Bunker location?

[Mark_Fine]

Since there is a lot of talk about bunkers I thought I would throw out the topic of bunker location.  Wasn't it Ross who said something like "there is no such thing as a mis-placed bunker"?  

While none may be mis-placed, some are obviously "better placed" than others but isn't bunker location a very subjective thing?  Don't bunkers have different meanings to the golfer who carries the ball 180 yards vs. the golfer who carries it 250!  Who is to say what is a well placed bunker?  

[A_Clay_Man]

Isn't that why they have seperate tees? Don't you think A player who carries it 180 shouldn't be playing the same tees as those that can fly it 250+? Now, the archie can't be blamed if the egoists wants to play the course from the wrong tees.

I guess that is what makes a diagonal carry so thrilling and strategic. It is up to the player and his/her sense of valor/discretion. I can site many examples of Pete Dye's use of the long bunker that comes into play from the tee. There just usually isn't too much room on the opposite side to make it that easy for the safer side. If i remember correctly Mackenzie's second at Cpc comes to mind but those are a string of bunkers which provide the same risk reward.

A bunker should have some tie in with the rest of the hole and I guess that is the biggest reason, that to add Shivas' pot bunkers on fifteen at Pebble would be inappropriate.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

When a guy like Ross said that no bunker is misplaced he may not have meant what we might think he meant, although it certainly might be possible that Ross might have been using hyperbole since he and others did sometimes say some bunkering was not good in its placement (or maybe formation and function)!

It occurs to me though that what Ross may have meant by that remark is something that so many of us may forget, and certainly many golf and green chairmen from the past may not have realized--since they removed so many of Ross's bunkers.

He may not have meant that any bunker is placed well (or not misplaced) for you and me but that it's probably placed well for someone--some level of golfer, in other words.

Bunkers like Ross's fore or topped shot bunkers may be the best case in point. Green chairmen may have rationalized that THEY never got in such a bunker and therefore it was not functional, not well placed, and had no real purpose in being there--and then they had it removed. That's, of course, a myopic and somewhat self-centered opinion as it assumes that everything in golf architecture is done solely with you or me in mind (or in this case the green chairman)!

Not so, and many of Ross's bunker placements may have been a result of his democratic inclination to design something for everyone. But many bunkers may have also come about simply for the sake of construction efficiency for other things like fill for greens or something else nearby!

There's another thing about bunker placement too that I think is interesting that was mentioned to me a year or so ago by Kye Goalby. He said he saw nothing really wrong with sometimes building bunkering in places on a golf course where they may never come into play for anyone!

Certainly some would call that misplaced or unnecessary or even eye candy but his point was that often bunkering is anything but inherently naturally occuring looking on many sites and if it was sprinkled randomly here and there around some sites it may at least appear to be more so because it would be "tied in" across the site somehow.

That's not really theoretical either! A few architects appear to have done that very thing on some of the courses built in the last few years!

One of Coore and Crenshaw's Boys on a walk through at Hidden Creek even recommended putting a bunker in one of the islands in the parking lot! He was joking of course but sometimes jokes become interesting realities in golf architecture!

That's one of the things I like best about some of these guys today, I, for one, really admire. You ask them certain questions and they look at you sometimes like; "Who cares, does everything have to have a meaning"? Most of the time they do give you some answer but you get the feeling it's as much to be polite as anything else!

But I guess the primary message when one thinks of bunker location is to never think only of yourself! And of course no matter where it might be everything is generally best when done with some type of moderation!

[Mark_Fine]

A_Clay_Man,
How often do you play as a foursome and all four players play from different or should I say "the appropriate tees"?  Most foursomes probably don't split up and the ability of the golfers is generally all over the map.  

Tom,
Nice overview!


I just think bunker location is a very subjective (AND VERY UNDERRATED) aspect of golf architecture.  I believe it is one of the biggest aspects grounds committees, etc. deal with all over the country when they consider "updating" their golf courses.  It impacts fairway widths, tee locations, green sizes, tree removal,...on and on.  I'm surprised we don't talk about it more.  We tend to focus on "the look" of bunkers much more so than their location.  
Mark

[Tom Doak]

This is a subject that has to be discussed one hole at a time, because there are simply so many different possible combinations.

Personally I'm not a big fan of a lot of diagonal bunkering.  Pete Dye himself told me that when you think you're testing everyone, at the same time you're letting most players get away with hedging on the safe side to be sure they don't find the bunker.  When Mr. Dye does use "diagonal" bunkers they are close to parallel with the fairway, so there's a fine line between aiming safe and missing to the far side rough.

[Neal_Meagher]

As Tom Paul and others have indicated here, what is really the purpose or role of bunkers in "traditional" places?

Ages ago, Ross and many, many others placed some bunkers in seemingly incongruous places as some still do today.  I, for one, have worked for a client who wanted only the bare minimum of bunkers and ONLY in places meant to challenge (read, made to think) the very good player.

I think this is sad.  Bunkers do so much more, as is the case of The Valley Club in Montecito.  Perhaps Tom Doak could address this as the renovated bunkering there is so pure in its return to MacKenzie's ideals.  If not for these "unexpected" bunkers, this course would not hold the same place in the world of golf design that it does in my opinion.

Adam Clayman argues that it is incumbent on the player to choose the correct set of tees in order to be properly challenged by fairway bunkers, for instance.  While I understand that reasoning, I can't agree with it because it is to assume that every player hits very consistent shots every time.  This is clearly not the case.  That is why it is so important for the unexpected to be expected in where bunkers lie.

Is this not why the Old Course is still so revered?

[Jeff_Brauer]

When I first started in the design biz, I recall being chastised for putting a bunker about 30 yards short of the green, which I saw on old courses (I am told that before irrigation these served as frontal bunkers) and thought looked good.  The late 70's prevailing wisdom was "they are out of play."  I still do them now that I am on my own, becuase I think they look fine!

As Neal says, cost is an issue, although I favor high production mowing (ie no mounds) and argue that those cost savings equal out the cost of more bunkers.  But where cost is an issue, I have a litmus test when deciding placement.

Bunkers can serve as hazards, targets, framing, safety features, or "save" bunkers.  I try to put a bunker where it can serve may functions rather than just one.  I also put them where they are easy to build (in a natural upslope) and clearly visible - the owner is paying for the sand, so why shouldn't we see it?  I also consider whether the bunker blocks circulation to a highly frequented area of play.

Every course is different, every hole is different, but on lower budget ones, I have less tendency to put bunkers in the 180 yard range, or 30 yards from the green, for cost reasons.

I think Ross was replying to the typical golfer who loudly complains about a certain bunker, soley because they got in it!

Mark probably was trying to take the discussion to a higher plane, but those are some practical considerations.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I'm shocked that this thread didn't get more attention.

You've asked an interesting question.

Let me see if I can stir the pot to encourage/enhance debate on an important architectural feature.

Are the number of bunkers being diminished due to their cost to build, and cost to maintain ?

Do multiple tees diminish the need for multiple bunkers ?

In order to be strategic, do bunkers have to be in a specific area, which some might deem as formulaic.  ie.  from the championship tee, what strategic impact would be created by a bunker 150 yards from that location.  But, at 250 yards, doesn't the strategic significance dramatically increase ?
Formulaic, or common sense ?

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

What do you mean when you say bunkers 30 yards short of the green served as "frontal" bunkers before irrigation?  What does the existence of irrigation have to do with these bunkers or their placement?

Ross designed several "frontal" bunkers at the Athens CC. I would guess he designed many on other courses as well.

The only purpose they seem to serve at the ACC is to break up wide, featureless up-slopes. They may have also served as sources for fill for the green pads.

I agree with you that they can be attractive, but on older courses they also are among the first bunkers to get filled.

BTW, I distinguish "frontal" bunkers from "foreshortening" bunkers that are also about 30 yards short of a green. I think of "foreshortening" bunkers as bunkers that obscure a player's view of the putting surface and, thus, his ability to gauge the true distance to the pin.

Bob  

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Brauer

I just read your post here and HAD to chime in.  Perhaps is it I who you are referring to in RE: asking you about a bunker 30 yards short of a green.  It is interesting to hear a little more thoughtful answer then what you told me back then.  

Of course I could be totally off the wall and trying to make a connection where there is not one.  No disrespect should that be the case.  You are one of my favorite guys.  

However, I must remind you of this instance.  It was in Davis, CA-Wildhorse.  You had come out to look at how things were coming along and I asked you about the location of a bunker 'about 30 yards in front of a green' and you told me it was for....sex appeal.  Whoa, I thought, I must be missing something here.  It was classic, I'll never forget.  Of course a bunker thirty yards short of a green is fine and dandy on a two or three shot hole, but this was about a 160 yd par 3!!  I love it.  Straight ahead, rock and roll designer, isn't that what you called yourself once?  Sex appeal, I'll never forget.  

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

Looking forward to seeing you next week at the Flynn Cup!  Tom and I have what I hope will be an interesting lecture for those that are interested.  We'll have a discussion on some of our findings to date, an exhibit of some drawings, and TPaul on the "maintainence meld."

From drawings, but even more so, from on-site visits, it is apparent that some of Flynn's crossbunkers that are 20 to 40 yards in front of the green have build-ups in the rear of them that create a perception that they are much closer to the green, in fact they seem to abut the greensites.  This is very evident at Kittansett for example, though I know you are familiar with at least one.  Tom and I have seen many instances.  Sometimes, as at Indian Creek, Flynn stacked bunkers closer to the tees that messes up your mind on the tee shot.  It seems there is no landing zone beyond the bunkers but it is as much as 100 yards long!

Not only can bunkers be used for penalty or direction cues, but for perceptual misdirection cues as well.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark F:

I personally would like to see more bunkers placed in the middle of target areas. Why? The equipment we use today has rendered for the most part flanking bunker position as a limited viable option in most instances.

One good example of this is the 3rd hole at Pac Dunes. In that instance you have two fairway bunkers right in the middle that will come into play no matter the direction the wind blows. Great stuff.

If I remember correctly I believe Brad Klein raised this issue in a previous column that bunker placement today needs to take on different meaning from years gone by. Placing bunkers yards before a green to build issues of doubt for the player is also a good idea.

[Jeff_Brauer]

mdugger -

I was chastised in 1977 on a remodel of a course while working for Killian and Nugent by one of their clients, and then, by one of them , as is "He's just an associate, I'll take it from here.

As I said in my post, now that I'm on my own, I use them for "sex appeal" often.

B Crosby,

I have always heard the prevailing theory, sometimes disputed, that those bunkers 30 yards short of the green were true cross/partial cross hazards before irrigation because you had to land the ball 25 yards short to stay on the green.  When I use them now, it is, as above, as much for sex appeal, and yes, framing, unless on a par 5.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

We may be talking about different bunker types. What I am calling "frontal" bunkers at the ACC are mostly on up-slopes and probably didn't play in role in catching topped shots. The slope alone would kill the roll of the ball. Even pre-irrigation.

My guess is that Ross placed them where he did for aesthetic purposes. They give some visual interest to what would otherwise be a broad, featureless expanse of turf.

Bob

  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I can attest, after looking at several Ross plans, that providing fill was one reason.  I think the most prominent note on all of his green sketches is "take fill from bunkers, and cut swale to raise back of green" or something to that effect.

[Dave_Miller]

Can bunker location be a product of creating a certain visual on a hole?

By this I mean ,one could be looking off a tee at a bunker which one would never think could come into play, and possibly wonder why it was placed there.

Could it have been done intentionally by the Architect to create an optical illusion of what the hole really is.

One such bunker is the first of three fairway bunkers on the right side of the sixth hole at Charles River.  It was one of the original bunkers on the course, removed at some point by the Members and restored five years ago in the restoration project.

On first glance one might think why is that there?  It really isn't in play.  And yes that is correct it really is not in play.  However the visual that this gives really makes you think twice before hitting because although the playability of the hole remains the same it can give you a false sense of where to hit it and you might catch one of the other two bunkers that do come into play.

It just seems ther are many, many reasons for bunker placement and I'm not smart enough to know them all.

Fairways and Greens,
Dave

[ian]

To throw this into the mix:

Walter Travis had the following quote about bunkers.

"The primary idea of a hazard is to punish, to the extent of one stroke, a poorly played shot, and to make the recovery exceedingly difficult, and even by the virtue of the following shot being extraordinarily good. If this end is not attained, the existing hazard fails to fill it's functions."

Another quote said:

"Get rid, I say, of those abominable cross-bunkers. They merely add aggravation to the duffer and practically do not exist for the long player."

[Mark_Fine]

Good to see some more comments on this topic!  I still believe bunker location is one of the most debated and controversial topics in all of golf architecture.  To some extent, Tom Doak may be right in that you almost need to discuss it one hole at a time.  However, in general, there are so many differring opinions and ideas (with probably no right or wrong answers), even that may yield a wide variety of conclusions.  

When older courses are talked about as "becoming obsolete", isn't it often because the hazards (e.g. the bunkers) have lost their fear/strategic factor.  You never hear someone saying a classic course is becoming obsolete because, "the greens are too easy to read", or "the fairways are too flat".  It often gets down to the bunkers and their location relative to how far or how high and soft the players are hitting the ball.  

So what's a course to do about it (if anything at all)?

[Joe Hancock]

Far from being a GCA, I have added some bunkers to my course. One of the fairway bunkers I added was purposely put to visually "add" to the greenside bunker already in view. While the regulars know exactly where it lies off the tee, the golfers eyes are filled with sand in a somewhat confusing blend of fairway and greenside sand. My mission was accomplished....visual as well as shot placement strategy.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

How can you not discuss bunker placement on a
"Hole Specific" basis as Tom Doak indicates ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I said Tom is probably right.  You have to look at each hole.   However, I was hoping to have a discussion about it in general.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Interesting quotes by Travis, considering the original Hollywood had a zillion bunkers, a bunch of which were cross bunkers.

[henrye]

Mark's post: Wasn't it Ross who said something like "there is no such thing as a mis-placed bunker"?

Architects and designers can argue the shape, look and location of bunkers and the type of fill that best suits them.  I agree with Jeff in that they can serve as hazards, targets, framing, safety features, or "save" bunkers, and "sex appeal".

To me, a mis-placed bunker is one I find myself in (not surprisingly) when I had no idea it was there.  

In the "What is fun" post, I said that fun is the unknown and discovery feature of hitting a blind shot, but I can't stand a blind bunker when it's off the tee.

[Jeff Fortson]

I like blind bunkers.  That is part of the reason TOC is such a great course, in my opinion.  I think blind bunkers are fine as long as they are strategic.  Sure, the first time or two that you play a course with blind bunkers you could accidentally end up in one after what you thought was a good shot.  I know how annoying that can be.  However, once you've become intimate with a course that has blind bunkers off the tee I find it rather exciting to hit a tee shot that you know is flirting with that blind pot bunker in the distance.  The suspense of walking into view of the bunker to see if you skirted the hazard is part of the fun of golf, in my opinion.  

I feel that there are three ABSOLUTES to a great course design....

1.  Bunkering
2.  Routing
3.  Green complexes

I could go into each one in detail but I think I may need an entire week to write it.  Let's just say that every course I have at the top of my favorites list excels in all three of those categories.  Blind bunkers included.

Jeff F.

[ian]

Scott,

I beg to differ, many are diagonal to play; but I'm still trying to recall a true cross bunker. I loved you zillion reference, he used massive amounts to fill a very geometric shape.

Ian