[Patrick_Mucci]

Glorified in the UK, villified in the US.

Why is that ?

[CHrisB]

Perhaps depth trumps shape; a deep circular pot in the UK seems more interesting and would seem affect decision-making more than a shallow circular one in the US.

[Mark Brown]

Patrick,

I love the look of small roundish bunkers (or a group of them rather than one big bunkers. From a design standpoint, high-handicappers don't get in them as often, but they are positioned to mess with the mind of the good golfer, and that's great architecture -- like the Road Hole or San Francisco GC.

What I don't like in the U.S. is if they are made perfectly round (like Rees Jones') because they don't look natural. Maybe that why golfers don't like them here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Brown,

Do you think that those perfectly round, sod faced bunkers in the UK look natural ?

[Tony Ristola]

In the US they have an obvious machined look.  The circles tend to be larger.

[Carlyle Rood]

Royal Lytham and St. Annes, Hole 6



St. Andrews (Old), Hole 11




St. Andrews (New), Hole 4





Royal Birkdale, Hole 12

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I can't say that I've heard many people complaining about round bunkers but if it's so is it player hatred or the design side, i.e.,  the practical issues of trying to build a style of bunkering that has high maintenance and drainage issues, especially in heavier soils?

[wsmorrison]

The right fairway bunker beyond the scruffy mound at Pine Valley #11 is quite round.  It looks rather formal by comparison to the remaining bunkers and sandy waste area on the remainder of the hole and throughout the course.  Tom Paul has remarked that this hole was meant to be altered over time by Crump--I think the green was to be up the hill on the left, so maybe this was meant to be a temporary hazard.  

I just looked at a 1940 aerial of Pine Valley and the current circular bunker was part of a sandy waste area up the right side of the hole toward the green.  It was formalized sometime after this.

As to the round bunkers found throughout the UK, the effective size of those bunkers is much larger since extended surrounds feed the ball into the bunkers.  I love this design feature but fear it would not fly so well in the US with the overly fair mind-set that prevails.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

Some of those circular bunkers in the UK aren't large at all.

GCGC has a number of circular bunkers, mostly on the small side, but some are more expansive.  Some are invisible from the approach and only come into view as you get closer to them.  Most of them are deep

Yet, they seem to work well.

Is it the excessive depth that makes them attractive ?

Many, if not most of them require ladders to enter and exit.

Are only the shallow ones villified ?

Jim Kennedy,

I would think that soil conditions would have to be ideal in order to construct a deep circular bunker, which limits their use.

[wsmorrison]

"Some of those circular bunkers in the UK aren't large at all."

Yes, Pat.  Generally they are on the smallish side and deep.  But they are effectively much larger because the areas surrounding these bunkers feed the ball into the sand pit.

I think the revetted faces of the bunkers are attractive.  I really like the uncertainty of whether or not you succeed in avoiding the pits or suffer the consequences of catching the surrounds and feeding into the pit or flying into the pit either of which requires that you must pull off a difficult recovery shot.  I like the luck involved playing these courses, both good and bad.  However, the general American mind-set is not comfortable with this give and take.

[Mark Brown]

Patrick,
I think the depth and look of the stacked sod are appealing, but I agree with Wayne. The American mentality doesn't like quirky bounces and features. Everything must be fair - and that's not life. When they play across the pond they seem to change their mind set.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

Isn't that the genius of their design, their collective nature ?

The golfer experiences joy when successfully avoiding them and the gloom and doom when he finds them, adding to the emotional experience of the round.

So many times I hear whining about Rees's and Fazio's circular bunkers, but, what is wrong with them ?

It can't be their circular surface shape because we've already established that we love those circular shapes in the UK.

So, is it the depth, or lack of depth that people object to,

Or, as you point out, is it the nature of their surroundings, and the lack of the feeding feature ?

[Craig Disher]

Pat,
I think the rounded shapes that are so typical on UK courses, mainly links, work well because they mimic the results of natural forces on the ground. Their "gathering" nature also appears as a natural feature and actually helps make the bunker look well integrated into the golf hole. The circular bunker style works less well on the US courses partly because the gathering characteristic is often left out and the connection to nature is missing. Walk around a piece of farmland and I don't think you'll see any rounded 3'-deep pits.

There's clearly a marketing gain in adding a few pot bunkers and calling a course "Scottish style" or "The Links at xyz" but to me it's an affectation and probably doesn't add to the course's playing interest.

An anecdote to illustrate: at Fazio's Pinehurst #4, the 17th hole is peppered with small, circular bunkers. I think there are over 30, arranged in small clusters along the sides of the fairway. A long-time employee told me that when Fazio designed the hole, he wanted a few, large bunkers along the fairway - similar to what he designed on the rest of the course. The owners insisted that he break them up into small, circular ones, purely for the visual impact.

[Brian_Gracely]

So many times I hear whining about Rees's and Fazio's circular bunkers, but, what is wrong with them ?

So, is it the depth, or lack of depth that people object to,

Or, as you point out, is it the nature of their surroundings, and the lack of the feeding feature ?

What don't I like about them..?

Rarely are the bunkers in the UK laid out in a symmetric pattern.  From the tee, some appear in natural landing areas (ie. without wind), but others just appear randomly placed (2-40yds off normal lines of play).  If you're not building with the elements in mind, there becomes a tendency to place bunkers symmetrically.  

Round (or oval) bunkers in the UK look like they were built by a craftsman, not just a guy with a bulldozer.  In reality, both crews probably used 95% of the same techniques, but that last 5% makes 100% of the difference.  

The two biggest playing differences is the gathering effects of the surrounds, which essentially doubles the sizes of the bunkers, but also the combination of narrowness and depth.  Rarely in the US do you need to consider playing away from the target.  In the UK, this might happen 40-50% of the time.  So the shape becomes irrelevant....

[Mark Brown]

I agree. The ones in the U.S. are missing the fear factor that if you hit it in there is may mean disaster. They are deeper and often within the fairway.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Circular bunkers suck.

The best links in the UK do not [or at least did not used to] have circular pot bunkers as a rule.  The bunkers at Muirfield and St. Andrews were small or large, but rarely were they truly circular ... a lot were egg-shaped or had a flatter side, not to mention the many that are much longer than wide.  Also, they were careful not to make the sod walls too symmetrical:  the top line would follow the horizon line of the ground around it.

Of course, as with any golf course shaping project, there were a lot of clubs which tried to imitate the look but failed, making all of their bunkers round with symmetrical faces.  Sadly, some of the older clubs which had it right are now starting to lose their edge; when they rebuild their sod walls they lose track of the art while trying to make them deeper and more penal, like Carnoustie's.

Muirfield now has the best sod-wall bunkers on the planet, because they have failed to lose the art of making them.

[ForkaB]

I saw some world-class bunkers being revetted this October, and was surprised to see the new technology that is being used.  In the past (10-15 years ago), the revetting I observed largely involved building up a face with a set of turf "bricks", and then smoothing off the edges.

This year, the technique seem to involve laying a circular set of brickwork throughout the bunker, using concentric rings gradually tapering up to the face.  This would seem to give greater stability to the entire structure, but it also does have the effect of making the bunkers more circular.

Bunkers over here in Scotland have never had the "capes and bays" that are prevalent in many US designers' work, from golden age to the renaissance.  It makes them less striking visually, but, as others have said above, their intregration with the contours of their surroundings makes them play much more interestingly than most US bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich  Goodale,

Would you therefore conclude that looks have little to do with their function, and that function is more important then looks.

Isn't a bunker's integration with the play of the hole, the play of a shot, by far the most important quality any bunker can have ?

The DA at Pine Valley is circular, yet it functions quite well and is an intimidating force, owing to its reputation, location and configuration.

If balls feed into bunkers due to their surroundings, then so must rain/water.  If soil conditions aren't optimal, deep circular bunkers won't work.  In areas where the soil conditions aren't optimal, what's wrong with shallow, circular bunkers ?

[Tony Ristola]

Another reason they tend to fit and look better is they are cut into the ground.

[SPDB]

Pat - I think the american versions that are criticized are not integrated into the hole, like the ones featured in Carlyle's posts. A good example is the ones I previously cited, on Atlantic #1, they were flanking bunkers which have thankfully been removed.

Do you think those bunkers were well integrated (or integrated at all) into the hole?

Merry Christmas!

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Yes, they penalized a slice or a ball that rode the prevailing wind to excess.  Understanding the direction of the prevailing wind they made golfers, especially left to right golfers, think about the need to play to the far left, flirting visually and physcologically with the bunkers and terrain on the left.

Secondly, no bunker is misplaced.
Regardless of where a bunker is, or what it looks like, it is up to the golfer to avoid it, and that task is heightened when a prevailing wind will push a poorly struck or poorly thought shot in their direction.

The combination of mounds and pot or circular bunkers is also highly effective in dividing the line of play on parallel holes, which is the case at # 1 at Atlantic.  

GCGC has a similarly configured seperation on #'s 6 and 7.

[SPDB]

Pat - I don't know that you can attribute such a design intent to Rees Jones. My memory is foggy, but I believe the string of circular bunkers on #1 was about 375-400 from the tee, so they didn't really influence either the first or the second shots. Moreover, I wouldn't characterize the bunkers as separating parallel holes, since they separate fairways and tees.

Although I would never argue with any characterization of yours as it regards GCGCI also don't think that the bunker collection separating 6-7 is a collection (or string) of circular bunkers. Wasn't it developed from the nutmeg grater scheme?

I'd also agree that there is no such thing as a misplaced bunker (that is, unless an architect intended them to be someplace else), but you'd already be in jail if you missed the fairway right on AGC #1, so the saucers didn't really add anything additional to the strategy even if they were in play on either the first or second shots.

Evidently they are gone, which may in itself be a validation of their superfluousness.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

The nutmeg features were not the genesis for the mound and bunker complex between # 6 and # 7 at GCGC.

They were to the left of # 16 green and in other locations.

The combination mound-bunker complex between # 6 and # 7 is rather large in scale.

[ForkaB]

Rich  Goodale,

Would you therefore conclude that looks have little to do with their function, and that function is more important then looks.

Isn't a bunker's integration with the play of the hole, the play of a shot, by far the most important quality any bunker can have ?

The DA at Pine Valley is circular, yet it functions quite well and is an intimidating force, owing to its reputation, location and configuration.

If balls feed into bunkers due to their surroundings, then so must rain/water.  If soil conditions aren't optimal, deep circular bunkers won't work.  In areas where the soil conditions aren't optimal, what's wrong with shallow, circular bunkers ?

Thanks, Pat.

Of course I agree with your first two statement-questions, as they repeat what I said in my post (as well as many similar posts over the past 2 years).

Vis a vis drainage, the more operative word must be "deep" rather than "circular"--if you have a bunker designed to gather balls from a relatively large catchment area, it will also gather water, mostly regardless of its shape, no?

As for "shallow circular bunkers" I don't like them any more or less than shallow non-circular bunkers (i.e. not very much at all).  I do remember one SCB at Boulder Ridge in San Jose, and I thought it to be cute, even if annoying and superfluous--kinda like other people's children, at times......

[Forrest Richardson]

I find the discussions about shape interesting — but agree with a majority of architects, writers and other interested parties that shape is not where the focus of bunker discussion should lead.

In researching our book project on hazards, Mark Fine and I received the following results:

Most important aspect: Placement of a hazard
(78% of the respondents believe placement should be ranked 1st)

2nd: Shape and edging of a hazard

3rd: Aesthetics of a hazard

I attribute these results to the fact that — by nature and the eseence of golf — bunkers are SUPPOSED to change and mature. Theie shape, edging and aesthetics are but a moving picture, driven by seasons, wear-and-tear, the forces of nature and — not to be under appreciated — the forces of the hand of man to change and dictate their evolution.

Your thoughts?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()