[henrye]

It's a pretty common feature on a lot of courses, but when I looked at David Stamm's photos of Pasatiempo it was obvious on a number of holes.  I guess my question to the architects is, why does one chose this bunkering format?  Why place two, three, or four small bunkers in a particular spot as opposed to one large one?

Here are some of David's photos for reference.

13th  green

The par 3 15th...

[Tom Huckaby]

Henry - that first pic is 13, not 9.  Not sure who made the error, you or David...

In any case, clusters of bunkers just seems to be Mackenzie's thing.  Some like it, some don't.  Some would prefer one large bunker in each case.  I don't see either way as better or worse... isn't it just a style thing?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Henry E,

I believe someone posted a photo of a par 3 on a modern course, possibly, Purgatory, that has multiple bunkers in close proximity to the green.

If someone could post that photo again it would be helpful.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick - the hole at Purgatory (17) takes this to an absurd extreme.  You're not saying these Mackenzie holes are anything like that, are you?

Here's the pic:



TH

[Yannick Pilon]

A few reasons come to mind.

On a great site with good contours and interesting features, you might want to use bunker clusters because that's what fits the land the best.

For example, lets say you want to put a diagonal carry bunker on the inside of a dogleg.  The bunker needs to be quite big and/or long to acheive the desired effect.  If you have micro-ondulations in that area that would host two, three, four bunkers or more to acheive the strategy, why destroy these micro-ondulations to build one large bunker?

On a bad site where you have to create everything from scratch, bunkers clusters can be used to diversify the look of the bunkering over the course of the round.  In this perticular situation, I would personally use large bunkers on some holes, and small ones on others, while also mixing the two kinds (as well as their sizes) on different occasions for diversity.  Of course, I would also try to create ondulations and movement that would allow me to do this in a natural manner....

So, in a word, it all depends on the land, and what you are trying to acheive, IMHO.

YP

[henrye]

Henry - that first pic is 13, not 9.  Not sure who made the error, you or David...

Thanks Tom.  It was my error, so I've corrected it.

[cary lichtenstein]

Patrick - the hole at Purgatory (17) takes this to an absurd extreme.  You're not saying these Mackenzie holes are anything like that, are you?

Here's the pic:



TH

Interesting, I thought this hole looked awful until I went to their website, and they show a photo at golfer's eye level and it looks fine.

[Tom Huckaby]

Terry - I find it just as overdone from golfer's eye view.  But let's put it to the rest of the site... here's the ground level view Cary mentions.

[Glenn Spencer]

Henry - that first pic is 13, not 9.  Not sure who made the error, you or David...

In any case, clusters of bunkers just seems to be Mackenzie's thing.  Some like it, some don't.  Some would prefer one large bunker in each case.  I don't see either way as better or worse... isn't it just a style thing?

TH

TH,

I completely disagree. I think the fingers of grass in the picture of the lovely par 3 at Pasatiempo add intrigue to the ball in flight. If it was one big bunker, I would hit my shot and just say, 'oh, it is in the bunker'. With the fingers, I am always wondering. I think it makes a big difference and I like the look of it.

Purgatory? 17? We played to a front pin just past the smallest bunker in the picture. I stiffed an 8-iron. It is a marvelous hole. Just kidding. Everything at Purgatory needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Almost forgot. One big bunker and you know you are safe. Three smaller ones and you are not guaranteed of anything in flight.

[Tom Huckaby]

Glenn - that's a damn good point.. I was thinking just how they look - not how they effect play.

And I am with you on that.  Well said.

TH

[Bill_McBride]

The bunkers at Pasatiempo #13 are spectacular because they cover about 80 yards of that golf hole without appearing to - another example of MacKenzie's camouflage technique!  That grouping of bunkers that looks superfically like the others photographed on this thread actually serves to completely disorient the golfer trying to decide how far away the target is without use of a laser range finder.

Which is precisely why I HATE frickin' laser range finders and GPS carts and every other mechanical measuring device.  For some reason I do not extend this hatred to yardage books and markers because then I have to do some semi-intelligent math.

The other bunkers to me don't serve anything like the same camouflage duty, they just try to achieve a certain "look" and turn out to be a hodge podge instead.  IMHO  

[tonyt]

Why place two, three, or four small bunkers in a particular spot as opposed to one large one?

Doesn't some of the original evolution of a bunker as a hazard on a golf course begin often as mainly small burrow-like elements, and often in clusters?

[Mark_F]

Variety of visuals, topography, intimidation...?

[George Pazin]

Bumping for the archies, supers, and the many folks who complain about the lessening quality of the site.

 

This is an interesting topic - it would be great it some people with practical industry knowledge chimed in with their opinions.

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is Number four at Four Streams outside DC.  It is the most bunkiered hole on the course. It is a Steve Smyers/Nick Price design.  The hole is a par five with the bunkers on the right challenging the tee shot.  The bunkers in the middle of the hole challenge the player to either lay up short, hit left of the bunkers, or try to bomb it over the bunkers and let the ball run left to the green.  I like the way the bunkers are clustered.  I like the look and sometines you can end up between the bunkers.  I don't think huge bunkers would work as well or be as visually appealing.

[Joe Perches]

What about the appearance of these multiple, and appear to be multiple, bunkers? (3 Creek Ranch (Rees Jones (edited, I mistakenly attributed Jim Engh) via Aidan Bradley)




I don't personally care for the fairway border mounding, nor really for the bunkers near the green either.  I do like the bunker 100 yards out or so.

The fairway border mounding seems designed and placed to keep balls from straying too far afield.  The seem a bit too Fazio at Pelican Hill like, designed to feed bad shots back towards the middle of the fairway.

The greenside bunkers seem too regularly placed.  I don't think the bunkers are from an old formula, but perhaps are formulaic anyway.

I'm opining from photos only.  Perhaps it's different when seen afoot.

[corey miller]

It looks like from the photos that the multiple bunker setup on the modern course allows access to the green without trampling through the bunker.  

In some instances it will better allow mowing equipment on to the green.

At my home club, with our redesign work of the bunkers, two proposed large bunkers were later split up because of rock problems.

[John Kirk]

Joe,
I think 3 Creek Ranch is designed by Rees Jones.

I agree with Bill McBride that the third shot at Pasatiempo looks much closer than it is, and you have to convince yourself to hit it the full distance.

[Tom Huckaby]

John - wouldn't you also say that's especially true to that diabolical back right pin in the picture here?  That's another Mackenzie doozie that looks like it can't really be on the green... but it is....

TH

[Gary Slatter]

Would green side clusters of bunkers spread the traffic damage better?  I also prefer the multiple bunker look as long as its varied and not repeated too often.

[Jason Blasberg]

Terry - I find it just as overdone from golfer's eye view.  But let's put it to the rest of the site... here's the ground level view Cary mentions.

Where the hell is the green

If you're doing that just make it an island of green in a sea of sand.

[Jason Blasberg]

As the goalie in Slapshot says, "my allergies they may me sick . . . puke . . . I hate this place . . . I go to Florida and they give me the money . . ."

[Tom_Doak]

Very large bunkers near the green are a pain in the butt for maintenance ... they force certain traffic patterns, they take a lot of time to rake, and in windy areas sand will blow out of them.  I also think golfers are more likely to leave a shot in a big bunker and they certainly take longer to rake their way out.

I agree that bunkering can be overdone, but a cluster of small bunkers can have strategic merit as well as being visually interesting.  Lots of links courses have small clusters of pot bunkers instead of a single bunker ... Royal Lytham & St. Annes is the poster child for this.

[Chris Cupit]

Multiple bunkers close together often just look better than one big bunker.  Also a shot flying toward the cluster has a chance of coming down in the bunker, in the rough between bunkers or on some nasty edge or lip that I think adds to the "fun" and uncertainty of playing.

[Paul Carey]

Multiple smaller bunkers also allow the bunkers to be more penal.  In Tommy's picture of the fourth at Four Streams is a good example.  The first set of bunkers are quite deep and require a 7 to nine iron to escape (occasionally a wedge).  If that was one large bunker it would allow a long iron or a utility to clear the lip since it would likely be 10-20 yards away rather than 3-5 yards.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()