Best Bunkerless Course

« **on:** January 20, 2006, 02:57:54 PM »

So what are some of the best bunkerless courses?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2006, 02:59:32 PM »

I like the River course on the Jones trail in Huntsville. A lot of people don't however I think because it has fairly tight fairways and landings.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:01:06 PM »

Royal Ashdown Forest is pretty strong.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:03:24 PM »

The best one (and only) I have done is Sundance in Texas

« **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:11:03 PM »

Lester,

Why not more? and why just the one?

It just seems to me that the only way to build and design a true natural course in the united states, would be a golf course without bunkers. For example, if you are building a golf course in Tennessee out in the countryside and introduce big sand pits to the area that is not natural. Sand pits are not a natural occurence in the grassy fields. This is just a thought and I was wondering why this idea is not carried out more in design

« **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:19:01 PM »

Many times, even in big countrysides like Tennesee, bunkers fit in to the course and make it look better. There is nothing wrong with natural courses, but some of the best natural courses, like say Pine Valley and Sand Hills all have plenty of bunkers. Ive heard people say PV is one big bunker.

Look at this review of Black Creek in Tennesee. The course looks completely natural (IMO), but the bunkering just adds to the course. There is a reason that many of the great and many of the better courses have bunkers. And it is not carried out in designs, because bunkers can provide so much towards the architecture of a course. They give you options. A tee shot with no fairway bunkers but a greenside bunker still has the bunker in front of the green dictating where to go. One bunker can make a huge difference for the architecture of a course!!

Oh, the Black Creek review:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/blackcreek.html

« **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:24:53 PM »

I completely understand. But what if golf had been invented in Tennessee. Would we have thought of sand pits?

I love Black Creek, but I do not believe the bunkers look natural. They look great though.

Bunkers are expensive to maintain and build. What if we could design and build great golf courses without bunkers. Think of how much money would be saved.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:29:06 PM »

Think of how much would be lost from the architecure.

ALWAYS take good architecture over good conditioning, which money usually buys!!

« **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:34:09 PM »

some of the best holes that I have played do not have bunkers. Why not make a golf course like that. If you can design one hole to be great without a bunker, then why not 18 holes.

It would be different, but again this would save $ and could possible lead towards better public golf.

« **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:36:56 PM »

Another one for taking Arcitecture over conditions. WHY always?

« **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:37:16 PM »

Name one course in the top 100 in the world without bunkers?

Now try top 200?

300?

400?

And public golf isnt necassarily good golf (though I dont deny there are good public courses, and a few great ones too). Thats why so many of the better courses are private.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:39:48 PM »

Quote from: Brian Noser on January 20, 2006, 03:36:56 PM

Another one for taking Arcitecture over conditions. WHY always?

How can a golf course be good without good architecture?? There is not a single golf course that is a great course because it has good 'conditioning', and not good architecture. Good architecture ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS will prevail over good conditions. ALWAYS.

« **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:41:51 PM »

Can you have a good golf hole without a bunker?

then why not 18 holes back to back..........

and could that then equal a great course!

if it was designed right!!!!

« **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:45:32 PM »

WOULD PINE VALLEY BE #1 IN THE RATINGS IF THE CONDITIONS SUCKED? this is discused in another post so I will not do it here again sorry to get off topic. But it is not always.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:47:48 PM »

It COULD happen, buts its never happened before.

So why should it happen now??

Why would it happen now??

And the course would have to like be in the Amazon Jungle to equal some of the great courses with bunkers. Doesnt sound probable, thats all Tucker. Doesnt sound fun either, bunkers add spice and interest to a course, besides architectural fun. Picture Pine Valley or Cypress Point without bunkers. Both are great natural locations, both better with the addition of bunkers (in Pine Valleys case the bunkers were already there)!!

« **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:50:53 PM »

I'm wondering how many bunkerless courses there are, at least that are any good? Royal Ashdown Forest is pretty famous, and I'd assume Forrest is right about Sundance, but if he knows only the one, well we're talking a pretty limited universe of possibilities here if one wants to know the "best."

In any case I think Tucker is on to something - why NOT try and do this? It would obviously be unique.

As for the architecture/conditions issue, I'll refer Jordan to the other thread about this going right now - go to "How much does the golf experience rest in the hands of design?".

I'm rather with Brian on this issue.

TH

« **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:51:52 PM »

if it could happen then whay not make it happen. who cares if it has not happened before!

I think we all have to try and think outside the box. That is where new ideas are formed. Memphis is surrounded by some terrible golf. Especially public golf. So I was thinking of ways to improve public golf courses. I believe there is a way to design a public golf course that has a interesting design and is cheap. The answer to this could be a golf course without bunkers?

« **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:53:52 PM »

I'm with you, Tucker.

Of course the design would have to be damn good to make this a success in the long run. In the short term the gimmick would be enough to fill the tee sheet. But in the long term, even if the price is right, I see trouble if the course lacks the interest and challenge that bunkers provide.

Interesting in that we have a muni course like this, in Milipitas, CA. Or at least it USED to be that way. It's called Spring Valley and for many years had no bunkers. I found it to be unique and cool and played there a lot, because it was different and because it was fun. But it didn't do all that well... The decision was made to put in some bunkers and everytime I go there now, there seems to be a new one. To me it's lots it's uniqueness and there's less reason to go. But it's also more popular than ever area-wide. It's an interesting test case, anyway.

TH

« **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:54:34 PM »

The argument here seems to be if a golf course can be of interesting architecture if it is bunkerless. I would think the answer is yes. There are ways to create a hole/course where there are various strategic options as well as various difficulity levels by using grass bunkers, push up greens, rolling features, etc.

It is hard to visualize because that is not the what we are accustomed to. Someone made the point that if golf was born in a hard soil area and not links land, we might be having the exact oposite discussion.

Just because there are no courses in the top 100 that are bunkerless does not mean that one could not be created.

« **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:54:59 PM »

what about building a course with BETTER bunkers, rather then no bunkers. Land is too valuable to just 'experiment' with a course. It would be a waste of land. Now if there was land that was already there, that didnt need any bunkers, not one, then maybe. But I dont know of ONE place on the earth where a course would be made better without bunkers. I strongly disagree, thats all Tucker. Nothing against you, but bunkers are a part of golf courses for a reason.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:55:09 PM »

thanks Tom.

UNIQUE!

That is what I am looking for.

Different!!

It can be done.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:56:50 PM »

Tucker - make it happen!

But see what I added while we crossed... there is at least this caution to note as an example....

TH

« **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:57:27 PM »

I give up because I have to go to class.

But I guarantee 100% that a course made with bunkers would be better then a course being 'experimented' without bunkers. Isnt it true, Tucker, that courses with bunkers have already been tested and experimented??

« **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2006, 04:00:25 PM »

Jordan - careful with the absolutes.

There are plenty of awful golf courses that have plenty of bunkers. I fully believe a bunkerless course could be built that not only is better than just one of these, but could even be considered "great."

It wouldn't be easy, that's for sure - it would take one hell of a lot of design genius.

But we have some damn talented people working today.

In the end it would also be a risk - selling the public wouldn't be easy - but heck, it sure does sound interesting.

TH

« **Reply #24 on:** January 20, 2006, 04:10:22 PM »

Thanks Mr. Huckaby, I was trying to write something similar for the last 10 minutes. You couldn't have put it better.

News:

Tucker Davis

Paul Payne

Robert_Walker

Lester George

Tucker Davis

Jordan Wall

Tucker Davis

Jordan Wall

Tucker Davis

Brian Noser

Jordan Wall

Jordan Wall

Tucker Davis

Brian Noser

Jordan Wall

Tom Huckaby

Tucker Davis

Tom Huckaby

Dave Bourgeois

Jordan Wall

Tucker Davis

Tom Huckaby

Jordan Wall

Tom Huckaby

Dave Bourgeois