Suggest a bunker to be eliminated

[David_Elvins]

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!

Tom,

I have no doubt that Geoff can drive well past the bunker,  but given his standard trajectory I am not sure he would be able to run the ball past the bunker.

As a hypothetical, lets say you went back to build the second course and realised that players could not skirt the ball around the bunker to the right.  Would that make it a candidate for a bunker to be removed?  Or would you try and rework the slope a bit?  Or would you be happy to leave it there and let it play as is?  

[Mark_F]

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.  

Why is the gap not a realistic option David?  It is a short par five that plays downwind quite a bit, and from an elevated tee to boot.

I would have thought someone who wants to sight the green on such a short hole should have to display unnerring accuracy.

If balls are running into it, that's because whoever hit it didn't strike the ball with enough venom to get past it. If it lands twenty yards short, the slope will undoubtedly kill off its momentum.  If it lands a little further forward or on it, I doubt that it will.

I think the first left hand side fairway bunker on 12 is misplaced.  No shorter hitter ever aims there  - you aim at the second one on the left and know you won't reach it.

I've always wondered what the 2nd left fairway bunker on 12 would be like if it was moved out a few metres, and the tee shaved down by a foot or so.  That way the short fairway bunker straight ahead and the left one would appear to merge together with a player uncertain of how much fairway there is between them.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I like that idea for 12, the bunkers on the tenth at Riviera are like that, if I'm understanding what you are describing.

David:

I would love to be able to play the Gunnamatta course a few times and see if that bunker (and all the rest) work as intended.  Unfortunately, "hypothetical" is a good choice of words to describe that scenario, I still don't know the real status of the second 18.

Patrick:

I might use the word "hard" in relation to a single shot, but more commonly in relation to the difficulty of making par, so you are right it does sometimes depend on the length of the hole.  I think the 16th at Pacific Dunes is one of the hardest holes there, even though it's relatively short, and certainly the recovery at the sixth is hard if you've missed the green.  But most people would name 4, 7 and 13 for obvious reasons and that's why they are the first handicap holes on the card.

[Tom_Doak]

This thread wasn't only supposed to be about my work, though.

Won't anybody suggest a bunker somewhere else?  Or are all other architects perfect?  Start with the course you know the best.  Phil = Bethpage Black.  Gene = Sand Hills.  Patrick = National, or Garden City.  You know there are lots of them.

[John Kirk]

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 ?

I kept hole-by-hole scoring stats on a few of my favorite courses, and found that difficulty correlated very strongly with length.

I know you asked Tom, but I've played Pacific a bunch of times.  #13 is the hardest hole into the summer (north) wind, and #4 into the south wind.  If it's really blowing, both #7 and #18 are very tough with a south or storm wind.  #11 is tricky with either wind, though tougher into a summer breeze.  I try to keep my tee shot as low as possible there.

[Adam Clayman]

I've mentioned these before, for their out of balance nature, but the two right side bunkers in the LZ of the 13th at Prairie Dunes.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I've got one: hole 10, Pinehurst #2, the volcano-like fairway bunker on the right side of the fairway, about 250 yards from blue tees:


I can see a bunker there forcing the tee shot to the left, bringing the left-hand bunker down the fairway into play, but it's volcano height means one must make quite an effort to get the ball in there!

The only reason I could see for it being raised is to "define" the hole from the tee. Somebody please enlighten me: is there a legitimate reason for this bunker?

Mark

[Rick Shefchik]

I'll suggest the elimination of two bunkers on a course I know fairly well -- Hazeltine. I'd take out two of the three bunkers on the left corner of the dogleg left 10th hole:



Keep in mind that you can't see the second half of this hole from the tee. It drops severely downhill from the third bunker. In addition, the woods lining the left side of the hole is certain death for a pull or a hook, and there are also a couple of specemin oaks jutting out from the woods that make it tough to cut the dogleg and can block your approach to the green if you're behind, in or between the bunkers.

The tenth at Hazeltine would probably be the signature hole if the 16th weren't even better, but I think one, or at most two, potential disasters are enough for one side of any hole. I'd take out two of those bunkers and make sure the remaining on wasn't encumbered by tree limbs. I'd just put a high lip on it and say, if you put it in here, you're wedging out. The hole would still be great -- and extremely treacherous.

[Dan Kelly]

Here's one I would remove that would pretty drastically affect the play of the hole, I think: the right-front greenside bunker at Sutton Bay No. 4.

I would replace it with some gentle bumps and hollows and maintain the area as fairway.

For those who haven't had the immense pleasure of Sutton Bay:

No 4. is a sometimes-reachable, sometimes-unreachable par 5 (depending on the tees you play, and the wind) that features a downhill approach to a dramatically front-to-back-sloping green. There's a ground-game opening to the left quarter or third of the green -- but any attempt to reach the right two-thirds to three-quarters of the green must fly the bunker -- and with anything more than a short-iron in hand, there's not much hope of stopping an approach above the low area at the back (bottom) of the green.

I think the hole would be much more fun if there were no sand in front of the green, so that guys could go at the WHOLE green via the bounce and roll, with any club in the bag. And anything that came up short would produce the need for a very delicate chip shot.

Actually, I think it's two bunkers. I'd take 'em both out.

[Doug Wright]

All of the bunkers built into the hillside facing
the 18th green/clubhouse at Castle Pines GC.
Pure eye candy; no amateur or pro to my
knowledge has been within 50 yards of 'em.

Happy New Year.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I am confident from looking at your picture that the purpose of that bunker was to discourage players from spraying the ball back toward #9, in the days before trees grew up between the holes.  If you look back on aerial photos of early American courses you will find many such bunkers, anywhere from 150 to 200 yards from the original tees.  (The tee at Pinehurst has been moved back from its original location.)  The bunker is built up so you can't see over it to the other hole and you therefore won't think subconsciously of hitting your shot over that way.

Inwood had a lot of those bunkers, some of which are still lost in the trees between holes.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, I am saying that bunker has outlived its purpose.

Whether or not to remove it is still a gray area.  On most courses where we consult, if I know that a bunker has existed from the original design, I will leave it, just because so few examples of original work are left.  If it was really awkward, I might be convinced to remove it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I only ask one favor.

I want to be listening in to the conversation when a member or the Green Chairman suggests removing one or more of the bunkers on a golf course that you have designed  

I tend to believe in Ross's philosophy that no bunker is misplaced.

But, my greater concern lies within the domino theory.

Once a club removes one feature, it becomes open season on the golf course.

Successive members, committtees, boards and Presidents will then begin to exercise their "right of entitlement" to reconfigure the golf course to their liking (game) and that usually spells disaster for the architectural integrity of the golf course.

The caveat I might add would be:
If the original architect, without undue pressure from owners or golfers, feels he erred and needs to remove or relocate a bunker, then, he should do so.

However, a caveat to my caveat.

If an architect's design philosophy has changed over time, I wouldn't entertain that process.

Where would you ADD bunkers to any of your existing courses ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I would agree with pretty much everything you said.  I am particularly resistant in my consulting work to starting the dominoes falling, and I hope some architect in the future will have the same respect for my work ... even though we've had that argument here before, with Forrest and Jeff implying that I'm arrogant to think my courses will never need changing.

I will have to think of where I might want to add a bunker somewhere.  I'm sure there are a handful which would help.  There are a couple at Sebonack which I was against building, but that discussion is for when we play the course together.

[Scott Coan]

There are probably a couple more which are superfluous, but if you want to pick an individual I'll try to explain its purpose.  

Tom, would like to hear your thoughts regarding the first bunker on the 17th at Kidnappers.



In a Southerly it is virtually unreachable.  It does somewhat frame the dogleg but is deceptively offset to the right of the actual corner of the dogleg, which is hidden in a valley containing waist deep rough.  Any drive hit near this line bounces down and hard right and is lost.  Looking from the tee it appears as though one has hit a near perfect drive.  What a horrible feeling when one gets to the top of that bluff and sees this hidden death trap!

I now know from experience to go nowhere near this line of play but for any first-timers they are looking at some major disappointment.  Virtually the same holds true for the tee shot on 18 (except no bunker) as many a well hit drive bounces down and hard right into the same type of blind canyon with waist deep rough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Every time I hear some "celebrity" sing the Star Spangled Banner, our National Anthem, I'm reminded why an Architect's work should be left untouched.

The process of "improving" the design has resulted in more disfigurations than improvements.

I'd also be curious to know, on the golf courses you've designed, what are your "favorite" holes, and why ?

I think that would be an interesting exercise with respect to all architects, perhaps providing insight into their design philosophy and how the prefer to integrate their work with the golfer's game.

[wsmorrison]

Although I previoulsy suggested one at Huntingdon Valley earlier, I'll propose another.  The bunker just short and left of the 5th green at Shinnecock Hills. This was put in by Mitchell, I think at the suggestion of Dick Wilson in the early 1960s.  This completely eliminates the possibiltiy of short hitters running the ball of the left to right slope onto the green.  Flynn had a sandy waste area well short of the bunker location that challenged players to hit a precise ground approach.  The Wilson/Mitchell bunker precludes this.

Tom D,
How about a course other than your own where you wouldn't change a thing?  

[Kalen Braley]

Ian:

 

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

I've got a name for that hollow and its a 4 letter word!!  

But hence that is probably why its a good design. When I think about 16, I think about the massive swing of feelings I had ranging from thinking I hit a great drive on 16 to realizing I was completely screwed when my ball was at the bottom in a divot.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

If you read The Confidential Guide, one of the courses where I said I would never change a thing was Merion.  

Patrick:

I've been working on a list of favorite holes from our various courses for my web site, which is in sore need of updating.  In some cases, it's really hard to choose.  I have been thinking about Pacific Dunes the most lately because I am trying to get back to work on my book ... from there, the consensus "best" holes are the 11th and 13th, but my favorite holes are probably the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 8th.  I'd tell you why, but then you wouldn't have to buy the book.

[JMorgan]

Tom, in your opinion, do you think those course designs that were derived first and foremost from topographic maps contain more unnecessary bunkers than those which were created from a gca's time walking the land?  

[Tom_Doak]

James:

I have no idea how to answer that.  I do most of my routings off the topo to start, and then adjust them by walking the land ... I think most architects do.  When I am drawing them on the topo map I will frequently draw them with bunkers, but only about half those bunkers make the final cut, replaced with others decided upon in the field as we have gotten to know the site better.

So, for me, there is no clear distinction between the two.

[JMorgan]

A more general question to anyone:  Would Donald Ross eliminate more bunkers on courses he mailed in vs. those he came to know well, like Pinehurst #2?   If so, what does that prove, if anything, about the decision process regarding bunker placement?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

James Morgan,

What leads you to conclude that Ross wouldn't add more bunkers ?

[JMorgan]

James Morgan,

What leads you to conclude that Ross wouldn't add more bunkers ?

Patrick, no conclusion, only hypothesis testing in the spirit of the thread.  

[Doug Braunsdorf]

10th hole Bethpage Black right-side fairway bunker.

Anyone in it can't reach the green and will always lay-up anyway. If it were an area of rough, more would consider the gamble and the area would then become far more of a risk/reward decision.

Phil,

  I respectfully disagree with you.  Firstly, though, did Tillinghast have this bunker in his original design of Bethpage Black?  

  I disagree with you strictly on your statement that rough in lieu of the bunker may cause players to go for it.  

 You know as well as I do that the rough out at the Black Course seems to gobble golf balls anyway.  It's hard to hit more than a 6 or 7 iron out of the rough there.  

  Conversely, I think the bunker provides more of a "go-or-no-go" proposition, all depending on the lie the golfer finds themselves with upon reaching their ball.