Bunker location?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

GCGC has true cross bunkers on several holes, including # 9,
# 10, and # 15.

[ian]

Two questions:
Are they carry bunkers, with alternate routings?
Are they his, considering GCGC is a remodel?

Of note Pat, both Scranton CC and Stafford CC original drawings show an island approach to a few of the fairways on each course. While he used bunkers to locate this, he used long rough to create the look. He did use an extensive amount of carry bunkers on these and Lookout, Penn Hills, and Hollywood, I have not run into a true cross bunker.

Although Hollywood showed me that he was not predictable.

Ian

[Steve Lang]

From all I've read, and all I've played, I have to generally agree with Ross's view.  Its in the vien of it "if you build it , they will come..." maybe not often, maybe not by all , but who doesn't think twice when faced with looking over or hitting from within a bunker.  

Also, does a bunker have to have sand in it?

However, as for the suggestion of bunkers or trees in the middle of driving areas and blind bunkers, I draw the line on "liking" such features.  If I'm partying and wagering for fun its one thing, but isn't that a true risk-reward discussion, often needed for those who play a course over and over and desire some relief or variation, i.e., when travel to or opportunity to play other courses isn't so easy.  At TOC it was quite easy to stay away from all those named hazards and the gobbling gorse by playing left.  

I can accept topographic features on a course that affect roll-out of a ball after landing much better, because the next shot may not be as severely constrained by lie and bunker lips.

At our Oaks course, a "greens complex/bunkering/irrigation" remodeling a few years ago took out a third of the bunker area, eliminated allmost all fronting bunkers, many framing bunkers, and various pesky fairway bunkers, essentially neutering the course for Blue tee types like myself.  All the difficulty now lies in setting up/executing approach shots and being able to hit lag puts.  On the flip side, the "new" bunkering added to offset losses created more tee hazard for the Red and White tee folks, while opening up the front of greens .  And the guys that play from the back tees beat it up if they execute.

Democracy is good, but give me a benevolent dictator who wants to test all aspects of the game at every course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

There are no alternate routes.

Only John Daly types might attempt to carry them.

[ian]

Thanks Pat, now were they definately put there by Travis?

[TEPaul]

So we don't continue to both mindlessly glorify these old architects and also to condone without question every single thing they ever said, it should be pointed out that the ideas on bunkering of Walter Travis as opposed to say Max Behr are just about in total contradiction!

Travis said the purpose of bunkering was to punish the poor shot and Behr completely denied that! Matter of fact, Behr said the very idea of bunkering was NOT to punish the golfer!  He said the real purpose of bunkering was to inspire a golfer "to shoot the bones for the whole works."

Behr further said, "It is not for him (the architect) to inform him (the golfer) when he has played badly. That is the province of his professional."

[Eric Pevoto]

So Max Behr was a comedian too!  That's pretty good.

Ian,

In those drawings, what holes at CC of Scranton show "island" fairways?  I play there fairly frequently and have often wondered how much the bunkering has changed over the years.  Not much in the way of diagonals now.

[Tom Doak]

When I first saw it, all of the cross-bunkers at GCGC were pretty much exactly 300 yards off the tee.  (#10 might be a bit farther, but because the tee was moved.)  But, I think a lot of those cross-bunkers are Emmet's, predating Travis.  (I could be wrong, since I don't have an aerial of the course pre-Travis.)

Re:  bunkers in general, I think there are simply good natural places on rolling land to put bunkers (as Jeff B. said, into the upslopes).  It's up to the architect to locate the tees and greens to bring those good places into play.

I think the lack of variety of bunkering nowadays is a complication of multiple tees, more than budget restrictions.  With so many different teeing grounds, it's hard to place a bunker that isn't right in the landing area, so that it doesn't keep someone from hitting a driver, or force the forward-tee players to play an awkward line through the fairway.

By contrast, at The Valley Club, there are bunkers 150 yards off the tee which are designed for the average member, and they work because everyone is pretty much playing the same tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I think Tom Doak hit on the critical issue.
 
His observation with respect to the diminishment of quality/variety of bunker placement being the fault of multiple tees, I believe is correct.

Many courses have five and six seperate sets of tees providing numerous angles of attack at a multitude of distances.

It's almost a schitzephrenic approach to creating fairness or equity amongst golfers, implemented at the tee, at the expense of fairway bunkering.

Some are also guilty of assuming that golfers who play from the same tees, hit shots of mirrored consistency, in distance, shape and trajectory, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Eliminate gratuitous tees, then tackle the bunker location issue.

[Tom Doak]

"Eliminate gratuitous tees."

Can I use that?