Why do we see so little variation in bunkers?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Bunkers originated as natural sandy "blow-outs" or naturally occurring sandy patches or hollows.

Over time, the bunker has become its own entity; an abstraction of it's natural origins. Some architects endeavor to recreate the natural type of sandy blow-out, but the vast majority of golf courses have either the sod wall pot bunkers, or the smooth-sided amoeba-shaped type so prevalent in North America.

Why so little variation? Neither the amoeba-type bunker nor the pot bunker are the least bit natural in appearance, yet they are recreated over and over and over.

Here you have the opportunity to create an expansive area of glaring white sand in the middle of a great garden of perfect green grass, which many people may find themselves standing within, cursing the gods, a little white ball and everything in between - and so often, these bunkers are uninspired blob-shaped things which are based upon the long line of uninspired shapes which have come before them.

What's the deal?

Once in a while, you discover a bunker with a striking form, and it's such an unexpected pleasure - like the big bunker in the fairway at ANGC's 10th - Not outrageous in shape, but just enough creativity to give the hazard a memorable character. There are others - the church pews also comes to mind.

I understand that there are maintenance considerations, but surely one could stay well within them and still create an unlimited series of bunkers with real character.

To me, this seems like an area where architects could easily make some exciting and interesting new creations...

So why don't they?

[Paul Richards]

Adam

It's called the "Fazioization" of modern bunkering.

 

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. There're definitely all kinds of different looking bunker shapes and styles on golf courses all over this world. Bunkers are probably an architectural feature in golf that's any architect's primary artistic expression. Are many of them actually natural looking in the sense of the original natural bunker feature of the linksland that at first was not man-made? Of course not. Real naturalism in golf architecture in this way became nothing more than a distant representation but naturalism in bunkering sure is making a comeback. One can't look at Hanse, Doak, C&C, DeVries et al bunkers and not admit that.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam:

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. There're definitely all kinds of different looking bunker shapes and styles on golf courses all over this world. Bunkers are probably an architectural feature in golf that's any architect's primary artistic expression. Are many of them actually natural looking in the sense of the original natural bunker feature of the linksland that at first was not man-made? Of course not. Real naturalism in golf architecture in this way became nothing more than a distant representation but naturalism in bunkering sure is making a comeback. One can't look at Hanse, Doak, C&C, DeVries et al bunkers and not admit that.

Tom, I know that bunkers are not often made to look natural, and that's fine - my point is that, with bunkers becoming an abstract art of their own - why don't we see more variation. I'm sure that there is variation - and I agree that bunkers SHOULD be "any architect's primary artistic expression", but I think it's only the minority that really takes advantage of this avenue.

I feel that most of the golf courses out there have an awful lot of uninspired bunker shapes. I'm not talking about those of the leading architects - or of the "minimalist"/"naturalist schools - but the average golf course - the vast majority.

On most golf courses I've been to, you'd be lucky to find one striking bunker per course.

[Mike_Cirba]

I believe that maintenance considerations have prevented "full expression" from taking place.  Many former wild, abstract, and irregular bunkers have been smoothed and rounded, and shrunken over time.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

One reason bunkers may devolve in look to a somewhat generic look could have a good deal to do with general maintenance practices over time and the other reason could be their playability. As is going on at my own club right now some members are up in arms because balls sometimes hold in the grass faces and such. Those who are up in arms are claiming that the faces of our bunkers should release the ball into the flat area of all our bunkers every time. Not only that but they're now actually defending this position by pointing to a remark Ross once made basically saying precisely that. This is just another good reason that we all should not believe verbatim everything that even a man like Ross said. And we surely should not listen to some on here who say or imply that if we even question some of the remarks of a man like Ross we're showing real disrepect to an Icon and real arrogance because of it. There's no question even a great architect like Ross said things that were sometimes contradictory to the things he actually did. Why was that? Like anyone else he probably just said some things that were convenient to certain situations and not others. Ross said he did not believe an architect should build greens where the surfaces could not be seen from the approach shot. One wonders why the hell he designed and built so many of them then!   Perhaps it has to do with another Ross apparent remark that every prinicple in architecture can and perhaps should be broken every now and again.

It appears the modern mentality that there should be some kind of standardization in the play and lie in and around bunkering is probably another good reason a certain sameness seems to continue to increase in bunkering, even in the look of them.

I'm not exactly an advocate that all bunkers should inevitably penalize players, but I am an advocate of a certain randomness in bunkering playability-wise---a certain iffiness, if you will, that can span the spectrum from an excellent lie to a most unusual and unfortunate one. Only then, when one is never sure what to expect, do I think more people will begin to pay attention to what they're there for in the first place in golf and archiecture which is to a large extent to set the strategic ramifications of the golf course.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Tom and Mike have both mentioned the idea of a certain "standardization" in bunkers resulting from maintenance requirements.

What might some of these requirements be? If we were to create a set of 'guidelines' or parameters for bunkers design, what might this set of guidelines include?

Tom I agree with you point about the 'iffiness' of a bunker - an unknown and a reason for doubt. There are way too many bunkers out there that are "happy places" compared to surrounding rough.