Why are bunkers so well defined?

[Ran Morrissett]

You're either in a bunker or not these days -their edges are laser-like defined, even the side of the bunker away from play. I seem to have become more and more conscious of such bunkers sticking out from their environment as opposed to being apart of it. In short, man's hand is too evident.

Recently, I've seen a lot of 70-80 year old photos of courses where the bunker shapes were vague and general - you might be a foot or three from the bunker and be unsure if you're actually in it. You might be on a thin, bare lie or on a clump of sand, who knows.

These photographs struck me as appealing for three reasons:

1. The bunkers seem more natural (i.e. less of a man-made contrivance and less scientific).

2. Time could be saved on the maintenance and general up-keep if the bunker and its surrounds were left more to chance.

3. If the area around the bunker wasn't perfectly presented, the golfer faces another kind of challenge in the form of a random, haphazard lie.

Can anyone think of a modern course were such bunkers have been built on such a free form basis? If not, does that mean that bunkers are being overcooked these days?

Cheers,

[John_McMillan]

From a rules persective, it makes a world of difference whether you are actually inside, or outside, of a bunker (grounding a club, moving a loose impediment, where relief can be taken under certain circumstances).

I'm all for keeping the edges defined (though the razor sharp look of Augusta National might be on the extreme side).

[jglenn]

John,

Concerning the rules, perhaps a good question then would be "why should it make a world of difference?".

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran,

I totally agree with you and it's pained me in recent years to see some pretty well-regarded classic courses "tidy up their bunkers".

Others have gone so far to provide clean edges that I heard a playing partner recently and accurately refer to the bunkers of an otherwise superb course as "sterile".

As far as the rules, I have a simple one that doesn't seem very difficult to follow...if in doubt as to whether you are in a hazard or not, DON'T GROUND THE CLUB!

Sheesh....how would we and the game have ever survived before modern maintenance practices...  

[Aaron]

I agree Ran, most bunkers can benefit from a less defined look.

I especially like the bunkers first used at Cypress Point and other courses...rough edged and almost none of those gently curving lines (i.e. Augusta). I understand they are to keep in condition though.

Aaron

[Matt_Ward]

Bunkers need to strike fear -- too often they are simply cosmetic and in many new courses today have little, if any real strategic purpose.

You don't need a plethora of bunkers on any course -- you do need them to state in clear terms that they will extract some sort of punishment for a wayward shot. In many cases that does not occur. Bunkers that are not refined in appearance, but look worn are perfectly acceptable in my book.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Good luck to the superintendent who tells his employer that he is not going to maintain an edge on the bunkers.
If a course was maintained in this fashion it would only have complaints from 97% of the players.
I believe the better players would prevail with unkept edges.  It would cost less, so I like it, now about the 97% of the other folks.

[ed_getka]

Ran,
I would say that Pacific Dunes by Doak and Rustic Canyon by Hanse/Shackleford are good examples of more classical bunkering.

[Scott W.]

If you have Bermuda around the edges of your bunkers then they will lose their size and shape in a very short time.  Thus possibly altering the shot values on a particular hole.  Also, I manage a course with Raynor like features where maintaining the integrity of the engineered, hard edges is the motive as opposed to keeping a tidy appearance like ANGC.  To each his own I suppose.......  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy Glenn,

Are you saying that you shouldn't be permitted to ground your club in the through the green ?

Ran,

Earlier in another post, I alluded to the need for crispness, created or perpetuated by TV.  I think that need, blended with the emerging trend seeking "fairness" have all but doomed the bunker look you prefer.
Lynn is correct, fighting the tide of 97 % of the membership is a difficult if not insurmountable task. That's why dictatorships work best.  

[aclayman]

I assune Ran makes reference to the Yale pics recently provided and I agree wholeheartedly that the rough indeterminent transition is much better look. As a matter of fact I looked at the pic of the 18th at Yale with TH running to the green and then the 1925 version I wondered who the genius was who first told their keeper of the green to fix it all up and make it look nice. No doubt some commitee chair, no?

[John_McMillan]

As to the "why" part -

Hazards (bunkers) are supposed to be bad places to have played into on a golf course.  It seems equitable that options in these areas are limited versus options through the green.  As an example, when taking relief from ground under repair or from casual water - if you're in a bunker, your relief needs to remain inside the hazard. If you're outside the bunker, you have better options to continue.  To me, this seems like a desirable feature of the rules.

[Mark_Fine]

I just played Carnegie Abbey and those bunkers are "true hazards".  I believe I stated in an earlier post, you don't yell for your ball to "get in the bunker".  You yell "oh *@#* "!  However, it's quite clear whether you are in one or not.  

If you think about most links courses in the British Isles (where bunkers originated from), the majority of the bunkers are pretty well defined.  Don't most seem to have a "sucking" action and balls feed into them.  

I love an old scruffy looking bunker like some of those at Royal County Down, but that really isn't the norm is it?  Take a course like Muirfield which is known for its great bunkers - they are very well defined!  

Mark

[SPDB]

Mark - not to get "off-point," but I'm curious what you thought of Carnegie Abbey - to date I had thought Matt Ward and I were the only posters to have played this gem. Did you play it as part of a ratings panel?

[Mark_Fine]

SPDB,
A friend of mine is in charge of Membership there and had asked me from its opening to come see it!  I finally found the time.  I won't post much here in this thread but overall, I liked a lot about the golf course.  Definitely some of the wildest greens I've ever seen on a modern design.  Some are too wild.  Get them rolling more than 10 and half are probably unplayable.  The bunkering work is superb.  I had some issues with some of the holes and maybe I'll post more later on.  
Mark

[T_MacWood]

The original bunkers in the UK were not well defined either. At some point the developed a technique for creating sod walls, probably for maintenance purposes. But the inland courses, after the turn of the century, still exhibited a more natural appearance. I'd guess the evolution of ANGC's bunkers over the years had an effect.

[jglenn]

Basically, if we treated all bunkers in the same manner as we treat waste areas, we'd have far greater architectural flexibility to define those "bunkers".  

In the beginning, wasn't everything "through the green"?
______

Patrick,

That's quite a leap of thought process from my comment to your question.  But, as an answer: No.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy Glenn,

Aren't you permitted to ground your club in waste areas ?

[Willie_Dow]

Rule 13:  A "bunker" is a hazard - the margin extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.  A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ran,
I went and looked at the photos of the sand belt bunker style in the interview section. I also remembered them from the World golf tourney this past season. They seem to have a very defined edge, at least on the greenside, and it seems to work without an unnatural feel. I played Quaker Hill, An RTJ course from 1939, recently and they had several bunkers edged this way. The greens there were very small and undulating and the crisp edge worked well as the greens were not "lost".  

[jglenn]

Patrick,

I'm trying to follow the chain of this conversation, but I'm afraid you've still lost me.

Anyway, to answer:  

Yes.

[ForkaB]

I'd much rather have a nice clean honest Yul Brynner of a bunker than some of these Joe Biden types where the archy has tried to plant sprigs of fescue in the face in the hope that it might look "olde worldy" at some point in the future.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy Glenn,

I wasn't sure if you were addressing architecture or playability issues, with your statements.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mark,
  With Carnegie, that would make nine hundred and how many courses you've played now?  Please let us know when the big 1K is reached.  

[Mark_Fine]

Scott,
So many courses to see, so little time!!