An interesting take on bunkers by Sean Arble

[David Stamm]

I understand what Sean is saying. Bunkering for the sake of bunkering can be annoying and can draw attention away from a great natural site. I think the bunkering in the photo of Barbougle is very much in keeping with the surroundings of the site. To me, the photo below is an example of too much bunkering, not to mention not much in terms of creativity, which I think plays a huge part in how acceptable bunkers can look to our eyes.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

...

...

Thanks Sean,

Clearly you were working off of better information than I! However, given Barnbougle's site I'm not going to have too many objections to natural looking bunkers as long as they are not spending any significant amount of money to maintain them. On a site like that, a bunker doesn't have to be strategic to exist!

[wsmorrison]

David,

I do not mean to imply that I have issues with all of MacKenzie's bunkering.  The first photo you posted illustrates my point somewhat.  Photographs of his US courses clearly show that MacKenzie often built mounds behind greens, not all of which tie in very well with the surroundings (I'm not saying that in the case of the photo you posted).  In these mounds he placed bunkers.  He seemingly went overboard in framing his greens, not creating perception miscues, but using too many bunkers behind greens in ways that look too contrived to my eye.

Did he brilliantly bunker courses?  Yes.  His original bunkers at Cypress Point tied in very well to the natural surroundings.  There are some instances where he has too many bunkers surrounding greens, but at Cypress they work well.  In other areas where sand is not naturally occurring, the look is too artificial.

Bunkers can be used to distort distance perspective.  I've seen instances where the toplines are artfully used to make it seem that the bunkers are perpendicular to the line of play when in actuality they are on a diagonal as is the green.  This distance perspective is hard to figure out and even when you know it, your eye plays tricks on your mind.  It becomes hard to club correctly as you may need one or more clubs to clear one side of a bunker rather than another.  This is very effective around greens but also as hazards to carry off the tee or second shots on par 5s.

[Garland Bayley]

David,

That's not a golf hole! That's an out door bathroom created by The Donald with several white bath tubs.

[David Stamm]

David,

I do not mean to imply that I have issues with all of MacKenzie's bunkering.  The first photo you posted illustrates my point somewhat.  Photographs of his US courses clearly show that MacKenzie often built mounds behind greens, not all of which tie in very well with the surroundings (I'm not saying that in the case of the photo you posted).  In these mounds he placed bunkers.  He seemingly went overboard in framing his greens, not creating perception miscues, but using too many bunkers behind greens in ways that look too contrived to my eye.

Did he brilliantly bunker courses?  Yes.  His original bunkers at Cypress Point tied in very well to the natural surroundings.  There are some instances where he has too many bunkers surrounding greens, but at Cypress they work well.  In other areas where sand is not naturally occurring, the look is too artificial.

Bunkers can be used to distort distance perspective.  I've seen instances where the toplines are artfully used to make it seem that the bunkers are perpendicular to the line of play when in actuality they are on a diagonal as is the green.  This distance perspective is hard to figure out and even when you know it, your eye plays tricks on your mind.  It becomes hard to club correctly as you may need one or more clubs to clear one side of a bunker rather than another.  This is very effective around greens but also as hazards to carry off the tee or second shots on par 5s.

I do agree that Mack did not always use restraint and tried to artfully frame his green sites almost to excess in some instances, but taken as a whole, I'd rather see that than cookie cutter circular doughnuts as seen in my photo above. There were (or are) no perfect arch.'s out there and they all had certain tendencies that did not always lend themselves well to every situation. My comments in response to your comments was merely to convey what I see when I look at Mack's courses. But, I must admit, I tend to get a bit defensive when it comes to the good Dr. I'm sure you understand that.


I agree that CPC is more in keeping with the surroundings than the other two. I believe part of the genuis that is Mackenzie is that while the bunkers at VC or Pasa may not appear to be natural to the surroundings to some golfers, that fact that they (the bunkers) don't cry out that fact took alot of skill. What do you think of this bunkering below?

[David Stamm]

David,

That's not a golf hole! That's an out door bathroom created by The Donald with several white bath tubs.

That's rich!!  

[Matt_Cohn]

Doesn't overbunkering occur because people don't want to build and play from truly penalizing hazards?

A single terrifying bunker is usually more effective that five flat shallow ones, but who's really in favor of terrifying bunkers these days?

[George Pazin]

Terrific thoughts on this thread, thought it was worth a bump - hopefully some of the people who whine that there's too much OT stuff will look at this thread and not only see that there's good stuff out there, but they're not even contributing to it!

[Mike McGuire]

My course has a lot of Langford bunkers (greenside and fairway) that were grassed over. Should the sand go back in?

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,

This armchair architect thinks something should be done. Perhaps extend the bunker landforms more naturally into the fairway so they don't look so out of place, or put sand back in them and pretend to be like Oakmont.  

[George Pazin]

Sometimes I see your point, but not other times.

I like the look of the bunkers in the Bandon Trails shot, and I think they provide some variety in shots, versus if they were simply left out.

Same thing goes for the Woking photo at the top of one of your other posts on the previous page.

It seems like the ones that are really lacking are the ones such as the last - those just look kind of pathetic, but that could simply be a maintenance thing.

[Tim Pitner]

Is it me or does anyone else see this greensite not needing sand?  Its such a wonderful site that I gotta wonder what the deal is.

Sean,

I generally agree with you that bunkers, especially greenside ones, are used way too much.  But, having played Bandon Trails, I submit that this hole would not grab a player's attention as much if those bunkers were removed.  A shot to the right would still be punished, and the recovery shot would still be just as difficult, but the intimidation factor would not be as great.  So, for psychological reasons, I think the bunkers add to this hole (although I agree that it would still be a good hole without the bunkers).  

[Tommy Williamsen]

Is it me or does anyone else see this greensite not needing sand?  Its such a wonderful site that I gotta wonder what the deal is.

Sean,

I generally agree with you that bunkers, especially greenside ones, are used way too much.  But, having played Bandon Trails, I submit that this hole would not grab a player's attention as much if those bunkers were removed.  A shot to the right would still be punished, and the recovery shot would still be just as difficult, but the intimidation factor would not be as great.  So, for psychological reasons, I think the bunkers add to this hole (although I agree that it would still be a good hole without the bunkers).  

From the appearance of this hole, I submit that it is an excellent example of why bunkers add to the hole.  This hole has it all.  If you want you can risk a run up shot and if you leave it short have a number of recovery shots available.  Miss left and the precision and skill needed get up and down is great.  Whay have the same thing on the right.  The bunkers add another dimension and require a different set of skills.  The hole would be ok without the bunkers but is better with them

[wsmorrison]

Sean,

I am not offended by the greenside bunkers on the hole you cite at Bandon Trails (I don't know the course at all).  They add a great deal of shot testing on missed shots.  But what is the point of those bunkers along the tree line on the right?  Is there something going on over there that doesn't show in the photograph?

[JMorgan]

Sean, a just-missed shot to the right of that Bandon green would be too penal without those bunkers to stop the runaway ball, no?   Perhaps I am off base, but I would guess that C&C would not have put in sand bunkers with a gradual slope, and instead the right side would more resemble the left surround with perhaps short grass bunkers or nothing at all.

[JMorgan]

In any case, I am not trying to get too specific about the examples I presented, I am arguing more for general purposes mainly for the sake of variety and a bit of creativity.  I am bunkered out and am quickly becoming bored with the fix-all mentality that so many bunkers seem to represent.    

Ciao  

Sean, I'm with you.  The photographic examples you always provide here are great examples of golf as I dream it.  But I think the specifics are very important nonetheless.  

When I look at a hole -- whether from the tee, on the approach, looking back from the next hole, on GCA.com -- I always have two primary ideas in mind:

*1 If I am coming on this piece of land for the first time, and I throw down my ball as if I am just knocking it along on my way into town or back to my doorstep, would I be convinced that those landforms over which I am manipulating my "stone" are natural and pleasing on both sensational and motor levels?

*2 If I am the architect, am I presenting an aesthetically near perfect version of an x-yard stretch of landscape, where whatever I add to the picture is complementary and challenging to the game that I and the ideal player are seeing in his or her or my mind?

Are architects overzealous in their use of bunkers?  Yes, many are; but you agree that there are many exceptions.  The use of bunkers in golf architecture today is analogous to shrubbing up a piece of property.  

Still, I want to look at the specific examples.  Bethpage Black, one of my favorite local courses, is IMO overbunkered.  (I cringe at Phil's response on this one.)  And I think Pasa #15, for instance, has two bunkers too many, just as another specific, perhaps controversial example.  

The point is, I agree with you; but I do think the individual example IS what ultimately counts, because that is where you really see the architect's mind really swallowing rapture or channeling demons, take your pick.

[Mark_Fine]

Yes courses can be and many are "over bunkered" or over designed as I called it on another thread.  But at the same time, let's not forget where the influence and example comes from.  It this course over bunkered  

[Philip Gawith]

Sean - I agree in general with your thesis which - I think - allows room to take account of local circumstances. No-one has mentioned the Sandbelt, but to me the bunkering at, say, Kingston Heath is probably the dominant memory of the course- and so much the better. Given the nature of the terrain, those bunkers feel like they belong, albeit they are more dominant than you might advise in your "central case" - if such exists!

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Every kind of terrain and topography calls for different design features.  On some courses, lots of bunkers make perfect sence.  

Regarding blindness; as you know, Flynn was one of those guys that believed bunkers needed to be visible.  He rarely ever put them in blind spots from the tee or from a vantage point where a good shot would be played.  But then again, he was one of the few Golden Age architects that never ventured across the pond    I guess he felt he learned enough from Wilson's trip??  I really think it would have impacted his design philosophy (for better or for worse, who knows).  But it might have removed some of that conservative nature from his design style.  Shinnecock is obviously great but he also had one awesome piece of property to work with.  Even there, how many times do you find blind hazards?    

I've always told people if you haven't played golf on the old original links courses, you never have really played "golf".  As you know, until you've done it, you can't comprehend the difference.  And yes, you will see a lot of blind hazards (all kinds)