What defines a good bunker?

[Mike_Young]

So often bunker are discussed on the site  as great bunker work and in most cases this means "blowouts, or bunkers with significant capes and irregular sand lines.  IMHO some of the best bunkers are flat sand bunkers.
I think bunkers are made up of technical stability, agronomicaly maintainable,  strategic placement(including site lines) and aesthetic compliment to the hole.  So often I see ,IMHO , bunkers discussed that are described as "great bunker work" when they only have the complicated aesthetic look of variuos capes and bays with flashed sand and a shaggy look.  
IMHO the talent in building bunkers is knowing when to build what where.

[Mike_Sweeney]

IMHO the talent in building bunkers is knowing when to build what where.

Mike,

Can't say I agree with you. Shinnecock (Flynn), National (MacD), Southampton (Raynor) and now Sebonack (Nicklaus & Doak) sit on contiguous land with 4 very different styles. Although Southampton may have been closer to National in the early years. It is a reflection of the architects and developers choices.

I know you think the Dead Guys get too much acclaim around here, but my issue is when you see a mixing of modern and historical bunkers on the same course. This will make many crazy here, but Yale, because of the topography that dominates that course, would still be a very good course with all Rulewich bunkers. My issue is when there was two styles on the same hole and hole to hole. Yale has gotten much much better due to Scott Ramsey the Super.

I don't think there is, nor should there be a definition of a good bunker. You just know it when you see it or are trying to get out of it.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO the talent in building bunkers is knowing when to build what where.

Mike,

Can't say I agree with you. Shinnecock (Flynn), National (MacD), Southampton (Raynor) and now Sebonack (Nicklaus & Doak) sit on contiguous land with 4 very different styles. Although Southampton may have been closer to National in the early years. It is a reflection of the architects and developers choices.

I know you think the Dead Guys get too much acclaim around here, but my issue is when you see a mixing of modern and historical bunkers on the same course. This will make many crazy here, but Yale, because of the topography that dominates that course, would still be a very good course with all Rulewich bunkers. My issue is when there was two styles on the same hole and hole to hole. Yale has gotten much much better due to Scott Ramsey the Super.

I don't think there is, nor should there be a definition of a good bunker. You just know it when you see it or are trying to get out of it.

Maybe you can't agree with me but I see nothing in your statement where i disagree.

[rgkeller]

A good bunker is one placed in a location where golf balls gather.

And built in a manner that frustrates the owner of any such golf ball.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Someone should write a book about this topic!  Then maybe you wouldn't have to ask this question  

[A_Clay_Man]

RGKeller- You write about results, Have you ever found a great bunker that affected the golfer most, pre-swing? I'm thinking about the only original Mackensie bunker remaining at Augusta. Also, I suppose I ask because I have seen many remarkable shots, out of sand, from the most unlikely of places.

[rgkeller]

The question was about good bunkers.

I agree that the presence of a great bunker can influence a player's swing.

I also agree that a bunker should permit some possibility of recovery, even if only to the most skilled or luckiest.

IMO there is much too much modern day energy and money spent on the attractiveness of bunkers.

[Gary Daughters]

Mike S:

"my issue is when you see a mixing of modern and historical bunkers on the same course."

I agree with this wholeheartedly, and would add that a consistent bunkering style is something that helps stitch a course together.  I wonder how much time is spent at the table drawing up specifications to accomplish a consistent yet individual look for a given course, and how that process is carried into the field.  Maybe Mike Young can explain.

rgkeller

"A good bunker is one placed in a location where golf balls gather.

And built in a manner that frustrates the owner of any such golf ball"

respectfully disagree.  i much prefer the mackenzie philosophy of placing hazards in a manner whereby they are eminently conquerable.  i'll take reward over frustration any day!

[redanman]

Above all else, a great bunker must have great placement.  Then you can write the book about aesthetics.

[Gary Daughters]

Denis Griffiths has some noteworthy bunker placement on his new course south of Atlanta, Crystal Lake.  He was quoted in an article as saying he was influenced by the time he spent in Scotland building St. Andrews Bay.

Many of his bunkers encroach on the fairway, which introduces risk/reward. Are we seeing more of that?  I would hope so.

Bunkers on the par-5's challenge all 3 shots.

Sometimes bunkers indicate the line of play;  in other cases the bunkering induces visual deception.

There is a par-4, #13, that has more sand in the fairway than grass.  There are at least 3 options off the tee, stretching from one side of the fairway to the other.  It's almost over the top, but very intriguing and very fun.

Throughout the course bunkers are used to encourage and reward aggressive play.  I'd like to see more of that.

[rgkeller]

>>respectfully disagree.  i much prefer the mackenzie philosophy of placing hazards in a manner whereby they are eminently conquerable.  i'll take reward over frustration any day!<<

You must then love the Doak, CC and Fazio bunkers that never come into play at all.

[Brent Hutto]

I think there are two questions. One could be stated "What is a Good Bunker" and the other "What is Good Bunkering". If you want "Good Bunkers" then you could do a lot worse than the more intricate MacKenzie or Doak stylings and I personally love the look and "naturalness" (an arguable construct) of the C&C bunkers at Cuscowilla. Well designed and elaborate bunkers can do more than just about any feature to turn a golf course into a beautiful work of art that makes for stunning photographs.

Now if you want to talk about "Good Bunkering" you're probably better off just building the more maintainable and servicable styles that Mike Young describes and spending your effort on putting them where they add to the strategic or testing nature of the course a la rgkeller's suggestions. A well-bunkered course is one in which every bunker is designed to influence the manner of play of some golfer or another. Maybe some fairway bunkers only affect long hitters and others only short hitters. Maybe a cunningly designed greenside bunker can influence the go/no-go decision on a Par 5 by threatening the long approach but offering no obstacle to a short-iron after a layup. But a bunker that is only in play for a badly-played or recovery shot is not "Good Bunkering" no matter how beautiful it may be IMO.

[EDIT] And although rgkeller will disagree, there's nothing wrong with a bunker to provide a bailout catchement to make an overwise extremely risky shot more attractive. I'm thinking of a green with water close behind in which a certain side of the green might be a sucker pin placement (due to the risk of rolling off the back of the green and into the drink) but a suitably forbidding bunker might offer a fraction less of a penalty and thereby induce smart players to undertake a mid-iron shot to a small target and try for birdie.

[Gary Daughters]

rg..

Quite the contrary.  See previous post on the Griffiths course.  Give me options and challenges that I can reasonably conquer.  Just don't steer my ball into the things or place them where I am liable to put my shot.  That makes no sense if the game is to be fun as opposed to frustrating.