[Mark Bourgeois]

Remember a few months ago I posted on "convex" bunkers? What about zero-depth "bunkers"; i.e., sandy, waste-like (non-maintained, hence the quote marks around "bunkers") areas of lumpy aggregations of sand?  Not concave, not convex...

A sand form becomes a "bunker" only when man gives a sand form that name -- and then of course the label dictates certain subsequent activities, namely digging out a hole and maintaining this sand-filled hole according to maintenance practices and the rules of golf -- but why do we have to dig it out, much less maintain it?  Don't things go downhill from a "hide the hand of man" perspective as soon as we label the thing a bunker?

What about sand forms that are just random agglomerations of finely ground aggregate -- kind of like blowout bunkers, but without the blowout?

Would this look more naturalistic on a links -- especially dunesland -- than formal + formally-maintained bunkers?

Would this idea look at all naturalistic inland / on non linksland?  Would it look at all natural on flattish linksland?

I guess technically it would be "maintained" only insofar as wind wasn't allowed to scoop out any depth.  You'd have to maintain zero depth! Uh, would that be difficult?

Also necessary would be to "label" it as a waste area and not as a bunker -- even so, would zero-depth "bunkers" provide fun yet challenge?

What if you got lichens, mold, or some type of small flora to grow in these zero-depth sand forms?

Here's the concept sort of in action -- some of these are too far out of play though to make a huge difference:












Mark

[Peter Nomm]

I think this kind of obstacle is great in the right settings.  It would be no different than desert courses that have both waste areas as well as maintained bunkers. 

And the unpredictability of the sand/soil would add a great twist to today's easy bunkers.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

We tried to do some bunkers like that at Ballyneal when we started building it.  There are still some remnants left of some of them; however, we gradually moved away to more formal bunkers, mostly because we thought golfers would not accept all the vegetation inside the sand.

The new project I mentioned the other day (the reversible one) will have open sandy areas as you describe.  It's not too windy of a place so I think they'll stay in place.  We would love to have built some convex sand forms in Bandon or in Holyoke, but they'd be gone by now anyway.

[Matthew Mollica]

Mark,

This sort of feature is found in several spots on the Mornington Peninsula courses, especially The Dunes and Greg Norman's Moonah course at The National. It's there by design short right of the second green on Moonah, and has occurred naturally on both sides of the 10th fairway (right side more) among other spots. They are changeable in their form and playability, and even area, as Tom said, due to wind, carts and foot traffic. These areas are better than patches of ball obscuring rough aren't they, as they allow the option of a brave recovery, don't slow play, and don't require much maintenence. They also look great in the right spots. I like the natural sandy expanses on coastal courses, but they must be difficult for ground grews to keep a handle on. Preserving them in static form would be impossible.

Matthew

[Jonathan McCord]

Here are some of the "Zero Depth Bunkers" mentioned above.  These are located on the left side of the eighth hole at Ballyneal.

[Jim Sweeney]

Mark:

This is an interesting topic that has caused some discussions in recent years at USGA championships played on the links like courses at Sea Island and Bandon Dunes.

Before I go on, I need to assert that in no way does an area need to be hollowed out or specially maintained in order to be classsified a bunker. The rules define bunkers as areas, usually hollows, from which turf has been removed and replaced with sand or the like. That turf could be removed by man, by animal, by wind or water, or whatever. The area can be hollowed, mounded, or dead flat. The replacement material could be already existing, carted in, blown in, washed in, whatever. The important thing is that the committee decided the area fit the definitiion of a bunker.

At the above mentioned courses there are numerous areas of sand hills covered with sea grass, weeds, gorse, and such, which contain areas of open sand which may or may not be classified as bunkers. To create additional uncertainty, in some cases the designers intentionally created areas of open sand intended to be bunkers but which have ill-defined edges so as to blend in to their surrounds and be "naturalistic." No problem there, just areas the commtitte must contend with when administering the game.

The problem is in defining the area of what is and is not considered bunker for the playing of the game and the application of the rules. That has been done in vaious ways.

White lines have been painted on the ground encircling the area the commiitee is defining as "bunker." Stakes have been planted to define such areas. At Sea Island, certain areas were raked, others were not. The raked areas were defined as bunkers (kind of ironic, when one thinks about it, yet effective in defining the area of the bunker; i.e., if one;'s ball came to rest in a raked area in the dunes, it was bunkered- otherwise it was "through the green.") Any of the areas not marked as described were simply "through the green," and all appropriate rules applied (grounding the club, embedded ball, ball unplayable, loosed impediments, etc.) All of these techniques allow the players and the officials to apply the rules without confusion.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - nice topic, the practical and theoretical all mixed up. I liked this, especially:

"Don't things go downhill from a "hide the hand of man" perspective as soon as we label the thing a bunker?"

The perfect mix: the theoretical answer being "Yes, of course they do" and the practical rejoinder being "Yeah, so what?"

The dichotomy probably wouldn't exist on a course that cost $22 to play; but it's striking what adding money into an equation will do...

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

For a handful of posts there sure is a lot to think about in here!

Jim, why declare them as bunkers at all? Is the crux here really that by declaring them as bunkers, they could be maintained -- reducing the chances of embedded balls?  I like the idea of embedded balls as an intrinsic, perhaps the intrinsic, character that gives zero-depth "bunkers" their challenge.  Not only that, but the type of ground where one foot might be propped up and the other sunk in sand to the ankles, all the while each foot turned at odd angles to one another.

Could a committee note that the crappy nature of this area -- humps, hollows, lichens -- is in fact "natural" and *not* "abnormal ground conditions"?

Or is the issue the holy hell the Fairness Police would raise over embedded balls *anywhere* on a golf course?

Tom D, this idea of golfers not liking vegetation inside bunkers: what if management just "sold" those features as purely natural; i.e., "as is?" And furthermore as "uncontrollable" in a basic sense, kind of like gorse?  You could even send out people to "fake repair" some of these things every now and then -- or maybe tidy up a few of the prominent ones.

Isn't this a fine example of the trickeration architects are allowed to employ in their goal of meeting or confounding the expectations of golfers, in this case meeting -- and then some -- golfers' expectations for a "natural" course?

Matthew, any pictures on offer? And what's your understanding of how golfers have reacted to them, and whether management has resorted to any trickeration?

And on that note, Jonathan, thanks for posting that picture.  I have returned again and again to it, trying to tease out a vague notion of something not sitting right for me, and I think I have it: the knowledge this was manmade changes not my perception but my value judgement of it, in a negative way. It would have been better not to know!

Makes me wonder whether you really do have to trick people into believing this type of feature was found not made, and perhaps by extension any feature at home in nature but odd on a golf course.

Has anyone had such an experience, where the revelation of provenance as manmade not natural caused one literally to see the feature differently, and for the worse?

Peter, it's funny how humans need some sort of structure, a "mental frame" or metaphor, in order to perceive what their eyes take in -- not just to make a value judgement but literally to process the raw visual stimuli.

In this case it is their need to apply to a piece of land a metaphor that is their own understanding, their own conception, of how a golf course is supposed to look.  That's why I think an understanding of golfers' expectations, how they conceive the metaphor of "golf course," plays a very large role in how at least some architects seem to design courses. (I think MacKenzie for example.)

In addition to Tom Doak's comment above, another real-world example of this notion, which can also be expressed as "designing to confirm or confound what golfers think a golf course is supposed to look like:" Augusta National as maintenance metaphor.

It would be a neat exercise to create a table:
Column 1 -- the conscious and subconscious expectations golfers have relating to golf course design, everything from routings to shots to bunker styles;
Column 2 -- design elements that can be used to confirm those expectations;
Column 3 -- design elements that can be used to confound those expectations;
Column 4 -- general principle(s) or real-world examples illustrating when to confirm and when to confound.*

*These principles might change with the times. In one era, they might tilt toward "challenge," in another toward "pleasure," and in yet another toward "mystery" or "multifacedness" (sic).

Okay, I've weirded myself out (again) and have to stop for a while...

Seriously, thanks to everyone for these responses -- really impressed at how much you've thought it through.

Mark

[TEPaul]

"Don't things go downhill from a "hide the hand of man" perspective as soon as we label the thing a bunker?"

Mark:

Perhaps but not necessarily. However, things really do change and must change when those labels, definitions and such begin to be treated as distinct areas that are treated differently in play from other areas, and that's what happened with bunkering.

The Rules of Golf are what really changed things regarding bunkers when it became a prohibition to touch sand in a bunker. Before that there wasn't such a complete prohibition against touching the surface of a bunker. Around the first third of the 19th century that Rule began to creep into golf first with a prohibition against making an impression and then in 1875 the prohibition against touching the surface.

Before those things happened in the Rules essentially all lies anywhere for the purpose of hitting the ball were treated the same and so there didn't really need to be any distinctions in play except for how to treat relief for a ball that was not playable.

In other words, if the prohibition against touching the sand surface in a bunker had never been instituted in the Rules of Golf I doubt there ever would have been much thought to either define or maintain bunkers. They would have remained as most every other area on a golf course where the only prohibition in striking the ball is not to improve your lie.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()