[Mark Fedeli]

The 16th at Pelham Bay in the Bronx (Van Kleek). The hole plays 220 yards from the tips, 205 from the forward tees.

Even though it's open right down the middle, I'm assuming these were intended to be both topped shot bunkers as well as provide some complication to the ground game back when that would have been a more common play.

What I find interesting is that it is 80 yards from the backs of the bunkers to the middle of the green. That's awfully far in front. In addition, the backs are only raised a few feet. I do like them, and appreciate how their positioning doesn't add much more danger to an already challenging hole, but being that far from the green seems very unique.

Thoughts? Any other similar examples out there?

[Bill_McBride]

Those are a great example of hazards that are irrelevant to good players and a nightmare for the foozler.   Not good architecture to me, but would be worse if top shot cross bunkers. 

[Mark Fedeli]

Those are a great example of hazards that are irrelevant to good players and a nightmare for the foozler.   Not good architecture to me, but would be worse if top shot cross bunkers. 

From the tee, they seem so far out of play as to barely even be a concern for the foozler. I wonder if their purpose isn't more cosmetic, as a framing device? They do look quite good and really help to break up the monotony, all while being just far enough from the green to ensure an already challenging hole isn't made even more difficult.

[Bill_McBride]

Trust me, foozles are not always straight!   

[Ally Mcintosh]

Once in a while, I'm for a top-shot / carry bunker.

There is no point designing a course where bunkers are only set up for the long hitter / good player - it means there is no interest for the short hitter / lesser player. Plus they add variety and an additional visual barrier. All that said, flanking bunkers at shorter distances are the most effective to bring interest for the shorter hitter.

The argument against the odd top-shot bunker should be extra maintenance, not architecture.

[Thomas Dai]

Diagonal bunkers/hazards are nice as they can mostly challenge just about all level of player. Can be one diagonally stretched bunker or a line of bunkers or even a stream. Variable diagonals though, some left-to-right, some right-to-left. Like all things, such a feature can be overused I guess, but are nice in reasonable moderation.

Am I correct in believing that Harry Vardon used diagonal bunkering quite a bit in his designs? Little Aston, Copt Heath, South Staffs being courses connected with him that come to mind.

atb

[Craig Disher]

I suspect they were added for both deception and penalty for a mis-hit shot. Placing bunkers well in front of putting surfaces is a nice feature when a running shot might be required. They're obsolete when strong players can carry a 5-iron well over 200 yards.

Do you really mean that the backs of the bunkers are raised a few yards? That sounds like 15-25 feet which would likely obscure some of the putting surface and catch a well-struck shot that happened to be a bit low. Even if they're not that high now, it's possible that originally the backs were higher and have eroded - or been sliced down - over time.

[Carson Pilcher]

When standing on the tee, do they appear to be greenside bunkers?  Ala MacKenzie, the visual intimidation is all that is necessary.

[Mark Fedeli]

I suspect they were added for both deception and penalty for a mis-hit shot. Placing bunkers well in front of putting surfaces is a nice feature when a running shot might be required. They're obsolete when strong players can carry a 5-iron well over 200 yards.

Do you really mean that the backs of the bunkers are raised a few yards? That sounds like 15-25 feet which would likely obscure some of the putting surface and catch a well-struck shot that happened to be a bit low. Even if they're not that high now, it's possible that originally the backs were higher and have eroded - or been sliced down - over time.

Sorry, a few feet, and mainly out toward the far back edges. I'll correct that.

[Mark Fedeli]

When standing on the tee, do they appear to be greenside bunkers?  Ala MacKenzie, the visual intimidation is all that is necessary.

Not at all. To be completely honest about it, I barely even noticed their existence until a playing partner recently commented on how worthless they were. I said they were probably topped shot bunkers, but they are really more like horrendous topped shank bunkers.

They are quite pretty from ground level and do a very good job of framing and drawing your eye toward the center of the green. It would be far less visually interesting without them, but there is very little strategic value. I play a seriously low ball, especially at this distance, where I'd try to bounce it up, and these were of absolutely no concern to that.

[JC Urbina]

Mark,

The two bunkers in front of the Redan at North Berwick offer the same visual effect.  The value for me is the set up. 

Your concern sounds like millions of golfers who see something that doesn't affect them so they decry their existence.  Other words offered up, would be Stupid, Worthless, Dumb.

In a round of golf many times a bunker will not affect a golfer in that particular moment.  But golf is not about one shot and one bunker.

[Mark Fedeli]

Your concern sounds like millions of golfers who see something that doesn't affect them so they decry their existence.  Other words offered up, would be Stupid, Worthless, Dumb.

In a round of golf many times a bunker will not affect a golfer in that particular moment.  But golf is not about one shot and one bunker.

Believe me, I did not intend to decry their existence. I just wanted to discuss it. I did offer one example of my own play, but mainly my concern was discussing the effect of this on lesser players or those back when the course was opened. I'm familiar with the styles of bunkering that are very similar to this, but being only halfway to the green, off to the sides, and so low to the ground, I thought they were an interesting anomaly.

They are gorgeous and add a lot to the hole, I'm just wondering about the placement and their effect from the teeing ground. I could be wrong, but I'm having a hard time imagining even the worst players being influenced by them.

[Paul Gray]

Mark,

I know not of the history or age of the course but if the front of the green is about 200 yards away, meaning that if the bunkers are about 10 yards long a carry of about 130 yards is need to get over them, they would have been far more of a factor for golfers of old with hickory shafts and far lower flighted shots. I'm assuming the course hasn't always been lush and green but, again, I know not of the history.

[Greg Tallman]

I am particularly fond of the one floating the rough between the cart paths.

[Mark Fedeli]

Mark,

I know not of the history or age of the course but if the front of the green is about 200 yards away, meaning that if the bunkers are about 10 yards long a carry of about 130 yards is need to get over them, they would have been far more of a factor for golfers of old with hickory shafts and far lower flighted shots. I'm assuming the course hasn't always been lush and green but, again, I know not of the history.

I agree, Paul. For what it's worth, according to Google Earth they are 115 to carry from the front of the tee boxes (with a 21 yard opening), leaving 75+ to the flagstick. Sounds a tad ambitious on the ground for this turf, but that certainly doesn't mean the point wouldn't have been made.

[Mark Fedeli]

I am particularly fond of the one floating the rough between the cart paths.

That's actually a great bunker. The hole is a very short par 4, 330 from the tips, and that bunker is at 270, gobbling up any overly-ambitious drives that drift a tad left. It's also semi-blind from the tee. As for the cart path, I've no defense.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How a bunker looks from 10,000 feet isn't how a bunker looks from the golfer's eye at 5' or 6'

[Mark Fedeli]

How a bunker looks from 10,000 feet isn't how a bunker looks from the golfer's eye at 5' or 6'

Unfortunately, they have very little rise to them. The backs only go up a few feet. Given where they sit and the relatively benign green surrounds, I'd like nothing more than for them to be much higher, to allow the potential for semi-blindness. I do quite like how they are there, but not overbearing enough to add any more difficulty to a 200+ yard par 3.

Here's another hole on the same course, #8. From the forward tees, the cross bunker is 80 yards from the tee; the back of it only 25 yards from the front of the green, and it does have a fair bit more rise, obscuring the front of the green. Very interesting to see the two styles chosen for the differing length holes. Although I think this one is Van Etten, while the other is Van Kleek.

[Chris_Blakely]

How a bunker looks from 10,000 feet isn't how a bunker looks from the golfer's eye at 5' or 6'

Unfortunately, they have very little rise to them. The backs only go up a few feet. Given where they sit and the relatively benign green surrounds, I'd like nothing more than for them to be much higher, to allow the potential for semi-blindness. I do quite like how they are there, but not overbearing enough to add any more difficulty to a 200+ yard par 3.

Here's another hole on the same course, #8. From the forward tees, the cross bunker is 80 yards from the tee; the back of it only 25 yards from the front of the green, and it does have a fair bit more rise, obscuring the front of the green. Very interesting to see the two styles chosen for the differing length holes. Although I think this one is Van Etten, while the other is Van Kleek.

I am surprised anyone knows about Lawrence Van Etten and his involvement in the original 9 holes !

Do you know which 9 holes he designed?

Chris

[Mark Fedeli]

I am surprised anyone knows about Lawrence Van Etten and his involvement in the original 9 holes !

Do you know which 9 holes he designed?

Chris

Unfortunately, I do not. Though, I'd love to hear it if someone does. I'd just gone ahead and assumed the current front 9 was his because it does return well to the front of the clubhouse. But that's obviously far from concrete evidence.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()