out of those area that were then part of the strategies of the hole?

I will tell you what they might say, if you're inclined to believe a thinker like Max Behr. They just might not say that much!! Behr said golfers are much less likely to complain about things if those things are, in fact, unadulterated nature--features, in other words, untouched by man!! Behr said what golfers are more likely to complain about are features that designers create to try to somehow emulate nature and don't do a very good job of it! Interesting, don't you think? Maybe this apparent enormous amount of American yahoo golfers really aren't so dumb afterall!!

[Peter Galea]

TEPaul,
How about filling your bunkers with cocoa bean hulls. They would have a dark tannish color, the playablility of pine duff and best of all, smell like chocolate.

[Mark_Fine]

Didn't read through this whole post but I will say this, a course without hazards is a very dull golf course.  I don't even have to see it to make that statement.  

A bunkerless course can be designed.  We all every so often play bunkerless holes don't we?  How good 18 of them in a row would be is questionable??  

It's true Royal Ashdown Forest doesn't have any bunkers, but it sure has hazards.  The vegatation there is not as bad as ice plant, but it's close  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Ed Galea:

You must be talking about something like Tahiti or maybe Columbia! Sounds extremely natural and indigenous to me! I think you're getting the point!

[Philippe Binette]

A course without bunker is possible IF:
a) The site as dramatic TERRAIN, (by dramatic don't think big elevation changes but an endless series of little swales and mounds...

b) The site is set on a WINDY area.

c) TREES could come into play

and not only it is possible, but it could be a great and more interesting course.

[Mike_Cirba]

As a HUGE fan of good bunkering, it pains me to answer as follows..

Of course bunkers are not necessary.  I grew up playing a number of low-budget courses that simply didn't have the maintenance dollars to add bunkering to their courses.

I would also argue that most of today's consistent, shallow bunkering is easier to play from than surrounding rough or tightly cut "gravity golf" terrain.  

If bunkering is a hazard, then why do we hear the cry of better players and touring pros saying "get in the bunker!"?

Sadly, most of today's bunkering is there simply to provide visual contrast, because it's expected, and because it simply enhances the growing belief that sand bunkers should be just another "separate but equal", consistent, predictable playing surface requiring just another type of golf shot.

[les_claytor]

Interesting topic guys.  

Designing an interesting course without sand bunkers would be an exercise in the fundamentals.  The basic ingredients of any great golf course would be magnified without any bunkers.  Start with a good site with interesting terrain. Add an expert routing utilizing the terrain, hole lengths, shot values and directions of wind.  Through the green, maintain natural features while creating "numerous undulations of infinite variety" blending naturally into the surroundings.  Lastly, top it off with a great set of greens of various designs and approach angles, sharply sloped and maintained hard and fast.  

If the greens are properly designed and good visibility maintained, pin placements should determine proper location of tee and approach shots. Wayward shots would be equitably penalized simply by the character of green surrounds and internal coutours. Interesting fairway undulations maintained hard and fast could produce interesting bounces and roll producing hypnotizing results.

Obviously bunkers and other hazards add much to the game both stategically and aesthetically.  However, I think many architects hide behind meaningless bunkers and other eye candy such as water features, mounds, exotic plantings, etc. Give me a course stepped in the fundamentals of design any time.

[TEPaul]

Man, that is one good post you wrote there Les! You have all the elements and ingredients down pat to do something like a bunkerless course! You even threw in the absolutely necessary FIRM and FAST "maintenance meld", that in my opinion would be the overridingly essential ingredient to carry something like this off really well.

For a bunkerless course to work well the firm ground and the shapes of it would almost have to step into the place of the bunker feature to be the essential feature for strategic purposes.

In my post above on this topic I was thinking of a bunkerless course not just to use something else to step into the place of the bunker for strategic purposes though.

I was thinking about a bunkerless course more to acheive what Behr and Hunter and some of the others may have thought could be the "ideal" in golf architecture someday by  doing a golf course with a setting that was completely natural to the original natural setting so the golfer might feel he was  playing golf on a course that almost didn't seem like one.

They mentioned that ironically the SAND  bunker made that difficult as it was an unnatural feature to so many natural settings simply because it was an odd vestige unique to the old linksland that just happened to have made itself essential to golf architecture, for some reason. So ironically to take the sand bunker out of some settings and sites would therefore tend to make the site and the course look more natural!

I think that's true! Not that I don't like sand bunkering, I just think they had a great point there to acheive something interesting and extremely natural!

There is another supreme irony in this line of thinking too, that I find fascinating. That is that bunkering is a feature that should be avoided because of the problems of playing out of it but according to Behr it was also a feature used ultimately to "prick the player's senses" and find other ways to go!

Far from being in anyway restricting to golfers Behr felt this "sensation pricking"  sparked a strategic sense of FREEDOM actually. Ultimately Behr didn't seem so interested in what happened to the golfer if he got in a bunker, he seemed far more interested in all the great things that a golfer would think of and do just because they happened to be there to avoid. This is his "lines of charm" philosophy!

But it is true that functioning as even Behr perceived them sand bunkers certainly were a VISUAL spur to create strategic inspiration.

And since at this point in golf architecture's evolution sand bunkers are now almost essential, removing them might be considered radical athough ironically they are unnatural (to many sites).

I would take this a step farther and a very radical step at that. I might think about just minimizing the golf features remaining, the greens and the toporaphy itself with sort of a general blend into naturalness. This might force the golfer then to really search the site for strategic ways to go. This would essentially take away even Behr's "sensation pricking" for strategic inspiration that he believed bunkers acheived.

The golfer would then have to go it on his own without out any road map at all! What could be better to produce "strategic freedom" than that--the ultimate thing that Behr was trying to acheive.

Of course the ground and the topography would then have the overall meaning and would have to effect the golf ball positively and negatively (rewards/risks). It would just be harder to figure out how and why that might happen. What better way could there be to inspire or even force the golfer into a strategic sense and total freedom? And I would make it anything but bland, although it could and would be extremely "site natural".

It would probably never be accepted but it is an interesting idea to contemplate!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Les,

What course comes closest using your criteria?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

The course I think would work the best I've seen recently using Les's criteria would be Royal Portrush, and it was mentioned on here in that very context.

Of course, it has bunkers and very good ones but if they were removed, and I'm certainly not recommending that, most of the holes on the course would definitely play very thoughtful and sporty just because it has so much of the criteria that Les mentioned.

Certainly holes #17 and #18 very much need their bunkering though. #10 and #11 do too and maybe #1 but the latter maybe OK without it, except left greenside is so extraordinary it must stay.

Strategically, I think the fairway bunker on #1 should be on the right not the left, but it probably isn't that big a deal since the right side (the better side to come in from) does have an OB along it. I do think, though, that  #1 would be much better served for a number of reasons with that fairway bunker on the right and the left side unprotected.

From an architectural analysis I would happily go with everything else Portrush offers with or without bunkers (except those holes noted).

[Paul Turner]

TomP

Portrush is a great choice and I'm glad you highlighted the greenside left bunker on the 1st, it's a wonderful bunker, perfectly cut into the hillside. I think the most strategic bunker at Portrush has to be that central fairway one on the 4th.

[golf4les]

In my travels, San Francisco Golf Club and The Old Course are the most vivid examples of courses that could be striped of all bunkering and still function as great tests of golf.  It's interesting that the bunkering at these courses differ in style but are both world renown for their beauty and reputation.  

At St. Andrews, the double greens, infinite undulations, ever present wind and firm and fast turf suffice for extroidinary golf. SFGC features a rolling blown sand site with a beautiful routing and a set of greens that although not huge are pitched enough to provide adequate challenge to tee shot placement, iron play and of course putting. Of course the wind and fog add much to the experience.

Obviously, the bunkering take both courses over the top, but they would both function well striped bare.

I'm sure Dr. Mac's courses would function well without his great bunkering.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Golf4les,

I always thought the bunkering at TOC was one of its greatest assets, especially for a course that could also be played backwords.

How many courses have bunkers whose names are known worldwide

[golf4les]

Of course the bunkers at the TOC are beyond reproach and are a major component of the course as at SFGC.  However the routing, greens, wind, turf and the Ol' grey towne could stand alone even without the pits from hell.