What do they have in common?

[The_Leprechaun]

Aye!  I know the answer ta dis one.  They are awl carses I have shott 64 on.  Who said dee Irish weren't a sharrrp bunch a lads!?

Who has some shoes that need repairing?

[TEPaul]

"They all have boring bunkers and still make the grade as great courses".
Tom Doak

Well, I could have guessed for about 8 million years and not have come up with that answer.

Have you seen the Flynn style bunkers at The Country CLub of Brookline in the last 10-12 years Tom?

Boring??? They're probably the absolute best of that particular style anywhere, in my opinion (see the thread "Flynn bunkers!?")! And that's just the look of the actual bunkering itself! The placement of many of them is just about as good it gets too up into some real inclines and hillsides etc!

Man, if you have seen those Brookline bunkers and you really do think they're boring, I guess golf architecture is a whole lot more subjective than I ever knew!

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mr. Doak,

Just this past week I played a new course.  I must admit I walked off thinking...

It was a good fun course, attractive land forms, shapely greens, but those bunkers.  Critically I'd deduct a 1/2 point for the bunker aesthetics.  (They were less pleasing than Kiawah's)

Would you build a course with mediocre/bland bunkers?

I liked the ones a Pasatiempo, but I didn't see them before.

Those stats from the top 50 are great.

Cheers
Mike

[Jeff_Lewis]

Whoa! Incorrect with respect to Quaker Ridge unless you are looking specifically at the handful of bunkers which Rees built, especially those on 14. And I am extremely hopeful that those will not be there any more a year or two from now.
To see the overheads of this course from the 30s, one can only cry out for a real restoration to un-do the reestoration that preceeded the Walker Cup.

[Steve Lapper]

While I'm on a roll, I'll share this little punch list I wrote for a client recently:

Analysis of the Top 50 Golf Courses in the World
(GOLF Magazine, 2001)


19 are par-72 courses
15 are par-71
16 are “others,” mostly 70 or 73

23 return to the clubhouse at the ninth hole;
27 do not, including Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, Pinehurst #2 and St. Andrews.

29 have no cart paths at all (20 of these never allow golf carts);
18 have some cart paths, and
3 have continuous cart paths (Pebble Beach, Muirfield Village, and Riviera)

31 have an adjacent practice facility, but
19 do not, including Pebble Beach, Pine Valley, St. Andrews, Sand Hills and Crystal Downs.

12 of the top 50 are less than 6800 yards from the back tees;
15 are between 6800 yards and 7000 yards;
23 can be stretched to 7000 yards for championship play.

28 of the top 50 are built on sand;
Several more are built on sandy loam;
But several are built on clay, including Augusta National, Oakmont, Olympic, and Riviera.

21 of the top 50 have fescue or bent/fescue fairways (all the UK courses plus Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Whistling Straits);
15 of the top 50 have bent grass or bent/poa fairways;
8 of the top 50 have Bermuda fairways (including Augusta, Pinehurst and Royal Melbourne);
4 have ryegrass fairways, 1 zoysia, and 1 kikuyu grass.

48 of the top 50 have bent grass or fescue/bent greens;
Seminole (I think) and Casa de Campo are the only exceptions.

Tom,

I would point out that Pine Valley and Sand Hills do have adjacent practice facilities (albeit Sand Hills is small but practical) and many of the world's top 50 have greens that are considerably more poa annua than bentgrass or fescue. I do agree with your theme, but would echo Jeff Lewis' comment about Quaker Ridge. Most of their greenside bunkers are well sculpted, strategic and hardly boring, the 14th remaining the exception. Otherwise, keep questioning us...it is a wonderful mental exercise.

[Paul_Turner]

Looking at the list, it begs the question.  How many famous GB&I courses don't have "boring" bunkers?  (Muirfield, Brancaster and Lytham are the best to my eye)

To me, Portrush has some simple or "boring" bunkers like those at the 11th.  But it also has some excellent ones like those at the 13th, 1st and obviously Big Bertha at the 17th.  Anyway, it's probably the one GREAT links that relies the least on bunkers.

[Dave_Miller]

"They all have boring bunkers and still make the grade as great courses".  Tom Doak
 
Have you seen the Flynn style bunkers at The Country CLub of Brookline in the last 10-12 years Tom?  Boring??? They're probably the absolute best of that particular style anywhere, in my opinion (see the thread "Flynn bunkers!?")!  TEPaul

Could it be that Mr. Doak just doesn't like that style bunker?
Mr. Flynn might be dismayed.
Obviously Mr. Paul is
Best
Dave

[Dan Grossman]

I guess it would be helpful in understanding how T. Doak defines "boring" bunkers.  At Kiawah, they aren't very visually intimidating until you are actually in them.  Then you realize how deep and penal they are!

[TEPaul]

It would be interesting to know Tom Doak's reasons in defining boring bunkers--and not the least of which is that Doak is certainly a proven, talented and creative architect, in my book!

However, how can anyone deny that one man's opinion on anything in golf architecture be it MacDonald, Colt, Mackenzie, Ross, Tillinghast, Flynn, Thomas or Doak etc is the only way in golf architecture? I think golf architecture might be a bit more validly varied and subjective than that!

Personally, although I may be in the vast minority on this I see no real reason to subscribe to the theory in architecture that all bunkers MUST be visible to golfers or visible to the extent that they cannot help but register on any player's mind!

I do realize that many architects made that statement but so what? Many of them who made that statement didn't always stick to it in practice. The idea of having bunkering that is far less visible or far less "registering" on a player's mind is preferable to me on certain types of courses--probably the more private type of course! But saying that certainly doesn't mean I don't like bunkering that IS very visible either! What I really like in architecture overall is difference (if it works well in some interesting way)!

The reason I say that is I believe that bunkering that is grassed down with less visible sand "flashing" to a player's eye simply forces any player to pay more attention to the golf course and its architecture and whatever the architecture's strategies may be!

Courses like that make golfers concentrate better or pay a price, in my book! It forces golfers to search holes for problems and soluttions or pay a price! This certainly should aid a thinking golfer too, something that I can't see is ever a bad thing!

There's another theory I have that I've never really found anyone to agree with me on including Bill Coore (I think). That is the architectural premise that golf holes, particularly from the tee, should basically be "defined visually" in such a way that any player does not have to really look around much! The thought is, I suppose, that the eye should be led to certain things even if subliminally!

I don't agree with that at all, again, at least not to the extent that it should never be otherwise--or probably more accurately I should say I certainly don't believe that should be the only way in golf architecture!

I subscribe to the theory that if a course is lucky enough to be able to utilize interesting topography occasionally (or other interesting natural features) that may possess even enormous width on a hole, that it should be used if it works well for golf and strategy!

If that kind of thing does not catch and direct a players eye or may even visually confuse him to some extent, so what? I even say so much the better occasionally. The only real reason I do feel this way is, again, it forces the player to search the course and architecture for strategies and can it really be a bad thing to ask a golfer to use his neck and eyes a bit more and just look around for himself??

[Dan_Belden]

I Just went upstairs to look at my wonderfull overhead portrait of Shinnecock, and in Particluar #16.  None of the bunkers have cape or hooks of anykind, are completely natural and positioned perfectly, and yet I have the sense that Mr. Doak would find them boring.  My point it is a bunch of bunkers with all kinds of mand made islands and capes would take away from the hole.  
   I would like to know why an architect can talk exclusively about nature and using the land on the sight, then build bunkers that are anything but natural in there shapes.  Flynn's bunkers to me are more natural than Doak's, and therefore think they are anything but boring.  

[Dan_Belden]

"  They all have boring bunkers and still make the grade as great courses."  That is pretty arrogant statement.  I know that when I played Portrush and Kiawah the last thought in my mind was that the bunkers were boring.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Dan
Are you familar with Flynn's original bunkering scheme at Shinnecock - I'm not sure that helps your arguement.

[Dan_Belden]

No I am not Tom.  I am actually going to be playing there this weekend, and would appreciate your gleaming a little light on Flynn's original scheme.  I wasn't aware that it had changed much.  I figured Tom Paul would jump into here eventually and add some of his insight into Flynn.  I do know that the current bunkering at Shinnecock is similar to several of the other Flynn courses that I have played.  But nonetheless would certainly appreciate being corrected if I have it wrong about SH.  
  I would certainly put the left fairway bunkers on 14 into the same category.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Dan
There is an excellent aerial in Shackelford's Golden Age book. It exhibits a pretty wild look, very unique. From what I understand Flynn incorporated some Sahara-like bunkering on a number of his courses. Tom Paul could probably elaborate.

[Dan_Belden]

Tom:  I am looking at the aerial now, and would disagree with you about 16  and 14 at Sh.  The fairway bukering and especially the greenside bunkering on 16 are strikingly similar to the current course.  5 and 6 are the only holes where he seemed to go for the Pine Valley type look, and it works well.  
   A good contrast to what I am talking aobut would be to look at the pictures of numbers 2 and 6 at Riviera on pages 97 and 99 in Shack's book, and compare them with the picture of number 5 at SH on page 108. I don't think anyone would argue that the bunkers at SH look much more natural.  I am not saying they are better, perhaps I am just artistically challenged.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Dan
The Shinnecock bunkering in that old photo looks nothing like the bunkering today - which you described as typical of Flynn. That old photo exhibits bunkering with sand flashing, today the bunkering is rimmed by grass faces, in my opinion the old photo is more typical of Flynn. Tom Paul I'm sure could share his experienced opinion.

As far as comparing the naturalness of Riviera's bunkering to the old Shinnecock bunkering - that's a tough one, I like them both. Neiher is boring in my book.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom and Dan,

While Shinny's bunkers may not have any plan view shape, contrasted to other bunkers, I always felt they were quite distinctive with the steep banks.  I would not call them boring.

I think that if an architect positions clusters of bunkers artistically, the individual shape of any of them becomes far less important, and they can still make a good visual composition.

Just my opinion.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
I agree - I like the way Flynn custered his bunkers at SH. The individual bunkers a relatively simple but the grouping creates a complexity. Very distinctive. Personally I'm a fan of a variety of styles.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Getting back to the issue of style, which I believe was Tom’s point, not just about bunkers, but about other design features as well.  It seems in our culture style, or outward appearance, is the end goal.  Rather the end goal should be more about substance, a higher order of thinking.  This approach rejects following trends or imitating old, classic ways.

Trusting the possibilities that come from a face to face encounter with nature is more gratifying than using someone’s design ideas from seventy years past.   The neo-classic group always judges design by how closely it follows the look of Thomas, Ross, MacKenzie, or Tillinghast.  Furthermore, this group invokes the old master’s names to justify their own design ideas in an attempt to thwart any criticism directed at their borrowed ideas or imitative work.  It seems silly that new and old courses market the look or style of their bunkers, such as “MacKenziesque bunkers”, rather than emphasizing the strategic positioning of the bunkers.  Maybe this is a little of what Tom was alluding to in his original post.  Macdonald’s proclamation that the green is to the golf course what the face is to a portrait can be misinterpreted to be about outward show, or style, rather than strategy.  The green should be likened more to the brain, meaning that the green should require the highest order of thinking.  

[Dan_Belden]

Tom.  I agree with you that neither style is boring, although different.  I too like both looks.
.
   As far as Shinnecock goes certainly some bukeres have come to have less of swept up look, but on the whole they have changed very little.  Definitley the areas to the left of six, and to the front and right of 5 have changed with a much more grassy look, but many of the fairway bunkers, and many of the greenside bunkers still exhibit a swept up look to me.  
    Regardless of this nitpicking though, we do seem to be in agreement that wheter swept up with sand or grass faced the bunkering is certainly not boring.
     Jeff.  I very much agree with your assesment.  A well placed bunker, regardless of the style used to build it( as long as it is consistent with the rest of the course) is never boring.  
   Tom.  One last note on SH bunkering, this might be a good thread on its own. I hear that they are planning to  do some work there, and I wonder what it entails.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Furthermore, this group invokes the old master’s names to justify their own design ideas in an attempt to thwart any criticism directed at their borrowed ideas or imitative work.  

Kelly,

I have told this story before, but at a grand opening, I was asked and tried to explain why I put four "Sally the Camel" humps through the middle of a green.  No answer would satisfy the press, until my player consultant Larry Nelson noted that when he won the Open at Oakmont, there was a green with similar contours!

So, I have some sympathy for those who invoke others to justify design ideas.  As far as your thought, apart from being too deep for me I think you are saying to trust your own instincts in design, and that is correct.  Following any particular design style - either by copying another architect, or following a particlar concept, like minimalism, or framing, is not as high an order design thought as site specific design, and coming out with whatever the hell it is you come out with.

Did I get that right?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Kelly
No doubt the names and theories of the past are thrown around by many golf architects. But I wouldn't get all worked up about it - at the end of the day either the design is stimulating or its not. The packaging ain't going to help. I'm sure you've been guilty of throwing an old idea or two around yourself, which isn't a bad thing. It proves you are literate and a student of your profession.

Who is the neo-classic group? It sounds like a terrible conspiracy.

Speeking of rehashing the ideas of the past - are there any new ideas?

[TEPaul]

Dan & Tom:

Can't really answer you that well now on the present Shinnecock bunkering and how similar to the original (as built) plans of Flynn it is at this time--(other than the same aerial analysis you just did)! Give me about two weeks and hopefully I will be able to!

Kelly Blake:

I think I like that post of yours. I have your number and feel bad we haven't gotten together all summer! We gotta talk!

You guys want to talk some super strategic bunkering??  But only on about 1/3 of the holes--I'll tell you where it is! Aronimink with it's new restoration!!

[Tom Doak]

ALL I MEANT TO SAY was that not every course needs daring, Jeff Bradley - styled bunkers to be an artistic success.  I actually like all of the courses I named, and I wasn't trying to disrespect them.

And Shinnecock wasn't in my list.  I thought about it, because the bunker shapes ARE pretty plain, but the grassing around them sure isn't.

[TEPaul]

"ALL I MEANT TO SAY"

Tom, let me ask you something! You seem to me to be the type of guy who likes to be challenged and you seem to me to be the type of guy who wants to see others challenge architects in their thinking, in their principles, and in their products! I seem to even recall you saying that to basically that effect!

Whatever it is you mean to say in this thread, please tell me that you really do appreciate others challenging you to be real clear in what you mean to say!

And then I'll stop being such a pain in the ass!