Suggest a bunker to be eliminated

[Tom_Doak]

Jeez, that was even worse than I thought.  I volunteer that we should start removing superfluous bunkers and I get an impassioned plea that too many have been removed.  PLUS, guys suggest taking out one of the only remaining vestiges of MacKenzie at Augusta, a strategic and controversial bunker at Kingston Heath, and the D.A. at Pine Valley ??

There are countless bunkers which make little difference to the play of golf holes.  Don't start removing the ones which do.

 

[Mark_F]

1st Hole Royal Melbourne West - are good players ever near it, let alone in it?

3rd Hole Royal Melbourne West - as above.

11th Hole Royal Melbourne West - the two there are horrible shapeless pits.  Fill them in and do it properly.

2nd Hole Barnbougle Dunes - as above.  They are shaped better, but still don't look as if they belong.

Shane;

Why is a big hitter like yourself concerned with the fairway bunker on 11 at KH?  It demands that you hit a well-shaped drive over it.  What's wrong with that?

Surely even your 7-wood could get over it?

[Ian Dalzell]

Calling Tommy Nacaratto

I would remove the bunkers that split the 1st and 18th at the Old Course . . . . . oh wait a minute, someone already did that!

[Willie_Dow]

Mike Cirba - Hi, and Happy New Year!  Yes, those are just two bits of nothing but, expense, on the left side of five on the East!  Thanks!  

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I thought you didn't like the look of the bunkers on the 2nd at Barnbougle, I didn't think your beef was over their position.

I think you need SOMETHING on that side of the hole to keep you honest from just playing way out away from the dunes.  We tried to put the bunkers where a good player would not be certain of carrying them into a headwind.

And what bunker on the third at Royal Melbourne don't you like -- the old bunker off the tee on the right?  Sadly, one of our interns hit it in there when we played three years ago.  It does make the short hitter think a moment before playing safely down the right.

[Willie_Dow]

Mike, but I must say, if I was on that back tee, way back, looking down the fairway, and wanting to get into the green from there from the left side, it might be a consideration!

[Shane Gurnett]

Shane;

Why is a big hitter like yourself concerned with the fairway bunker on 11 at KH?  It demands that you hit a well-shaped drive over it.  What's wrong with that?

Mark, I dont like it because the hole was perfect before they put it in and now its a poorer hole for being there - the tee shot strategy without that bunker was just fine - the closer you hit to the bunkers on the right the better the line into the angled green. That central bunker is just a road block to make the hole play longer and harder for the regular player. It is still a big hit to get over it on the fly. And I try to put forward an opinion not just reflecting how I would play the hole.

Tom Doak, are you saying you like the 11th at KH better with that bunker in the fairway?

[Matthew Mollica]

I'd imagine a pushed drive on ANGC #10 (into the trees) would necessitate a recovery along the ground for much of it's way, which would have to negociate Dr. Mac's bunker. I imagine some of the older members there would also worry about that trap with their second shots. Just because it's not considered in a manner consistent with original intent, doesn't mean it has to go.

Shane, Tom and Mark,

The inside right drive bunkers on 11 at KH aren't visible from the tee are they? The new Grant bunker therefore asks a more obvious and more stern question; at the expense of subtlety, and usually to the detriment of most members cards it seems. It also from memory played a key role in Allenby losing an Oz Open there to Aaron Baddeley. I like the test it poses, but on reflection, I liked the hole more the way it was before.

I can't agree with you Mark on the changes to Royal Melb.  You may not like their style, but the bunkers all serve a purpose. The traps appear different at various parts of the course not just due to different times of construction or different staff. Their roles are different, therefore their form varies.

The trap right of RMW 1 provides a laser straight line from the tee, to a flat ever so raised plauteau in the fairway (barely discernable otherwise), which allows full visibility of the ground before the green, which is not easily appreciated when drives are played to the left, on a direct line to the flag. (Those mounds B.Walshe abhors do serve a purpose). Yardage books and sprinkler heads make this type of design obsolete at times, but for decades this was a great little pearl valued by observant members.

Similarly, the drive traps on the inside of 11 gently punish the greedy golfer, yet provided a slim chance of recovery. Same as the furthest trap on the inside of 17. They're shallow and not heroic in appearance, because they don't serve the same purpose as those on RMW 2, 4, 5, 6, and so many other holes. They let you get a perfect shot back onto the green. Grand traps on 2,4,6, etc provide aa thrill when clearing them. It must have been a great thrill 50 years ago.

Which traps did you mean on 3? Greenside?

The placement of the traps on the right of 2 at Barnbougle is spot on IMHO. I too thought you only disapproved of their look, not their location.

I'd have thought that a Cashmore course would have been mentioned by now, given his penchant for visual effect first and strategy later. His courses can be over-bunkered too.

Tom - imagine how many people would have bunkered 15 St. Andrews Beach...

Matthew

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

OK, this is more for discussion, since I don’t think you’re getting what you want in previous posts.

The outside bunkers on the 16th at Pacific Dunes.

Since your the architect, it provides a better discussion than Augusta or Pebble would. So here it goes:

(Be kind if I get my positioning wrong - this comes from memory - since I haven’t seen the course since Archipalozza)

The one on the left is (I assume) strictly for framing and questionable with such a decent natural backdrop. The one straight out indicates the perfect position to place a tee shot. A golfer instinctively wants to cut the corner, and do, despite the green favouring an approach from the outside of the dogleg. Why present them with such a clear target and location of the ideal position? With the bunker in place a good caddy is able to steer their player to the best position with such a perfect target line. Isn’t there enough framing with the dunes in behind? Could the hole have had a little less clarity from the tee creating more deception? Or is it important to leave the clues to playing this hole through the placement of bunkers?

Curious to your response

P.S. I wouldn't change the hole.

[Michael Dugger]

And I've only seen a very bad player in the bunker about 40 yards short and wide right of the sixth green.

Wow, I find that hard to believe.  My friend finds that one quite frequently.  Downwind.  He tries to cut the corner, hit it waaaay down there and hits a big looping draw which bounces right in.  I don't even fool with the fairway anymore, Tom, I aim between the elbow bunker and the 9th tee because the angle in is so much better from there.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shucks, Pat I don't know, let me think .... they must have hit it too far, that's it!!!

EEGHT, Wrong answer.

They thought that they had the ability to overcome the lie and carry the bunker.

Their judgement and their ability to execute is what got them in there.

The bunker tempted them.

And, if there's one thing golfers can't resist, it's temptation.

[Jim Nugent]

More like questions, as I haven't played or seen the holes, but based on pictures:

*  The Redan at Somerset has a few bunkers what looks to be about 40 to 50 yards short of the green;

*  CPC number 3 has the same.  

Do these bunkers play any functional role?  

[David_Elvins]

Tom Doak,

Would be interested to here your defense of the pot bunker in the middle of the 17th fairway at St Andrews Beach and why it should not be removed.  

As for the rest of the bunkers at St Andrews Beach.  Plenty of them seem strategically unnessesary (all three fairway bunkers on the 12th for example)  but I am willing to back your judgement that the visual effect is worth their construction.

[Shane Gurnett]

Tom Doak,

Would be interested to here your defense of the pot bunker in the middle of the 17th fairway at St Andrews Beach and why it should not be removed.  

Dave, how far off the tee is that central pot bunker on 17?

[David_Elvins]

Good question Shane,

I would guess about 240 metres from the back tee, give or take 10 metres.  

For those who do not know the hole, it is a 520 yard par 5.  
Into the wind in summer, downwind in winter.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

I would think the reason for the bunker on #17 is pretty straightforward ... if a player is thinking of reaching that green in two he must negotiate the bunker off the tee to get a good look at the green.  If he's not worried about reaching in two, he can simply hit three-wood, or hit left, although from the left the second shot is more blind.

There are some other bunkers at St. Andrews Beach which are not so much in play, as you suggest ... that first bunker on the left in the first picture is one, though when the rough is short, it tells you not to go down the 18th fairway with the tee shot on 17.  The two bunkers on the right of #12 are meant for the same purpose.  However, our general rule at St. Andrews Beach was that bunkers were much more playable than the native rough, so I didn't mind if Brian Slawnik threw in a few on his own initiative.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

In regard to the 16th at Pacific Dunes:

The first bunkers on the left are there to terminate the left side of the hole.  Without them, you might think you could hit up over those dunes and bounce back off the high ground down into the fairway, but there is only a little bit of room for that before you get into the native grasses and gorse.  So, those bunkers are a warning.

The last bunker through the fairway is there, not as a target bunker, but for strategy.  That may be the perfect line for some people to drive it, but the best approach angle is as far down there as you can get, so to get the best angle you have to flirt with the bunker.  (I thought it was better to have people flirting with going in the bunker, as opposed to taking a chance of going into the gorse.)

There is also an element of visual purpose for that bunker; the entire design of the hole was meant to tell people to lay up and NOT to try and drive the green as so many do.  For the same reason, I left a couple of trees in the corner of the dogleg (as I rarely do, my associates all thought they should be taken out), hoping that by obscuring the view of the flag, people would be less tempted to hit driver to the right and wind up the in dreaded hollow.  

That hollow really needs a good St. Andrews-like name.

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

First, Happy New Year.
Second, thanks for the answer.

I always thought the best feature of the hole, the right of the green, came from not placing a bunker where most might have.

Pandemonium?

[Nyk Pike]

My list of extra Pacific Dunes bunkers; (and their possible uses).

#5 bunker 30 yards short/left of green; (used to tie in periphery, better than being in rough, into the wind anything can happen)

#5 bunker in front of "Keiser" tee; (no idea on this one)

#9 bunker short/10 yards right of upper green; (into the wind anything can happen)

#11 bunker short/right of path; (into the wind anything can happen)

#14 bunker well behind/right of green; (downwind anything can happen)

#17 first bunker off tee; (into the wind anything can happen, used to tie in periphery)

#18 bunker back right of green complex; (ties in with front bunker to deceive, ties in periphary)

Eh, just my two cents.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

[Tom_Doak]

Nyk:

Happy New Year.

Pretty much all of the bunkers you named are there for visual purposes ... to add a splash of sand instead of just having all marram grass, which helps make the bunkers that are IN play look more like they belong.  We added blowouts where there hadn't been as many naturally because those areas were originally overgrown with gorse.

As you say, too, anything can happen and I've seen people in about half the ones you named in my 50 rounds on the course.

[Matthew Hunt]

The next Bunker I hit into!

Will be tomorrow First Hole

[David_Elvins]

David:

I would think the reason for the bunker on #17 is pretty straightforward ... if a player is thinking of reaching that green in two he must negotiate the bunker off the tee to get a good look at the green.

Tom,

How did you anticipate the bunker would be negotiated when you designed it?  

The problem I have with it is that it is a central fairway bunker where there is little option to play left or right of it.  Every shot that tries to run by the bunker to the right catches the slope and runs into the bunker.  Balls can even run backwards into it once they lose momentum.  The gap to the left is probably too narrow to be a realistic option.  

So that leaves the options of carrying it or playing short of it. I have not seen someone carry it yet from the back tees (although I have no doubt a long hitting pro could) and the flat ground leading up to the bunker means that plenty of balls run into it.  In my experience it operates as a road block with the general strategy being to play as close up to it as possible without going in to it . There is really no  way around it.  

One of the features I love about the design of StAB is the strategic use of  slopes on the fairway.  THe way the slopes on the 5th, 8th, 13th, 14th and 15th holes dictate strategy is a really cool feature in my opinon.  Compared to the subtle use of the land on these holes, the bunker sitting into the slope on the 17th appears somewhat clumsy in my opinion.  

Would the slope the bunker sits into not be a strategic feature without the bunker?  

To date I have not really seen any evidence in your courses or your writings that you like bunkers that offer only two options (carry or play short).  Is the 17th a case of a hole not playing exactly how it was designed or is it a case of a design feature that you think is good to use in moderation to mix things up?  

[Matt_Cohn]

Tom,

If we're keeping this to your courses, I would suggest another of your small middle-of-the-fairway bunkers, on #18 at Apache Stronghold.

If I remember right, it wasn't really big enough or deep enough to change my strategy. I couldn't carry it, but because it was downwind and so firm, my good drive finished 40 or 50 yards past it; as a result, playing short and sacrificing 70 yards was an unappealing option. There's not enough room to go around.

The bunker just didn't add as much strategy, for me, as it was intended to.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

We did struggle to build that bunker to achieve what we wanted.  I knew that some balls would try to get past the bunker on the right and then roll back into it, but I hoped others would have enough momentum to get past.

Mike Clayton told me that Geoff Ogilvy drove well past it when they played a year ago, so rest easy, it can be done!


Matt:

Understood.  Building bunkers in the middle of turf at Apache Stronghold was tough ... a lot of the bunkers blend into the washes at the edges, but in the middle we never hit upon a style which looked right.  It was a very wide landing area to start with and it needed something.  And to be honest, they don't see many players who drive it as far as you do, so it does come into play for a lot of people.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Isn't "Hard" mostly related to distance ?

Doesn't distance distort the evaluation of a "hard" hole ?

When people ask you, "what's the hardest hole at PacDunes ?", how do you respond ?

I think the 11th hole at PacDunes is one of the hardest golf holes on the course, but maybe some will feel that it's not very hard, kinda like the 6th at NGLA ?