[Brett Morris]

Is there any strategic purpose for bunkering behind greens?

I spent some time with Peter Thomson one day touring him around a course I was formerly Superintendent at.  We came to the 4th which was a down hill one shot with a large bunker behind.  He expressed his distaste clearly.  I am now working at another of their designs and asked the same question to Mr. Thomson's former design partner, Michael Wolveridge who lives near the course I run now, and which was designed by their firm.  There are no bunkers behind their links design here and Michael mentioned that bunkers should be "made to be played over or around".

Shouldn't a long or incorrectly played shot be better made to run through the green rather than be captured by a bunker?  I would think that the recovery may be more difficult.

Brett.

[Kevin Pallier]

Yes - if you want to try and prevent balls from going into a water hazard or OOB is the obvious choice.

It can also used well in some short P3's - my home course at Wollongong has a downhill green at 135m surrounded by bunkers. As it's by the sea it often gets buffeted by winds and then depending on the pin placement one must decide if it's better to miss long or short.

[Brett Morris]

Kevin,

Thanks for your reply.

Why should a poor shot be prevented from entering a water hazard or OOB?

[Kevin Pallier]

Brett

How can you say that a ball that runs over the back of a green is a poor shot ? Depends on:

1. the type of hole
2. the type of green
3. where the pin is
4. what's beyond the green

The pin may be in the back half and somone may have tried to take an aggressive line into a P5 in two and with just a little too much pace. Instead of going into the water they're "saved" somewhat by the bunker. Still a chance for a birdie or possible eagle for an aggressive play ?

[Jim Nugent]

How about behind a green that slopes from front to back?  Could make the approach more interesting, encouraging the ground game, especially with F&F conditions. 

[Adam Clayman]

It's too formulaic to say all rear bunkers are improper.   The downhill example penalizes the too aggressive or poor thinking. The good doctor used them to great affect on holes such as the 16th @ CPC. Stan Thompson too. It is not unusual for good players like Mr. Thomson to dislike Penalties for being aggressive.

[Bradley Anderson]

I have noticed that on some older golf courses there are depressions behind the greens which may have once been bunkers. Probably that area was dug down for fill material in the greens construction, and at the back of the green is where the most amount of fill was generally required. But maybe those depressions were intentionally dug to function as a penalty for anyone who hit too hard of a bump and run to the green?

Think about how hard that recovery shot would be with those clubs, hitting from a depression that is made deeper by its relationship to the highest elevation of the green bank, to a putting surface that is falling away from you. Even if those depressions were never filled with sand, that was still a hard shot, and it would make the bump and run more of a skill shot than its given credit for.

If an aerial shot to the green ends up short, you may be hitting from a bunker to a surface that is sloped towards you, and that can be less demanding than hitting from a depression behind the green to a surface that is sloped away from you.

I have seen this design element mostly on Bendelow and Foulis golf courses.

[TEPaul]

My 1916 Ross course had a number of original bunkers behind greens all of which were removed. They've all been restored and I surely supported their restoration.

[Sean_A]

I am not overly keen on rear bunkering because I believe it usually helps the player with distance unless the scheme is cleverly laid out.  Though I do like the idea of the odd blind rear bunker or bunkers in the rear for greens sloping front to back. 

Ciao

[Ron Farris]

There is a thought that a bunker placed behind a green gives a sense of finality to a hole.  Without bunkers behind greens the course is likely to have a greater sense of FLOW, according to some.  In today's world, with houses, streets, and Lord only knows what on golf courses there is quite a bit of disconnection of hole-to-hole.  If one looks at history and considers the Old Course and its being played both directions, I think the bunkering and its consideration of being behind the green as a bad thing is a bit overblown IMHO.

[TEPaul]

"Though I do like the idea of the odd blind rear bunker or bunkers in the rear for greens sloping front to back."

Sean:

Personally I prefer bunkers at the rear of greens that slope back to front and even radically so (such as the rear greenspace "kickups" on Ross's #13 and #18 with a bunker behind each at GMGC). They offer real challenge and interest in recovery.  

[Sean_A]

"Though I do like the idea of the odd blind rear bunker or bunkers in the rear for greens sloping front to back."

Sean:

Personally I prefer bunkers at the rear of greens that slope back to front and even radically so (such as the rear greenspace "kickups" on Ross's #13 and #18 with a bunker behind each at GMGC). They offer real challenge and interest in recovery. 

Tom

Thats fair enough.  It sounds like the bunkers you are describing would be blind and/or huge if the bank is that steep.  I usually think guys in that position - especially on Ross greens - are already in a world of hurt and I don't really see the need to spend money for these areas.  Of course, the odd one here or there just to shake things up a bit is fine.  As you know, I am a one man wrecking crew for minimal use of bunkers! 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

All architects had exceptions to their "rules" (Tom Paul pointed out a few on his course) but Ross for one ended nearly all of his holes at the back of the green.  One of the major hazards on most Ross courses is the netherworld that awaits for the ball that is hit long and very rarely did it find a man made bunker.  On the other hand, architects like Fownes and Loeffler employed bunkers beyond greens quite frequently.  A quick count thinking through the holes would have bunkers beyond the back of the green on 8 of 18 holes at Oakmont. 
 

[Bill_McBride]

This is why I guess I'm a hopeless "eye candy" man.  These bunkers may not come into play often, but to my eye they really tie these holes together.













So shoot me! 

[Tim Nugent]

A topic near and dear to my heart.  Personally, I do not advocate rear bunkers for strategic.  I feel, and this is just my opinion, that a good player typically will not overclub that much, and if they do get into a rear bunker (with a vast majority of greens sloping back to front, has a better skill set to use the ability to spin the ball out of the sand rather than the more difficult shot coming out of grass.  For the higher-handcapper's the opposite holds true so they are actually more punished.
All that said, there are always exceptions.  Take #12 and #13 at ANGC.  The rear bunkering, coupled with the slope of the green, the narrow landing spot, the fronting water and the swirling winds all work together to transform what, on paper, is a relatively easy hole into one that confounds the bests golfers in the world every year.
As for rear bunkers, I have used them to highlight the rear of the green mostly for aesthetic  reasons aka DR. M.'s Valley Club or CPGC.  Mostly they add visual interest and even distraction to the shot.  I do, however feel that if you are going to put a bunker behind a green, the golfer should know it is there. I personally detest the "hidden" bunker.
PS as I was writing this Bill McBride was kind enough to post the pic of the Valley Club

[Jeff_Brauer]

What Tim said.  So few players go long that bunkers behind greens are usually non strategic, unless you have a shallow green like ANGC 12 and they test distance control.  Bunkers near the front and mid point of the green will see a lot more business.

That said, they do look great in many cases, especially if you tend to route holes with greens in up slopes.  And, gca's on many public courses tend to shove bunkers towards the rear of the green to get the "look hard, play easy" type of design.

[Tom_Doak]

I've always had a hard time making myself put bunkers flashed up behind greens ... I've done it some when we were doing the MacKenzie style, but otherwise not so much.

My favorite bunker behind a green that I've ever done is the invisible pot bunker behind the 7th at High Pointe.  As Tim pointed out, most good golfers (and for that matter bad golfers) aren't likely to go over the green, and nobody knows it's there the first time around, so it rarely comes into play.  But for the regulars, once you know it's there, it is hard to make yourself get the ball back to the hole.  Its psychological impact is much greater than its real effect ... in 100 rounds I've only seen two or three players actually go into the bunker.

[Jim_Coleman]

   The weirdest bunkers behind a green that I've ever seen are three pot=like bunkers that must sit 25 feet above and twenty yards behind the thirteenth green at Pete Dye's Dye Fore at Casa de Campo.  Talk about a waste of rakes!  I can almost guarantee that no ball has ever been played from one of these.  Maybe they provide some sort of a target, but I don't rally think so.  I guess they're just supposed to look odd and be fun.

[Sean_A]

I've always had a hard time making myself put bunkers flashed up behind greens ... I've done it some when we were doing the MacKenzie style, but otherwise not so much.

My favorite bunker behind a green that I've ever done is the invisible pot bunker behind the 7th at High Pointe.  As Tim pointed out, most good golfers (and for that matter bad golfers) aren't likely to go over the green, and nobody knows it's there the first time around, so it rarely comes into play.  But for the regulars, once you know it's there, it is hard to make yourself get the ball back to the hole.  Its psychological impact is much greater than its real effect ... in 100 rounds I've only seen two or three players actually go into the bunker.

Tom

This is my point exactly about blind rear bunkers.  While at Rosses Point the one hazard I thought was fantastic was the burn behind the downhill par 3 13th.  It really came into its own playing the hole downwind.  The combination with the two front bunkers (with enough room to land a ball between them for the kick up) was fantastic. 

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

I have noticed that on some older golf courses there are depressions behind the greens which may have once been bunkers. Probably that area was dug down for fill material in the greens construction, and at the back of the green is where the most amount of fill was generally required. But maybe those depressions were intentionally dug to function as a penalty for anyone who hit too hard of a bump and run to the green?

I have seen this design element mostly on Bendelow and Foulis golf courses.

Brad the more you post the more I am in agreement with you.  First drainage and now this.

It is my experience that on the older courses I play, architects, like e.g. Colt, seemed to pay more attention giving detail to the area behind the green than more modern ones do.  I have a pet theory that this is because in the days before most greens received artificial watering they were frequently in summer like cement (depending of course on the material they were made up of.) It is my contention that with older technology giving lower trajectory shots - off hard pan fairways - using 'bouncing billies', players had more often to recover from beyond the green.  Hence the architects paid more attention to the land there.

The rear of greens (Colt).

Bunker behind green (to prevent OB?)

[Ed Oden]

As Tim pointed out, most good golfers (and for that matter bad golfers) aren't likely to go over the green, and nobody knows it's there the first time around, so it rarely comes into play.  But for the regulars, once you know it's there, it is hard to make yourself get the ball back to the hole.  Its psychological impact is much greater than its real effect ... in 100 rounds I've only seen two or three players actually go into the bunker.

Tom, this is so true. The bunkers that immediately jumped to mind for me are ones of this type that I have unfortunately visited personally.  For example, the invisible pot bunkers behind the 9th at Pinehurst #2 and the 9th at Yeamans Hall.  Once you've been in one, you'll remember it. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is there any strategic purpose for bunkering behind greens?

There are several.
When holes are cut in the back of the green it makes hitting hole high difficult.
Shots hit short due to the consequences of hitting long, are left with long putts, usually uphill.
It penalizes the overly aggressive golfer.
It makes recovery to a back hole location very difficult.

I spent some time with Peter Thomson one day touring him around a course I was formerly Superintendent at.  We came to the 4th which was a down hill one shot with a large bunker behind.  He expressed his distaste clearly. 

CBM, SR & CB all placed bunkers behind greens.
It's a very effective defense when hole locations are back.

My home course, circa 1927 has about 7 rear bunkers and a number of swales behind greens.

They really test the ground/running game.

I am now working at another of their designs and asked the same question to Mr. Thomson's former design partner, Michael Wolveridge who lives near the course I run now, and which was designed by their firm.  There are no bunkers behind their links design here and Michael mentioned that bunkers should be "made to be played over or around".

That provides for limited usage and eliminates a great deal of tactical play, especially when hole locations are in the back of a green.

GCGC, NGLA, Seminole and many other reknown clubs have them.

Shouldn't a long or incorrectly played shot be better made to run through the green rather than be captured by a bunker? 

No, because the consequence for doing so would be minimal.
Why shouldn't a long and/or incorrectly played shot face the same consequence as a short and/or incorrectly played shot ?

If there was no penalty long then the golfer would err on the longside knowing that the incremental disadvantage was minimal.

I would think that the recovery may be more difficult.

Why ?
The golfer would have no impediments to thwart his recovery.

[Tim Gavrich]

I'm all in favor of rear bunkers, personally.  Here's the way I think things shake out:

Bunkers in front and on the sides of greens are more of a test for higher-handicap players.  Such players don't often get the ball to the hole on approach shots (I'm reminded of the pro who was asked about how to put backspin on the ball.  The pro then asked the guy if he left the ball short more often on approach shots.  The guy said he did, and the pro responded, "then what the hell do you need backspin for?").

Bunkers behind greens tend to be more troublesome to better players, who are more confident in their distance control, and are more likely to get the ball to the hole on approaches.

There's a great rear bunker on the 3rd hole (170-195 yard par 3) at Pawleys Plantation that really messes with the mind of the player on the tee.

[John Mayhugh]

I agree with Pat Mucci.  There are several good strategic reasons to locate bunkers behind greens. 

First, it affects a player's effectiveness at reaching a back hole location.  A great example of this is at the first hole at Raynor's Mountain Lake.  The first green is a double plateau.  It's very important to have your approach end up on the correct portion of the green.  The bunker at the back makes a player more likely to underclub in order to avoid it.

Here's a photo of the green from the right side.  Note the hole is in the back.


No one in our group reached the correct level of the green with a few three-putts as the result.  The back bunker is pretty intimidating.  Photo is as viewed from the back of the green.


Another good reason for bunkers behind the green is to require distance control from those playing a ground game.  One good example of this is at the eight hole on Doak's Ballyneal. This hole has a shallow, diagonal green.  This photo is taken from the rear of the green.  While it's easy to run a ball up, distance & line need to be good to avoid the rear bunker.


Rear bunkers can have a significant effect on line of play.  On the second hole at Prairie Dunes, Maxwell uses the rear bunker to really make a player consider club selection.  You don't want to be short, but if you reach the rear bunker then you have a very tough recovery to the multi-tiered green.  It's easy to end up back in one of the front bunkers or at the bottom of the hill.


Rear bunkers can also affect strategy in a positive way.  On the short par 4 16th at Holston Hills, out of bounds is very close to the rear of the green.  Ross placed a bunker behind the green to catch balls that go long, provided you are approaching from the fairway.  If you approach from an angle, no bunker to save you.
This is the hole from the tee.  It's about 320 yards uphill.

This is the rear bunker from behind the green.  Go over it and you're OB. This photo was taken during late fall.


I can come up with plenty more examples how rear bunkers affect strategy.

[Joel_Stewart]

My 1916 Ross course had a number of original bunkers behind greens all of which were removed. They've all been restored and I surely supported their restoration.

Interesting because a good friend of mine is President of the Donald Ross Society and he insists that Ross hated bunkers behind greens?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()