No more bunkers...?

[Jordan Wall]

If the pros constantly get up and down from bunkers, and even have easy shots to the green from fairway bunkers, why not just make bunkers out of really long grass??

Bunkers are considered hazards, and if they do not play like one, why not put something in place for bunkers that serves as a hazard better then the sand?

[Eric Franzen]

In my humble opinion... Why not just design/construct bunkers with sand that play like hazards?

[Sean Leary]

Jordan,

You can't build a golf course for just pros.

[ChasLawler]

If the pros constantly get up and down from bunkers, and even have easy shots to the green from fairway bunkers, why not just make bunkers out of really long grass??

Why not just stop raking the bunker?

[Kirk Gill]

Is the reason just aesthetics?

Would using only grass bunkers take too much away from the architect's artistic palette?

And from a player's perspective, are grass bunkers as intimidating as sand, even if you are a good sand player?

And also, just as with increasing length, how can an architect design just for the pros when for the overwhelming majority of golfers will still find sand to be sufficiently hazardous, regardless of the raking, etc.?

[TEPaul]

".... why not put something in place for bunkers that serves as a hazard better then the sand?"

Jordan:

Even if you want to argue about it the truth is, and the answer to that question of yours is that perhaps 99% of golfers in this world and maybe 90% of the architects in this world do not think a golf course is really a golf course unless there are bunkers with sand in them---even if sand is not naturally occuring within a 100 miles of the course's site.

Sand bunkering is that odd architectural vestige from original golf in the Scottish linksland that just hung on after golf first migrated out of the linksland to other parts of the world and has hung on right on through the entire evolution of golf course architecture.

If one really thinks about it, it isn't actually necessary---as there're a number of hazard or obstacle features that could be used in its place and in its stead but at this point sand bunkering and golf courses seems to most everyone about as necessary as clothes are to human beings. If you think about clothes and human beings, clothes really aren't necessary either in many places but apparently at this point MAN thinks they're necessary, just as almost everyone thinks, at this point, that sand bunkers are necessary to golf and golf architecture.

[BCrosby]

What are the minimum features necessary for something to qualify as a golf course under the rules?

I thought it was just tees, greens and cups.

Is everything else just a matter of tradition?

A given piece of property might have terrain features you have to live with. Things like boundry lines (read, o.b.), or creeks or lakes or other things. But other than dealing with those things, is everything else basically what you want to make of it? Over and above the three minimal features required by the rules, is all the rest nothing more than what we think a golf course course ought to look like? Whatever that is.

It's an interesting way to think of the role of the architect. Or more precisely, what the role of an architect might be if he didn't have to answer to paying clients.

Bob  

[Craig Sweet]

Earlier this season our bunker sand was very dry. Nearly every ball hit into a bunker would become a fried egg...or whater the term is. The ball would just bury on the slopes and hit and splat on the flats of the bunkers. The golfers on my course really noticed and complained about how difficult the bunkers were.

This reminded me of the Open when Thomas Bjorn (I beleive) was in a green side bunker, and he essentially lost the tournament when he needed several shot to get out of the bunker.  The ABC commentator said the PGA tour pro's never see bunkers like this. The US tour bunkers are set up with little sand on the slopes to allow a shot to roll back down to the bottom of the bunker, rather than bury on the slopes.

Never the less....For the most part I'm not a big fan of bunkers, nor do I especially like water "hazards". Both are often man made, unnatural features, and to my way of thinking golf should be played over as natural a piece of land as possible. Whatever sand and water to be found should be naturally occuring.

[TEPaul]

Bobzee:

Although sand bunkering as an apparent necessity in golf and architecture is not logical, there's no question whatsoever, that sand bunkering serves a real purpose for golf course architects. Sand bunkering is perhaps their best "feature" device to create and set strategies and it is also perhaps their best "artistic" tool.

Of course, we will have all our architects on this website come on here and disagree with that in one way or another and for one reason or another. Let's just sit here with just a trace of an enigmatic or wry smile and listen to them without a word---because no matter what they say or how they sasy it---it's true.  

[Troy Alderson]

This is a great topic concerning laying out a golf course with the surroundings.  If the soil is not sand, then do nto build bunkers.  Use something else as the hazard.  Take Northwoods GC by MacKenzie in the redwoods.  The unigue trees are the hazard.  In central Oregon, we have lava outcroppings that can be used as a hazard.  Golf courses without bunkers can be strategically designed to create difficulty.  Grass bunkers are always a fun and interesting feature.  The Silloth on Solway GC has a hole with a grass bunker with a short cut bottom and tall cut sides.  I like it.

Troy

[JohnV]

After playing Oakmont today, I can assure you that it is possible to build bunkers that are true hazards.

Especially fairway bunkers.  I hit it into 3 fairway bunkers today and all I could do was wedge it down the fairway.  The greenside bunkers I hit it in were also very difficult.

Pros only get up and down from greenside bunkers around 50% of the time.

[Jordan Wall]

The thing is, for all you who say you cant build a course for the pros, you are missing that for 95% of all golfers rough is easier then sand, whether it is long or not.

So, would this really be a bad solution?

More testing for the pros yet easier for the average player?

Plus, as Tom said earlier, in most cases bunkers are not natural...

[Kevin_Reilly]

More testing for the pros yet easier for the average player?

Rough long enough to be "testing" for the pros is TC Chen time for average players.

[Eric Franzen]

The thing is, for all you who say you cant build a course for the pros, you are missing that for 95% of all golfers rough is easier then sand, whether it is long or not.

So, would this really be a bad solution?

More testing for the pros yet easier for the average player?

In some cases you would then remove important parts of the strategic challenge and simply take away the fun for most of us average Joe's out there.

[Eric Franzen]

This is a great topic concerning laying out a golf course with the surroundings.  If the soil is not sand, then do nto build bunkers.  Use something else as the hazard.  Take Northwoods GC by MacKenzie in the redwoods.  The unigue trees are the hazard.  In central Oregon, we have lava outcroppings that can be used as a hazard.  Golf courses without bunkers can be strategically designed to create difficulty.  Grass bunkers are always a fun and interesting feature.  The Silloth on Solway GC has a hole with a grass bunker with a short cut bottom and tall cut sides.  I like it.

Troy

Clive Clark used piles of rocks as hazards on some of the holes at Belgrade Lakes in Maine. As you can imagine, it certainly adds a random flavor to the punishment of a badly played shot.

Since it is a fairly new course the rocks looked a bit to polished for my personal liking. But I am sure that they will blend better with the surroundings after a decade or so.  

[Ryan Farrow]

Jordan, would you really want to play a course w/o bunkers?

[BCrosby]

TEP -

No doubt you are right. In the real world, you gotta have bunkers. But when you plumb the metaphysical depths, when you ask the basic ontological questions, there's nothing that compels their existence.

On the other hand, neither you nor I have to make our livings designing golf courses.

Bob  

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan,

It's an interesting thing to think about for sure. One of my favorite holes at Augusta is the bunkerless 14th.

But you may be putting the cart before the horse. Having a good bunkerless hole requires so great terrain, and often times, in lieu of bunkers the architect will overshape the terrain around the green to add supposed interest.

Regarding bunker difficulty, I can assure you that even for tour pros, they cause some pause. You must remember that what you see on TV are the highlights of bunker play and not the total picture.

[cary lichtenstein]

I hate to disagree with a few here, but bunkers are so important to a golf course that without them, it would be like a woman with a flat chest.

Tough to sell dresses, magazines, and memberships without them. How often would you want to play the course?

[TEPaul]

"I hate to disagree with a few here, but bunkers are so important to a golf course that without them, it would be like a woman with a flat chest."

cary;

Bad analogy! If you want a golf course to NOT look like a flat chested woman just forget about the bunkers and design some real topography into the fairways and such----you know, some big, round, firm fairways mounds your ball can roll around on.

Didn't you ever see George Thomas's famous "Mae West" hole? I'll guarantee you those things weren't bunkers.

"Beula, peel me a grape."
Mae West

[Mark Bourgeois]

What about giving bunkers a different consistency of "fill" from hole to hole? Would that make bunker play a more legitimate test of skill, or would it, like varied green speeds, just trick up the course?

Completely harebrained? What if you removed all the sand from bunkers for tournaments (hopefully no liner down there) and made the pros hit from deep "hardpan bunkers"?

[Jordan Wall]

Im not gonna lie, I really enjoy the look and feel of having bunkers on a course, whether for strategic purposes by punishing bad shots or just to look cool.

I just thought though, that it was an interesting concept to think about.

What about, not as many bunkers??

[Craig Sweet]

Mark...bunker maintinence requires money...additional duties, such as varying depth of sand, removing sand for tourney's(a very crazy idea) etc....would cost even more money....

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan,

Royal Ashdown Forest is routed through Royal Woodlands, therefore massive terraforming and introduction of foreign materials (read: sand) is prohibited. So it is a completely bunkerless course.

It is often lauded by our Anglican contingent as being worth a look.

[John Goodman]

Not just by the Anglican contingent - it is most definitely worth a look.  A number of the holes (5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17) range from very to extraordinarily good, in my view.   Though I was under the impression that there were no bunkers because an Act of Parliament allows for no excavation on the property.