Do we discuss bunker appearance too much?

[Peter_Collins]

If all courses had MacKenzie bunkers, Maxwell rolls, one Redan and a Biarritz, would anyone care about golf course architecture?  

[Forrest Richardson]

Gary — Do Mackenzie's intricate shapes promote strategy alone (I don't think so), or was he also showing off?

To that question, I have no way of knowing. I think MacKenzie felt strongly about all aspects...but I think the magic of his designs are the placement and hole layout relative to hazards...not primarily the aesthetics and pizzaz of the bunkers.

To your other question — I agree, all aspects are important...but I side with the majority in that placement/position is paramount.

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes, we do.

In a perfect golf universe, they should all look just like this, even if the architect was showing off his artistic side a bit.  




How could anyone possibly want more?  

My, what greedy Gusses we are.  

[Gary Daughters]

Forrest..

Thanks much.  I appreciate your answer.

Peter ..

The examples you cite all would be worthy of emulation, and certainly that does happen because they are distinctive.  

I'm arguing against uniformity and in favor of invention, which is why those examples stick out.  

[Gary Daughters]

Mike,

Spare us the straw men.

[Tom_Doak]

Dan:

When I am reviewing the bunker shaping at one of our projects, partly I am editing the shaping by eye:

1. Is it too jaggedy or too straight-edged?

2. Is it a little too big or too small for the scale of the golf hole in question?

3. Should the bunker be moved a little to the left or right, either for strategy or for esthetic reasons (mostly, how it lines up or overlaps with the other bunkers, and how that impacts the golfer's "feel" of the target zone)?  Placement is an important part of esthetics, so Forrest's three categories have a fair amount of overlap.

But there are other considerations, which didn't make Forrest's list, which are probably where I have more to say:

4.  Playing value:  how difficult is the recovery shot going to be?  Should the bunker be narrower or wider or shallower or steeper or less concave, to make the recovery shot harder or easier?

5.  Maintainability:  how is the drainage working around the bunker, and/or is wind erosion going to be a real problem for this bunker?

6.  Visibility:  can you see the bunker at the spots from which the golfer is likely to hit into it?  If not, can it be made visible without a major change, and is it really worth having?  (I could justify a blind bunker on occasion but only if it really adds a lot to the golf hole.)

7.  The one I don't ask enough:  is a bunker really adding something in this location, or would the ground contours on that spot serve the same purpose without forcing the average player to make a recovery shot?

[Gary Daughters]

Tom D.,

This is something I have wondered about.  Should the golfer assume that a certain bunker indicates the proper line of play?  Because the architect has set up a risk/reward equation?

I've been told that before, but then different architects think and design in different ways.

Bunkers seem to fulfill a variety of functions, right?  Some are strategic, some are aesthetic, some are...?

Can you take that one on?

[Tom_Doak]

Gary:

A golfer shouldn't assume anything about where a bunker is placed.  He should figure it out for himself and for his own game.

Look no further than the tenth hole at Riviera.  There's that big bunker to carry off the tee, and its shape and elevations have a lot to do with luring people to the right, toward the green, where they find out they have no second shot at all.  But the big bunker off the tee isn't really much in play for good players; it's easily carried and it probably was so even in Thomas's day.

I am always trying to find different reasons to put a bunker somewhere.  I don't have a list of functions but if I did an audit of all the bunkers we've done, the list of reasons would be pretty long.

[Dan Kelly]

Thank you, Tom Doak.

Another question: Do you ask "How GOOD a player is likely to get into this bunker?" And, if so, do you then make a bunker more or less punishing based on your answer to the first question?

Without having thought this through, it has struck me on occasion that good players would almost never get into various bunkers -- which, if I'm right, I would do without if I were designing the hole.

[Gary Daughters]

Tom,

I would LOVE/kill to see that list.  I'm just trying to get at what you guys are thinking.  

Also, when you say that a bunker, such as the one at Riviera "lures" a golfer, what does that mean?  Does a golfer assume a risk/reward situation, or is there something intrinsic about hazards that just makes us hit there?

And thanks for your previous answer.

[Tim Taylor]

The simple answer to this question is, of course, YES. But then again, do the guys over at Bomb Squad discuss the latest tour issue clubs too much? Do the guys at UUC (a BMW enthusiast board) discuss which engine chip extracts more power from an pre-OBD II E36 M3 engine too much? YES and YES.

It's all good.

TimT

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Spare us the straw men.

Gary,

I think you're missing my point.

My point is simply that whether we like it or not, appearances of bunkers DO MATTER.  

Sure, location and strategic value are important, very much so.  But, I've seen things that range from looking like a mud-filled, rectangular kitty-litter box about 4x6 feet to the garish monstrosity pictured above and I think it would be foolish to discount the fact that golf is as much a visual game as it is a physical one.

[Gary Daughters]

Mike,

I did miss your point.  Sorry.  We are in agreement on that.

[Darren_Kilfara]

As I posted recently in another thread, Woodhall Spa is to me a perfect example of a course which to me is highly rated largely on account of its unique bunkers - a uniqueness which has at least as much to do with appearance as it does with how they play, IMHO. I know what types of bunkers look good to me and what types don't, and bunker appearance is an important element to my enjoyment of a course, but ultimately we're talking about aesthetics. I'm sure there are regular contributors to this website who mock people for liking a course like Old Head for aesthetic reasons only, but would equally drool over a heathland or Sand Belt course with pretty bunkers even if the rest of the course is only so-so. In isolation, both views seem equally imbalanced, don't they? There's a place for aesthetics in discussing golf course architecture, of course, but let's not let good- or bad-looking bunkers completely cloud our judgments of a golf course, OK? (I have vague memories of 1,000-post threads regarding the bunkers at Merion...)

Cheers,
Darren

[Jason Topp]

I figured out the color thing .  So I'll go point for point on this one.

There is a lot of discussion on this site about appearance of bunkers.  While I have my preferences on that front, when playing the only thing I care about is how a bunker plays.


I'd agree.[/color]

With a decent greenside lie, there really isn't all that much difference between bunker types in most instances.

I'd disagree[/color]

 Really?  Unless it is an extreme pot bunker or an extremely high lip (like 10 feet), I find little difference in a bunker shot whether it is a grass faced bunker, a blowout, a flashed bunker or a bunker with no lip at all.  If I hit the shot well the result will be the same. [/color]


To me - contour on the greens, green surrounds and fairways is far more important in determining the quality of a course.


But, doesn't bunkering dictate strategy and play ?
And, aren't you there to PLAY the golf course ?[/color]

 The location of bunkers dictates strategy and play.  What they look like does not. [/color]


It's just harder to capture contours in photographs.
I don't know the relevance of photographs when it comes to playing a golf course[/color]

 Photographs are not relevant when playing a course, but they are very relevant to discussions on this site.  Much of the time, the only way I have grown to understand concepts discussed here is when someone shows me a picture of it.

 [/color]


Do we emphasize bunker look too much in these discussions?


I used to think so, but the participants on GCA.com seem to have learned a lot since my arrival [/color]

 All I ever read is that the quality of discussion has gone downhill.   [/color]

[Jason Topp]

NO!!!
 . . .
IMO, it is very hard for me enjoy a course when it is not visibly appealing, and bunkers are a very big part of the visual.

I appreciate the perspective even though I think I am developing a different view.

Your Augusta example is actually what got me thinking about this topic.  I had read the book that shows photographs of the bunkers originally designed and while watching the Masters, I was constantly irked that the bunkers did not look the same way Mackenzie designed them.  I think the change in look has little or no impact on how the course plays, but it makes it less visually appealing.  Before joining GCA.com I would have never noticed or cared about the shape of the bunkers at Augusta.  I'm not sure I really should.

Jordan - you should definitely get that book.  It really demonstrates how the modern changes are out of step with the original intent.  I can be convinced either way as to whether the course is better for tournament play, but as a members course and from an aesthetic standpoint, the original course looks much better.

[Jason Topp]

Jason Topp,

Forrest Richardson and Mark Fine have written an excellent book on bunkers named: "Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards"

I recommend it to everyone.

I definitely will get it, but have not yet.

[Forrest Richardson]

Eckstein — Publishers get nervous when entire contents are revealed apart from a book. Having said that, I test the water all the time by posting excerpts...probably too often and too much.

There really is not more to tell about the question we asked — as Tom. D. points out, there are lots of other bunker aspects that we did not ask about. As I recall the book has about 10 survey results, all in chart form. All of the questions are about hazards, bunkers and opinions thereof.

[Tom_Doak]

Gary D:

I have not made the list you want to see.  If I ever do, I'll send you a copy.  As for the bunker on the tenth at Riv, it angles away to the right, but the golfer senses on the tee that he can still carry it over there so he tries and does and then finds out that's not the right place to go.  The best angle to play at, for most people, is over a portion of the bunker which blinds the fairway on the other side.  It is subtle and clever and certainly not an accident.

Dan K:

Yes, absolutely we think about who is going to find certain bunkers, although you never can tell.

My first day of consulting at Garden City Golf Club many years ago, I was walking past a deep bunker on the left side of the fourth fairway, which is blind and marked by a flag so you can tell from the tee where it is.  It's also a long way from the tee -- I couldn't tell whether it was 250 or 300 yards on that day -- so I asked my caddie if anyone ever drove into the bunker, and he replied yes, fairly often.  With their tee shots on #5.  (Which is about 75 yards off line.)

Bill V:

What exactly is an "unmaintainable" bunker?  We sort of like it when our bunkers look naturalized, and when we have problems, it's usually because the management are trying to put a level of grooming on the bunkers which we had not intended.

[Mark_Fine]

To address the original question - We probably do spend too much time talking about bunker appearance but this is a topic that is very controversial at many golf clubs.  As such, it probably deserves the attention.  

For many courses the "appearance" of the bunkers is critical to the continuity of the design.  I recently explained to one club that in my opinion it would be a big mistake to finely manicure their bunkers as it is in part the bold and treacherous looking bunkers that truly carry this particular course to greatness.   The rugged “un-kept” appearance of the bunkers adds to the harmony and continuity of the design.  If those bunkers became finely manicured and were maintained with nail-clipper precision, the visual purity and integration with the native landscape would be lost.  

I recognize that “fairness” is usually at the heart of such a perceived need for change.  However, my belief is that the modern pursuit of fairness and equity has not necessarily been good for the game of golf.  As Forrest and I state in our book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards, a pastime that once had only two rules, golf has now evolved to where a typed booklet of over 150 pages is required to explain the game.  Ever since it was decided that “play it as it lies” and “the rub of the green” needed to be tweaked, the game seems to have suffered.  Far too much time, too much money, and too much attention is now directed toward making sure every good shot is rewarded and that perfect playing conditions leave no one with an “unfair” advantage.  This mindset has led to expensive maintenance practices and less creative and more sterile playing grounds.  Heaven forbid that two similar shots could potentially result in two distinct outcomes – one good and one bad.  That would just not be fair – or would it?  If all the uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes are conditioned away, what tests and challenges remain?  

Bunker maintenance as we all know on this site is often about personal preference.  But at the same time, if the integrity of a design hinges on a particular look and style, as I believe it does at many golf courses, it is important to cherish and maintain it in that manner.

Just my opinion!

[Mike_Cirba]

I recognize that “fairness” is usually at the heart of such a perceived need for change.  However, my belief is that the modern pursuit of fairness and equity has not necessarily been good for the game of golf.  As Forrest and I state in our book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards, a pastime that once had only two rules, golf has now evolved to where a typed booklet of over 150 pages is required to explain the game.  Ever since it was decided that “play it as it lies” and “the rub of the green” needed to be tweaked, the game seems to have suffered.  Far too much time, too much money, and too much attention is now directed toward making sure every good shot is rewarded and that perfect playing conditions leave no one with an “unfair” advantage.  This mindset has led to expensive maintenance practices and less creative and more sterile playing grounds.  Heaven forbid that two similar shots could potentially result in two distinct outcomes – one good and one bad.  That would just not be fair – or would it?  If all the uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes are conditioned away, what tests and challenges remain?  

Mark,

I just think your words bear repeating.

Nicely typed.  

Mike