[John_Conley]

I believe a core sentiment in Jaka's assertion that Torrey Pines is a good venue is that the hazards are in the right places.  The bunkers in front of #13 (or whichever is the reachable par 5 on the back).  The pond on #18. 

Compare bunkering by Smyers or Strantz to what we see in the Reestorations.  On one hand we have artistic, the result of a lot of care.  On the other hand, they're there.

I'll admit, I've always been more concerned about hazard placement than appearance.  Yes, I favor something by Doak and Hanse over a flashed Fazio bunker, but strategy is still there even when the forms are a bit crude.

Cast your vote - which is more important to you?  For me it is placement.  I know, ideally you'll have both.  That's not always the case.

Also, aside from Torrey Pines what courses are an example of the "right place, wrong look" school of design?

[Jon Wiggett]

John,

I think that placement is something that has more importance close to the green where it has more relevance for all standards of player. From the tee it has to be more look as the placement might affect one player but not another. Having said that a bunker should always look right but what style is best is more 'in the eye of the beholder'. Your statement that Doak bunkers look better would not be backed up by Fazio and I am sure Tom D would also argue that he doesn't have a style rather he adapts to the situation.

[Phil_the_Author]

John,

I have a SLIGHT problem with a statement such as, "I believe a core sentiment in Jaka's assertion that Torrey Pines is a good venue is that the hazards are in the right places..."

As correct as the statement sounds, it is just too general in scope and detail to be anything other than an introduction to the specific of what needs saying.

For example, "right places" according to whom? What makes the hazard put in the "right place?"

Hazards should be far more than something you don't want to hit into. In my opinion they should also identify where you want to place your shot and the best of them are placed alongside of the best locations for next shot angles and lies. Then and only then does the principle of risk/reward become a reality.

[John Kavanaugh]

Philip,

Careful, remember most of these guys think the bunkers at Bethpage are ugly.  I for one hate textbook architecture where your mind goes numb knowing that hugging a left fairway bunker will help avoid a right greenside bunk.  Why should bunkers only penalize the heroic attempts instead of the occasional complete flub?

[Jeff_Brauer]

John C,

I think we have discussed this way back in time.  Someone could do a search.

My only thought is that right now, most courses are on a 1930's Tillie like bunker reduction program, simply for cost reasons.  That is seemingly driving bunkers to be placed ONLY if they serve many functions.

Funny thing about bunkers. They are viewed as wrongly placed if they see too much business or too little.  I have never figured out what "just the right amount" of affecting play is!

[Tim Nugent]

This has got to be one of the trickier problems for a designer.  IMHO the bunkering should be used for more than just one function.  Granted the primary opinion is limited to the afore mentioned 'protect the A postion' theory.  However, I feel that they should have more functions.  They should be used also to create drama, accentuate the aesthetics and in some cases even save the golfer from a worse fate.

The problem with placement for the everyday player is that the range of ability varies greatly.  The use of multiple tees (to help make the club selection relatively consistent) can palce the forward tee and Pro tee palyers in the same landing zone and the rest of the spectrum a bit behind them.  So, if you bunker strickly for the Pro, you tend to put the weaker players in the same jepordy.  

When looking at a venue like Torrey Pines South that is marketed as a Championship Venue, it can get awaywith focusing primarily on the game the Tour Pros play especially when they have multiple courses - Medina #3 is the same, they have other courses for the rest of the memebers to play. Same with Oakland Hills, Cog Hill #4, Bethpage Black, Olympia Fields, LA CC, etc.  This gives them the flexibility to stratify the play to different courses depending on ability/enjoyment.

The problem comes when you try to make one course 'all things' to all players'.

As for bunker styles, hopefully the fit in harmony with their surroundings.  A rugged site calls for rugged bunkers.  However, putting rugged bunkers in a parkland setting might make them appear to be just 'unkempt'.  To me, the stacked sod bunkers of Scotland are at odds with the natural setting - too formal.  Especially if you go back and look at photos from the early days, before they 'cleaned them up'.

So how does one ger around all this?  I like to obscure the cookbook, formulated placement of fairway bunkers with a more random look along the line of charm.  Granted, this isn't the most economical solution but one the works for me.  Besides, bunkers aren't really hazards for the Pros anyway, 6" of long grass in-leau of sand would be much more hazardous to their scorecard.

[Dan Herrmann]

I played a Ross course yesterday, and I'd say that he put those bunkers exactly where they should be.

[Adam Clayman]

I'm not sure how relevant this is to John's posit, but, Pat Brockwell, at Black Mesa, made a slight tweak to his bunker aesthetic after about a year of being open. He allowed the fescue grass surrounding the bunker to grow a few more inches. The result was effective in making the clean edges look unclean. This helped make the bunkers fit into their natural environment more.







Versus







Hopefully these will highlight how just a small seemingly simple change can have a significant impact on how the golfer feels when golfing over such grand terrain.

[Kirk Gill]

I'll admit, I've always been more concerned about hazard placement than appearance.  Yes, I favor something by Doak and Hanse over a flashed Fazio bunker, but strategy is still there even when the forms are a bit crude.

Reading this question made me think of the "YOUR best Redan Photos" thread - a number of holes with similar design intent as far as shot requirements, etc., but with a huge variety of different looks. I found myself a little thrown, for example, by the look of the redan at Mountain Lake, with its squared-off bunkering. That's just not something I've seen before. But would the strategy of playing that hole be any different than playing the redan at NGLA, or Shinnecock? Those who have played both would know.

So if I'm voting, I'm thinking that the "where" of the bunker trumps the "how does it look," most of the time. Still, a low-profile bunker might seem less intimidating than one that reaches out and slaps you with its crusted shape and furry lip, and might just make a golfer more comfortable with the notion of sidling a shot up next to it, even though both bunkers exact a similar penalty.

[Tim Nugent]

Adam, thanks for hightlighting what I was attempting to say. I wish I knew how to add pictures.

I was just doing a walkthrough a grow-in yesterday and remarked to the super - who had let the grass (fescue in some cases) grow up around the bunkers (to expedite the mowing) - how awesome they looked.  Hopefully, we can keep alot of it when the course opens but I fear that as a public course, the "management" will force it all to be cut down "to make it easier for the higher handicapper".  This is code for "it will slow down play and we will make less money".

 Tell me how to attach a photo and I'll post them.

[Andy Hughes]

John, I know I will be flamed for saying so, but so many of the bunkers at the Old Course are 'right place, wrong look'.  Those perfectly round little pots with the sharp edges just do not look good, nor the least bit natural (of course, I don't have to maintain them either so maybe it's easy for me to say so).

[Kalen Braley]

Adam,

Great post and great example of small things that can be done to make bunkering more aesthics and natural looking.

I've often wondered how different TP could/would look if they adopted the same.  I think it would work, but hard to tell without seeing it

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You said, "Philip, Careful, remember most of these guys think the bunkers at Bethpage are ugly.  I for one hate textbook architecture where your mind goes numb knowing that hugging a left fairway bunker will help avoid a right greenside bunk.  Why should bunkers only penalize the heroic attempts instead of the occasional complete flub?"

What are you refering to?

My comment had nothing to do with Bethpage at all. I also think there are some ugly bunkers on the Black and Red and Blue courses at Bethpage. So what?

Where did I state that I don't hate or even like "textbook architecture where your mind goes numb knowing that hugging a left fairway bunker will help avoid a right greenside bunk."

When or where did I ever state "Why should bunkers only penalize the heroic attempts instead of the occasional complete flub?"

I think you need to read again what I wrote because I think you completely missed what I said.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()