In Praise of the Skinny Bunker

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the simple answer is that if machine raking is desired, most bunker rakes require 16-18 foot diameter "lobes" to turn without digging up sand.  Where hand raking is planned, they can be narrower.  

For that matter, the bunker show is narrower than the nine foot blade of a typical dozer, which simply tends to build bigger bunkers.

You have got to love these priorities.  Nothing like putting the golf and golfer first.  

DMoriarty,

I'm not sure I said it was a priority, just stating what happens usually......However, your statement seemingly assumes that narrow bunkers are the "be all, end all" of golf design, just because someone brought it up on golf club atlas.....

To the degree that construction and maintenance cost are/were believed to be less with bigger bunkers, then to a degree, they are looking out for the golfer by making golf more affordable, no?  

In fact, construction technology has always affected design, in all fields.  Probably the only reason trench bunkers were ever built was because they required less earthmoving, or the horse and scoop was just that wide, etc.  I doubt that they gave any real thought to the playability of narrower bunkers - things were simply smaller in scale in the old days.  In fact, utilitarian shapeless and geometric bunkering were the kinds of things Ross, Mac, Tilllie, etc. touted as moving away from, in the name of greater naturalness.

I too, would love to see TePauls data, but I can believe it.  I power raked bunkers when I was a college student, and I distinctly recall a slow moving tortois passing me as I went from bunker to bunker.  That extra hand raking time could be made up by going from bunker to bunker in a faster vehicle.

However, it has been "conventional wisdom" that power raking is faster.  And, the superintendent is on site during construction, and he typically looks out for that kind of thing - easy maintenance, while the contractor would argue that using dozers rather than backhoes is faster, and thus cheaper.  If a golf committee was on site as well, I wonder how many would stomp their feet for trench bunkers over something more in scale with modern greens, and as Tom D notes, something more aesthetic.  Not many, I'll bet.

I know a lot of golfers who would object on the basis of aesthetics and difficulty of these.  For that matter, I know golfers who object to cape and bay bunkers, thinking that Maxwell clamshell bunkers are "fairer."  Why?  First is the prevalent belief that bunkers ought to be escapable as easily as elsewhere, with a direct line to the flag, and second, because simple shapes are more likely to treat shots just a few feet apart equally, while steep slope, jagged edges, keyhole lobes, etc. may treat similar shots differently.

Not that I have ever seen it happen in my 35 years of golf!

Nonetheless, they are neat features, but so few golfers really care about the history or minutia of different playability that I question how many projects would really benefit from them being used in wholesale fashion.....

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

There's a post above where the poster mentions golfers start out at 6am at his course. I doubt it would be possible to do the bunkers at a course like that without a machine. At my course we'll never do any more than 15,000 rounds a year and nobody starts before 8am, so hand raking doesn't need to race to stay ahead.

I couldn't agree more about form following construction techniques and equipment, particularly in the old days. It'd probably be a very contentious subject to discuss on this website because the strategic ramifications of some of these older designers are analyzed and glorified so intensely on here but it sure wouldn't surprise me if many of them didn't say; "I need X amount of dirt right here so dig me X kind of bunker right there to get it!  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I have stated this before, but when studying dozens of Ross plan sets in the Tufts archives, I saw the note "Dig swale in front of green to raise back" often, but never saw a note saying "Create visual deception with valley in front of green" or "Create narrow bunker that strikes fear into any player who has been in it at least once, because they know there is no room for a backswing" etc.  

It was all about economy of construction, a trait this site values today.  But, you are right, some here tend to overthink the amount of overthinking the Golden Age guys put in their designs!

[Neil Regan]

A Skinny Bunker on a classic old course.
Does anybody recognize this?

[TEPaul]

"It was all about economy of construction, a trait this site values today.  But, you are right, some here tend to overthink the amount of overthinking the Golden Age guys put in their designs!"

JeffB:

Like your experience reading some of Ross's construction notes I've never seen an architect talk about strategic or playability ramifications in those construction notes except a few times by Ross at my course and Hugh Alision at PVGC--but there's a difference. In those latter two examples they were in the process of fixing something that was already built and in both cases after about 5-10 years.

[paul cowley]

jeff and tom ....i agree and just wanted to say me too! and i hope you are both having an enjoyable morning  

how about that last bunker picture posted....whoa!
someone tell us where it is please............and oh ,have a nice day ! !

[T_MacWood]

As to Neil's picture, my guess would be Walton Heath.

[TEPaul]

Neil:

A bunker like that is "iffy" solely in an architectural context which has virtually nothing to do with the "playability" of the sand surface itself. This to me, is a very good thing in a bunker feature. Why or why not one's ball may run into a problem in recovery has basically no real rhyme or reason---as it should be with an architectural feature such as a bunker. Basically, it's nothing more than luck---something many seem to want to remove from golf and archtiecture today.

[Yancey_Beamer]

Robert Trent Jones first course, Midvale G&CC(1931)Penfield, New York features trench bunkers at most greens.This course was built when RTJ was is partnership with Stanley Thompson.Tom Paul is certainly correct on the play of these bunkers.

[Neil Regan]

Yes, it is Walton Heath, which has plenty of skinny spots, often unexpected or random.

[DMoriarty]

However, your statement seemingly assumes that narrow bunkers are the "be all, end all" of golf design, just because someone brought it up on golf club atlas.....

The end all, be all?  My statement assumes no such thing.

As for posting just because someone brought up trench bunkers on golf club atlas, guilty as charged.  You see I've no opinion of my own, so I follow Mike Hendren around the site and parrot whatever he says (I could do much worse.)  Never mind my personal preferences . . . and that almost every hole on my home course has bunkers (including many trench bunkers) which are contrary to your description.

To the degree that construction and maintenance cost are/were believed to be less with bigger bunkers, then to a degree, they are looking out for the golfer by making golf more affordable, no?

Not necessarily.  Seems like it would depend upon whether the greens fee savings (if any) justified the difference in the quality and enjoyability of the course (if any.)

Probably the only reason trench bunkers were ever built was because they required less earthmoving, or the horse and scoop was just that wide, etc.  I doubt that they gave any real thought to the playability of narrower bunkers - things were simply smaller in scale in the old days.  In fact, utilitarian shapeless and geometric bunkering were the kinds of things Ross, Mac, Tilllie, etc. touted as moving away from, in the name of greater naturalness.

What makes you think this is probably so?  Don't many of the old trench bunkers varied significantly in width and depth?  And if so, wouldn't this undercut your presumption?

Also, moving toward naturalness has nothing to do with whether the older designers considered playability.   To the contrary, I seem to recall that the above mentioned designers criticized these older designers because they (among other things) built bunkers with the specific intention of penalizing the duffer.  

However, it has been "conventional wisdom" that power raking is faster.  And, the superintendent is on site during construction, and he typically looks out for that kind of thing - easy maintenance, while the contractor would argue that using dozers rather than backhoes is faster, and thus cheaper.

This depends upon quite a few different factors, doesnt it?  For example,  which do you think would be cheaper . . . trench bunkers built with the designer running the backhoe,  or the same number of larger dozed bunkers built to spec by a subcontracting construction company?  

If a golf committee was on site as well, I wonder how many would stomp their feet for trench bunkers over something more in scale with modern greens, and as Tom D notes, something more aesthetic.  Not many, I'll bet.

I know a lot of golfers who would object on the basis of aesthetics and difficulty of these.  For that matter, I know golfers who object to cape and bay bunkers, thinking that Maxwell clamshell bunkers are "fairer."  Why?  First is the prevalent belief that bunkers ought to be escapable as easily as elsewhere, with a direct line to the flag, and second, because simple shapes are more likely to treat shots just a few feet apart equally, while steep slope, jagged edges, keyhole lobes, etc. may treat similar shots differently.

Not that I have ever seen it happen in my 35 years of golf!

Nonetheless, they are neat features, but so few golfers really care about the history or minutia of different playability that I question how many projects would really benefit from them being used in wholesale fashion.....

See now I always thought that the designers were the design experts, rather than the golf committees and the golfers.  Of course then the designers would be leading instead of following, and we can't have that.  Tell me, do you really think golfers are capable of pinpointing the specific features that improve or degrade their golfing experience?  

Also, in your 35 years experience, has anyone ever suggested that one could machine rake these bunkers without turning around?  In one end and out the other?

[DMoriarty]

I saw the note "Dig swale in front of green to raise back" often, but never saw a note saying "Create visual deception with valley in front of green" or "Create narrow bunker that strikes fear into any player who has been in it at least once, because they know there is no room for a backswing" etc.

TEPaul and Jeff Brauer:

Aren't construction notes for the builder?   If so, then dig swale in front to raise back tells the builder all he needs to know.  I doubt the designer would bother to explain his reasoning to the builder.  

If it was "all about economy construction" then why would  the designer bother to raise the back of the green?   And why the back of the green?  And why bother to build the swale in front of the green?

[TEPaul]

DavidM:

You must realize there very well may be golf architects who build some things primarily for structural reasons---eg drainage providing structural integrety as well as the efficient dispersion of water that otherwise would not be conducive to golf or agronomy. How well they also imagine and conceive that those creations may produce interest, challenge etc to the performance of a golf ball on those structures and for the golfer to imagine those performances is a slightly different matter however.

Why did (do) so many architects tilt a green from back to front at the oncoming golfer? Isn't it obvious? It provides a structure for a golfer's incoming golf ball to slow down and stop, it creates visibility of target and putting surface and it's apt to sheet drain water off the green. Where to, by the way? Right to the front of the approach in many cases! Are those always good things to do?

Is that the way all the old natural landforms greens of a course such as TOC was before man laid his architectural and construction hands on it? Is that the way of nature?

In my opinion, some architects conceive how their designs will work for golf, the golfer and his golf ball better than others who might just be more into construction methods. It's probably no accident, despite a few mistakes, that an amateur such as George Crump constantly shot tested to get something built that was just as he wanted it to perform in play while other architects just pass off a plan to a builder without analyzing to the same extent the interesting ways a golf ball might perform on what he's built!

Are you perhaps under the impression that all golf architects produce the same results or even similiar results simply because their designs plan pass from their hands to some builder?

Every time I go out on a site I see architects and construction people dealing with problems of all kinds. Some deal with them better than others---particularly when it comes to what the golf ball can and will ultimately do!    

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

So many questions!  Too start with, yes, construction notes are targeted for the builder, and there is the theory that you don't bother telling them anything other than what they need to know for construction.

I have also, though, seen some Ross field notes for Franklin HIlls in Detroit.  In those, Ross noted things like "move 2 green west to create more fill" and "Lower 3 green for vision" etc. In other words, the same kinds of things I often note!  Overall, I feel that if Ross had some real key elements that had to be "just so" to make his strategy work, he would have noted them.  That would include, IHMO, "bunker no wider than 5 feet."  But, those notes just aren't there.

As to whether a bunker would be cheaper by in house gca construction, or by a contractor, I have to vote for the contractor.  Thats because my type of guy has the inclination to build over and over again, to get it just right, perhaps excessively so, while contractors know how to get it done in a hurry, and cheaper, even after profit and overhead.

I have built courses both ways, and the cost has varied from 15% below bid prices to 15% and more above.  Building in house is not necessarily a bargin by my experience.

Regarding design input, projects vary widely. At the Quarry, for instance, it was a unique site, and they trusted me to do something different, since I had worked with them before.  On a moderate fee muni, the balance of aesthetics - maintenance - playability shifts towards the first two elements substantially, for the reasons I mentioned.  In other words, not all courses have the exaxt design goals.  I was primarily thinking of the muni types when making those comments.  The number of courses designed to be "classics" is quite small, actually, even if we like discussing those here.

Lastly, where I raked bunkers, the super preferred that I enter and exit in only one place, to limit the damage and little sand piles inevitably caused at exit points.  If there were just a few trench bunkers on a course, most supers could live with a double exit as you suggest.  

As to your "It depends" answer to cost, yes, I guess it does.  That is why I suggested that "to the degree it is true...." because the situation varies with a lot of factors from course to course.

Hope that answers your questions.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Of course many features on golf courses have important structural components.   But in my limited experience it seems that excellent designers and builders manage to integrate the "structural integrity" with such issues as playability, strategy, and aesthetics.  

Tom, tilting the green from back to front has definite playability, aesthetic, strategic, and drainage implications.   Any designer who isnt considering this whole picture is not doing his best work.  

I dont know much about TOC before/after designers started messing with it.  Others might.   I'd be willing to guess that at one point many of the greens at TOC were played as is.   But then the choice of location has structural, aesthetic, playability, strategic, etc implications.


Jeff Brauer,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my many questions.  I do appreciate you humoring me.

In all the construction notes mentioned in this post and your previous one, there are elements of playability, infrastructure, strategic design, infrastructure, etc.  I think
TEPaul may have made an excellent point about Ross's notes-- perhaps he provided a higher degree of detail for changes.   It is easy to imagine reasons why this might be the case (for example, if a greens committee had to sign off on these types of notes.)

I wonder if other designers would agree that using a contractor is cheaper?  

I dont understand why designers would put aesthetics above playability on a public course.  Also, as I suggested in my previous thread, perhaps architects need to step away from "conventional wisdom" when considering how they balance maintenance with playability.

Your old boss's preference for a single egress point might make sense with a roundish bunker, but it seems a bit ridiculous with regard a trench bunker.   Perhaps he was stuck in the mud of convention.

Thanks again for taking the time to provide a detailed response.    

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm not humoring you....just answering questions.  I have always participated here on the premise that others would appreciate a "real world" view, whether or not it is popular here.

Certainly, the discussions on this site have spurred some changes in conventional wisdom, at least to a small degree.  Perhaps things will keep changing, hopefully for the better.  However, since cost containment is an issue now, and for the foreseeable future, compared to the heyday of the 90's, I suspect maintenance concerns will take on greater emphasis in design now, much like they did in the 50-70's.

As to public courses, maintenance is probably higher on the list than aesthetics, as in bunkers shaped simply enough to mow outside and rake inside without hand work.  And high play limits other things we do, as well.

I am sure that gca's with inhouse construction teams tout their cost savings and better products.  You'll never get a final answer on that one.

[DMoriarty]

However, since cost containment is an issue now, and for the foreseeable future, compared to the heyday of the 90's, I suspect maintenance concerns will take on greater emphasis in design now, much like they did in the 50-70's.

As to public courses, maintenance is probably higher on the list than aesthetics, as in bunkers shaped simply enough to mow outside and rake inside without hand work.  And high play limits other things we do, as well.

I am all for cost containment, especially when reflected in the green fee, but I have my doubts about how those following conventional wisdom will go about controlling costs.   If the trench bunker example is typical of the way conventional wisdom treats costs, then perhaps designers ought to scrap the conventional wisdom all together and rethink everything.  

One of my main concerns is with the assumption that containing costs decreases quality.  (You haven't directly said this, but it seems to be "the conventional wisdom.")

[Jeff_Brauer]

If you beleive that a well placed bunker, whether a Maxwell clamshell, MacKenzie cape and bay, or a trench, etc. is equally effective in strategy no matter what the style, then no.  

If you think a style - trench , cape and bay, or stacked sod, are the definition of quality, then, to a degree, yes.

Conventional Wisdom does limit options somewhat, given the design program for a particular course.  As mentioned, a city commissioning a new course, and on a skinny proforma would probably opt against skinny bunkers, in my experience. (I'll find out, cause I'm trying them out on my current design......)

Again, trench bunkers have fallen out of favor design wise, as evidenced by the premise of this thread, and I have given an opinion as to why, based on my experiences.  Perhaps there is no other reason than the conventional wisdom, current fashion (cape and bay look better to most eyes) and not really thinking about it.

I can't really say that anyone could point to one trench bunker and say "this took $0.25 off the cost of your round of golf. As some of the supers note, money saved is not usually taken out of the budget, it is simply placed into maintaining some other priority.

Net, Net, there is probably nothing stopping a designer from using them, if so inclined.

[Dan Herrmann]

Does anybody have finer skinny bunkers than those that lurk in the pines at Pine Valley?  I saw several players in the Philly Open get into them and have a lot of trouble getting out.

Imagine that - bunkers actually serving as harzards!

[Jason Mandel]

I noticed a pretty good skinny bunker behind the 15th hole at French Creek.

Jason

[mikes1160]

Plenty of fine "skinny" bunkers at Chicago Golf Club.

By the by, what is the proper term: "skinny" bunker or  "finger" bunker?

[TEPaul]

Mikey;

Call them whatever you want to call them---who knows the name you give them might stick! Sometimes I call some of them "river" bunkers. Did you notice how that mindless wonder, redanman, called the bunker to the high left of PVGC's 10th hole "The Devil's Wife's vagina". Wait 'til PV hears that one since redanman just made it up!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mikes1160

I've heard of them refered to as:
Trench bunkers
Coffin bunkers

I've heard the term "finger bunker" used when mulitiple formations exist.

[TEPaul]

Pat, you forgot to tell mikes1160 that you heard all those terms for bunkers from me first. Is there anything you know about golf architecture you didn't learn from me? I don't think so!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Let me sleep on that thought ...... like Rip Van Winkle