[Patrick_Mucci]

While playing a golf course that I had never played before I experienced something that I hadn't given much thought to.  Namely, the use of bunker size to deceive the golfer.

While on the 1st tee, the bunker seemed close, and therefore, fliable.
I hit a good tee shot, but, to my surprise, the ball didn't come close to flying the bunker.

When I arrived at the bunker I was again surprised by its size, its scale.

Later in the round I encountered a similar situation, but, this time, the bunker was definitely fliable.

Surprise again.  I didn't come close.

Conversely, I've played courses where the bunkers seemed far beyond the range of my driver.  Unfortunately, they were in the DZ, but, they were small.

How often does an architect use scale to deceive the golfer ?

And, is the tendency toward the large or small bunker in the game of deception ?

At what courses do you encounter this situation ?

[Peter Nomm]

The opening tee shot on our course has a bunker left, which most people think they can fly and in reality can't even reach it.

Same with bunkers placed 30-40 yards short of a green creating the deception of green placement. 

Whether or not it was intended I don't know, but I have seen it on many occasions.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

The scale of bunkers and other features can deceive golfers.  There are bunkers at Merion that you see from the tee that are shockingly large when you get up to them for the first time.  The first bunker on the right of the 1st and 14th holes are great examples of these.

One aspect of bunkers that Flynn used to deceive golfers was manipulating the top lines of bunkers in a way that made them seem perpendicular to the line of play when in fact they are on a diagonal.  This deceives carry distance for both tee shots and approach shots.  The far side of the diagonal can be 2 clubs or more to carry than the near side.

[John Gosselin]

Pat, the most deceiving fairway bunkering scheme, in terms of distance, I have ever played was last month at Pine Tree(FL). I am still in awe of how the bunkers were stacked in a way that my depth perception was fooled time and time again. Some bunkers that I thought were in my DZ were even close and visa versa.

The combination of shape, size, and location of the fairway bunkering caused such doubt/thought when standing on the tees, it was fantastic. Even when our host gave us yardages to certain bunkers we did not believe.

[wsmorrison]

John,

Chances are, Dick Wilson learned that technique from Flynn.  Indian Creek (1931) demonstrates this on a number of holes.  The 6th is the finest example I've ever seen.  If you haven't seen IC, please do at some point.  It is amazing.

[John Gosselin]

Wayne, I played IC the day before I played PT and yes I did notice, but I thought PT was a little more dramatic. Both of those courses are great examples of fantastic fairway bunkering on sites with little elevation changes. 

I wish I ran across this more on my many trips to FL. Fairway bunkering is so much more than just putting bunkers at certain yardages on certain sides of fairways.

[Adam Clayman]

The Faz used the inter-action of bunkers, and their sizes, to great deceptive affect, making one of the holes at Shadow Creek appear longer. I believe he made them concentrically smaller, and narrowed their spacing, as they got closer to the green. He also made all those bunkers disappear when viewed from the green back towards the tee, ala Mackenzie's 5th at CPC.

[Wade Whitehead]

Strangely enough, I think the proximity of trees to bunkers can have an unexpected effect on accurately guessing bunker size and/or distance.

A bunker can be any size or shape.  A tree of a particular type is a predictable size.  Anytime a tree or two is near a bunker, figuring bunker distance and size becomes far simpler; bunkers that stand alone, or away from more predictably-sized objects, make figuring scale more problematic.

WW

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Faz used an oversized bunker in front of the green at the short 11th to make the approach shot seem shorter than it is (I don't recall prevailing wind on the hole, but if into the wind it would be very sneaky!) and on the 12th, he made the bunkers smaller as they got to the green and the green itself about 3400 sf) to force perspective and make the approach shot appear longer.

I recall the 12th working a lot better than the 11th in fooling my distance perception. I think its because the multiple bunkers work together, whereas we have all seen large greenside bunkers before.

BTW, a similar deception can be had by placing a greenside bunker well short of the green on flattish ground, with another behind it and slightly higher.  If you can arrange it just right, the golfer thinks the two bunkers are both right at the green, and the closer bunker makes the approach shot read as if the green front is just over the bunker.

For the record, I have never been fooled by Ross swale on the 15th at Pinehurst, perhaps because I can still believe the yardage marker on the tee.  On the 12th at Shadow Creek, even looking at the yardage marker that said 141, I just "knew" that it played 20 or more yards longer.

[Adam Clayman]

ww, Excellent point. Trees provide a reference point wherever they are used. Especially near greens. Another case against the constant ramblings of Doug Ralston.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

What a great collection of replies and Pat excellent insight!

Re scale in this regard I think there's an intellectual and historical debt to modern art and the military art of camouflage, but no sense boring everybody with that ramble.

An excellent - I hope! - example of bunkering used to deceive the eye regarding scale can be found at Royal Melbourne.

There, the enormous size of the bunkers serve to shrink the perceived size of the greens.  This, in concert with the positioning of the bunkers, presents a powerful visual intimidation and a psychological deterrent to aggressive play: greens enormous in area manage to appear far smaller!

They also disturb one's intuition for distances...

Mark

[David Stamm]

 George Thomas/Billy Bell used this tactic to great effect. In their cases, they would place bunkers in some cases 20-30 yds short of the green and fool the player's depth perception of the greensite. Unfortunately, much of the cases have been erased by people who misunderstood what they were for. Although not quite that short of the green, I think the 3rd at LACC North is a good example of this with the bunker short and right of the green and the fact that that it's uphill adds to this.

[Bradley Anderson]

When Paul Boizelle was the superintendent at Onwentsia in 1981, I remember he made yardage signs for the practice range, and the further they were away from the tee, the larger he made them. So when you stood there on the tee every sign was exactly same size. He had actually worked out some kind of equation for doing that with perfection.

I just wonder if any architects use this concept intentionally. From the tee you could make everything seem easy to reach. And the from the fairway in to the green you could make it seem unreachable, and all of this could be done with scale.

Patrick - on the holes where this scale of bunkering worked this way, I am guessing that there were not too many trees?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley Anderson,

It was at Augusta.

But, the trees were offset from the bunker on # 1 and beyond the bunker on #8, the two most deceptive holes.

Wayno,

The use of the diagonal, deceptively designed to appear at a fixed distance is a great feature.

Did Flynn invent this, see it somewhere else, or learn the trick from someone else ?

Jason,

Which holes at PT gave you the most trouble ?

# 1 starts you off that way and can be deceptive

[James Bennett]

I spoke of 'the Las Vegas effect' after playing St Andrews Beach #9 a couple of years ago.  No trees to give you a scale, just a very wide double fairway, big rolling dunes and a largeish (in appearance) fairway bunker.  I was out by perhaps 15% to 20% on the distance from the tee to that bunker, and laid up unnecessarily well short of it.

Similar to the experience on the Strip at Las Vegas, when the large hotels look extremely close, and 20 minutes of walking later look a little closer, but further than you still think.

The #3 at Peninsula South has a similar characteristic to my eye.  The green and bunkering is larger, and the trees set a little further away.  All of this conspires to make a 230 yard hole look like perhaps a 210 yard hole.

James B

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrcik said "[this] was at Augusta. But, the trees were offset from the bunker on # 1 and beyond the bunker on #8, the two most deceptive holes."

So Patrick would you say that I am correct then in making a fairly significant assumption here: that when using this principle of bunker scale and angle to make things appear as they are not, from a distance, the presence of trees too close to those deceptive bunkers assists the eye in correcting the illusion?

I think you have started a great subject here for discussion. That is: do too many trees foil illusory architecture?

[Bradley Anderson]

Just reviewing the thread here whitehead makes the same point with respect to trees even better:

"Strangely enough, I think the proximity of trees to bunkers can have an unexpected effect on accurately guessing bunker size and/or distance.

A bunker can be any size or shape.  A tree of a particular type is a predictable size.  Anytime a tree or two is near a bunker, figuring bunker distance and size becomes far simpler; bunkers that stand alone, or away from more predictably-sized objects, make figuring scale more problematic."

I am not one on the tree haters on this site, but I do think that when they grow up too close to bunkers they can interfere with perception.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrcik said "[this] was at Augusta. But, the trees were offset from the bunker on # 1 and beyond the bunker on #8, the two most deceptive holes."

So Patrick would you say that I am correct then in making a fairly significant assumption here: that when using this principle of bunker scale and angle to make things appear as they are not, from a distance, the presence of trees too close to those deceptive bunkers assists the eye in correcting the illusion?

YES,

I believe that the concept of "framing" especially when using trees is one of the worst concepts fostered upon golf courses and golfers.

I maintain that almost every green "framed" with trees added behind them, would be better off having those trees eliminated ASAP.

Interestingly enough, at a course that I'm very familiar with, they removed framing trees that were added subsequently, behind and flanking a particular hole.  The improvement was spectacular.  Unfortunately, within a few years, someone decided to plant new "framing" trees behind the green to give it more "definition".[/color]

I think you have started a great subject here for discussion. That is: do too many trees foil illusory architecture?

I'll start one immediately.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()