[Ron Farris]

Geometric shapes on flat land seems to have some merit.  I played a course in Mauritius years ago that had geometric bunkers on flat land.  It happened to be along the ocean?  I thought to myself that it was foolish to build such crude bunkers on the land near the ocean.  Then I learned of Raynor and the like. 

[Sean_A]

If form follows function, then if a bunker has no function then it should have no form.  If the definition or function of a bunker is to be a hazard, one that produces a fear of losing a stroke, then one would assume the form of the bunker would be such that it would produce a bogey or worse if hit into.  The great thing about golf course design and architecture is that the interpretation of the features of the course are determined by the golfer and Mother Nature.  If a bunker is un-reachable due to wind, does that give it a lack of function?  If a bunker is on the right side of the fairway and you hit it to the left rough, does the right bunker not have a function?  When it comes to geometric shapes, how does one determine the shape?
Should this bunker be rectangle in shape?

Ron

The problem with your explanation is that some archies have expanded the role of bunkering beyond it being a hazard.  They use them for framing and containing as well.  This is partly why there are so many of the damn things strewn about our couses these days.  Some archies don't have the creativity to figure out ways to create interest functionally and aesthetically without digging sand pits.

Ciao

[Mike_Cirba]

How about the fact that the greenside bunkering shown on the aerial is stupid, redundant, and shows the artistic restraint and imagination of a 5 year old?   

[Andy Hughes]

What, then, of the Church Pews?




Or the Road Hole bunker?

[Patrick_Mucci]

These bunkers were highly functional/effective in challenging the golfer.

How do you know this?


I know this because I can see that the green is surrounded by bunkers, not unlike the 17th at TPC and water.  I can see how tight the bunkers are to the green, allowing for no margin of error between the bunkers and the putting surfaces.  And, I understand how the relationship of the two is intensified when hole locations are placed close the the bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

If you can't understand the relationship between the proximity of the bunkers surrounding the putting surface and the putting surface, no explaination on my part will inform or enlighten you.

Sean Arble,

Ditto.

You offered an opinion on the challenge of Springhaven's bunkers that you have neither played
nor seen except on a nearly century old aerial.

NO, I didn't offer an opinion on the challenge of Sprinhaven's bunkers.

I commented on the limited number of "geometric" greenside bunkers pictured and that the merits of their function shouldn't be judged from viewing them from 4,000 feet.

You used to rail against these pronouncements and I just wanted to see if you're tone has changed,
which it evidently has.

My tone hasn't changed and I never commented on how the golf course plays.
I commented on the challenge presented by bunkers immediately adjacent to the putting surface, especially when the putting surface was surrounded by them.

Don't bother explaining it to me, you have no more experience with these bunkers than I do.


Perhaps, when you were in law school you missed the classes on "spacial relationships" and "course management".

Only an obtuse golfer would fail to gleen the sense of danger presented by bunkers so close to the putting surface, especially when they're on all sides of the putting surface.

Based on your failure to understand the significance of the proximity of the putting surface to the surrounding hazard/s, when you see a picture of the 17th green at TPC, I would assume that you'd also fail to discern the clear and present danger presented by that hazard as it relates to the putting surface that is immediately adjacent to the surrounding hazard.

Some golfers see it, some don't

While our physical experience with the bunkers pictured is the same, my understanding of their impact and influence on the play of the holes is far more advanced than yours.  But, with more time and experience I'm sure you'll eventually come to understand the significance of spacial relationships and course management.

The tighter bunkers are to a putting surface the more tactical/strategic they become, especially when the entire putting surface is surrounded by bunkers immediately adjacent to the putting surface.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How about the fact that the greenside bunkering shown on the aerial is stupid, redundant, and shows the artistic restraint and imagination of a 5 year old?   

Mike,

I'm begining to think that someone has tampered with and contaminated the water supply in the Philadelphia area such that the effect of the additive results in the synapses not firing properly, thereby eliminating all intelligent thought.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Modern maintainance practices.

Could you expand on this? 

I swear I've seen natural looking bunkers built very close to the putting surface, on modern golf courses.  Perhaps talented architects don't work in your part of the world 

Chris,

Could you cite 10 courses where this theme is systemic throughout the golf course ?

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

If mutually exclusive, I'd go with function, function, function.  I'm quickly tiring of superfluous frilly bunkers.  I love the first photograph above with elements that remind me of the steeplechase courses here in Nashville. 

Mike,

I'd agree, given a formidable/hazard challenge versus eye candy, I'll take the formidable/hazard challenge every time.

The problem with the aerials is that it presents the geometric bunkers in a form that the golfer NEVER sees. 

Shel's comments about R. B. Harris also give me an idea - trench shaped bunkers at a width that exactly matches today's sandpro for drive-through maintenance. 

Then you'd love St Georges.

[Marty Bonnar]

"far more penal, therefore strategic"

Pat,
I'd like to thank you for so eloquently summarising a wasted year of my life in the study of golf course architecture. Whyohwhy did I waste 30grand when all I had to do was read a post or two of yours?

Yours gratefully,
M G Bonnar MSc

[Patrick_Mucci]

"far more penal, therefore strategic"

Pat,
I'd like to thank you for so eloquently summarising a wasted year of my life in the study of golf course architecture. Whyohwhy did I waste 30grand when all I had to do was read a post or two of yours?

Yours gratefully,
M G Bonnar MSc

MGB,

I'm sorry that you wasted so much time and money before you came to understand that the strategic factor increases as the feature becomes more penal

Maybe you weren't paying attention earlier.

[Marty Bonnar]

Pat,
may I enquire as to the style of house you live in?

Do you choose for your residence a minimalist, modern Corbusian pavilion or Miesian beton brut hairshirted kunstwerk?

or

is your habitation of choice a fruity little piano-nobiled, baroque bordello or perchance a romanesque penile be-columned temple?

do tell...

FBD.

[Chris Kane]

Could you cite 10 courses where this theme is systemic throughout the golf course ?

You have failed to expand on "modern maintenance practices" Patrick, as I asked you to.  I don't know whether I should give you the benefit of the doubt as to why.

I will respond to your request anyway.

Thirteenth Beach (Cashmore)
The Dunes (Cashmore)
Ranfurlie (Clayton)
Duke's Course (Liddy)
Magenta Shores (Chamberlain)
Royal Sydney (Watson)
Healesville (Clayton/Cocking)
Royal Queensland (Clayton)
The National (RTJ Jr)
Portsea (Morpeth/Clayton)

Then among classic courses, you have almost every course on the sandbelt, where the typical fringe collar is around 1ft.  They are some of the best-looking bunkers you'll find.  At Metropolitan for example there is no collar, the greens run right up to the bunker edge.  "Modern maintenance practices" haven't made a difference where there is a desire to maintain the course as it was conceived.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Kane,

If the bunkers run right up to the edge of the green as you say, then the face of the bunker must run parallel to the green, mirroring the perimeter of the green with the near border of the bunker.

If that's the case, they would be geometric in part, wouldn't they ?

Chris, I thought it was a given that everyone understood what modern maintainance practices are.   There's certainly been ample discussion about them over the years, including ANGC.

If the greens at the courses you cite come to within one foot of the bunker how do the greens get mowed ?

Certainly none of the courses you mention could use triplexes.

Even walk mowers can't turn on a one foot radius, especially when their width is usually 18 inches.

Perhaps the liability and worker's compensation laws are different in Australia and labor is easily replaced when someone falls in a bunker with the mower and is injured.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fatboy,

I live in a condo where the style was dictated by the architect/developer/association.

How about you ?

[Sean_A]

Chris Kane,

If the bunkers run right up to the edge of the green as you say, then the face of the bunker must run parallel to the green, mirroring the perimeter of the green with the near border of the bunker.

If that's the case, they would be geometric in part, wouldn't they ?

Chris, I thought it was a given that everyone understood what modern maintainance practices are.   There's certainly been ample discussion about them over the years, including ANGC.

If the greens at the courses you cite come to within one foot of the bunker how do the greens get mowed ?

Certainly none of the courses you mention could use triplexes.

Even walk mowers can't turn on a one foot radius, especially when their width is usually 18 inches.

Perhaps the liability and worker's compensation laws are different in Australia and labor is easily replaced when someone falls in a bunker with the mower and is injured.

Patrick

In the photos, it doesn't appear to me that bunkers are 1 foot from the greens.  In fact, they don't look within 1 yard.

Ciao

[Chris Kane]

If the bunkers run right up to the edge of the green as you say, then the face of the bunker must run parallel to the green, mirroring the perimeter of the green with the near border of the bunker.

If that's the case, they would be geometric in part, wouldn't they ?

Yes, in part, but there is nary a green which has a straight edge (like the photos at the start of the thread), and the bunkers tend to wrap around that rounded edge

If the greens at the courses you cite come to within one foot of the bunker how do the greens get mowed ?

Certainly none of the courses you mention could use triplexes.

Even walk mowers can't turn on a one foot radius, especially when their width is usually 18 inches.

I have no idea how they're mowed, perhaps someone can enlighten us. 

Perhaps the liability and worker's compensation laws are different in Australia and labor is easily replaced when someone falls in a bunker with the mower and is injured.

This rivals Mitchell Cooper's diatribe on kosher food in golf clubs for sheer stupidity.  I find it offensive.

It is complete and utter speculation.  Can you cite specific examples of where an Australian has fallen into a bunker and is injured?  You can also explain the differences in worker's comp/labour law which enable these practices to occur in Australia but not in America. 

[Mike_Cirba]

How about the fact that the greenside bunkering shown on the aerial is stupid, redundant, and shows the artistic restraint and imagination of a 5 year old?   

Mike,

I'm begining to think that someone has tampered with and contaminated the water supply in the Philadelphia area such that the effect of the additive results in the synapses not firing properly, thereby eliminating all intelligent thought.

Patrick,

While that very well may be, I'm not the one who is arguing that a rectangular green surrounded completely by parallel bunkers on every side (with gaps to allow access and egress) is wonderful golf course architecture. 

I'm also not the one arguing that yet another rectangular green on the same course surrounded completely by parallel bunkers on every side (with gaps to allow access and egress) is wonderful golf course architecture. 

Thank God we don't have pictures of all 18 greens or I fear we'd be sitting here dumbstruck!   

Redundancy is as redundancy does and does again. 

[Wade Whitehead]

Watching the Open Championship has me wondering:

Might one argue that the effectiveness of a course's bunkers could be measured simply by how frequently they're in use?  It's probably the nature of the television coverage, but it seems that every other shot at the British is from sand (which, by my point, would mean that Royal Birdale's bunkers are at least well-placed).  Aside from the form discussion, this might be a way to analyze whether or not a course's bunkers are well-positioned.

WW

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

Sometimes I think you would rather have an argument than learn something.  The greens at Metropolitan are indeed mowed to the edge of the bunker and are a feature of the course that most visitors comment on.  They are not geometric and more often than abutting the greens they eat into the greens, making them more strategic than geometric bunkers that abutt greens.

Here is a photo of the ninth green.  Not the best example but you can see the mowing lines as an example.


By the way, I assume your safety comment was a joke but in case it was not, can you name a course where the grass around bunkers is never mowed?  No matter what length it is it has to be mowed to the edge of the bunker at some stage.

The more common maintenance practice around Melbourne is for 1 foot of fringe grass (shorter than fairway grass) around the green  I would be interested to see if you think any of the bunkers pictured below lack function or form. 

The 12th at Royal Melbourne - note the strategic advantages of a non-geometric bunker eating into the green.


The 10th at Spring Valley - a second tier Melbourne sandbelt course.




The 5th at Royal Melbourne West


The 16th at Royal Melbourne East


And finally, this is from Rosanna, a course on clay not ranked in Australia's top 100.


In summary Patrick, I think these photos show that:
-You can have form and function.
-non-geometric bunkers that eat into greens can actually be more strategic than geometric bunkers that flank greens.
-the low course maintenance budgets in Australia (and the far higher cost of labour) do not prohibit this design feature.
-and finally, you need to come down and check out these courses one day, it seems like you would like them.


cheers,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Kane,

If the bunkers run right up to the edge of the green as you say, then the face of the bunker must run parallel to the green, mirroring the perimeter of the green with the near border of the bunker.

If that's the case, they would be geometric in part, wouldn't they ?

Chris, I thought it was a given that everyone understood what modern maintainance practices are.   There's certainly been ample discussion about them over the years, including ANGC.

If the greens at the courses you cite come to within one foot of the bunker how do the greens get mowed ?

Certainly none of the courses you mention could use triplexes.

Even walk mowers can't turn on a one foot radius, especially when their width is usually 18 inches.

Perhaps the liability and worker's compensation laws are different in Australia and labor is easily replaced when someone falls in a bunker with the mower and is injured.

Patrick

In the photos, it doesn't appear to me that bunkers are 1 foot from the greens.  In fact, they don't look within 1 yard.

Sean,

Not surprisingly, you're confusing Chris Kane's post with mine.

It was Chris Kane who stated that the bunkers come to within one foot of the putting surface not me.

Please, pay attention.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

David Elvins,

Stop making sense.

Not only are those bunkers pictured in the old aerial likely the work of one Herbert Barker, who was the professional at Garden City, we're also trying to elevate his seemingly elementary architectural work to some level of seeming proficiency so that he can take his rightful place as the actual professional architect who routed the course at.....the course whose name can't be spoken!    

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the bunkers run right up to the edge of the green as you say, then the face of the bunker must run parallel to the green, mirroring the perimeter of the green with the near border of the bunker.

If that's the case, they would be geometric in part, wouldn't they ?

Yes, in part,

Thanks for the concession and understanding of the nature of geometric greenside bunkers

but there is nary a green which has a straight edge (like the photos at the start of the thread), and the bunkers tend to wrap around that rounded edge

Tend ?

The bunkers aren't immediately adjacent to the green, systemically, in your scenario.  Thus there are large areas where the bunkers are offset from the putting surface, reducing the tactical effect.

If the greens at the courses you cite come to within one foot of the bunker how do the greens get mowed ?

Certainly none of the courses you mention could use triplexes.

Even walk mowers can't turn on a one foot radius, especially when their width is usually 18 inches.

I have no idea how they're mowed, perhaps someone can enlighten us. 


You have NO IDEA as to how the greens are mowed ?
You must be kidding.
Take a guess, do they use walk mowers or triplexes ?

Perhaps the liability and worker's compensation laws are different in Australia and labor is easily replaced when someone falls in a bunker with the mower and is injured.

This rivals Mitchell Cooper's diatribe on kosher food in golf clubs for sheer stupidity.  I find it offensive.[/color=green]

That's one of the dumbest things anyone has ever stated on GCA.com.
Evidently you don't have a decent sense of humor and/or the ability to recognize satire.

It is complete and utter speculation.  Can you cite specific examples of where an Australian has fallen into a bunker and is injured? 


You can't be this obtuse, can you ?

If the greens come within 1 foot of every greenside bunker, as YOU STATED, and the width of walk mowers is 18 inches and the width of riding mowers is 36 inches, obviously there would be a problem mowing a green.

Please familiarize yourself with routine maintainance practices before posting on that which you admitedly know nothing about.

You can also explain the differences in worker's comp/labour law which enable these practices to occur in Australia but not in America.  [/b]



Chris, simply put, you don't get it and I don't have the time or inclination to educate you.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

How about the fact that the greenside bunkering shown on the aerial is stupid, redundant, and shows the artistic restraint and imagination of a 5 year old?   

Mike,

I'm begining to think that someone has tampered with and contaminated the water supply in the Philadelphia area such that the effect of the additive results in the synapses not firing properly, thereby eliminating all intelligent thought.

Patrick,

While that very well may be, I'm not the one who is arguing that a rectangular green surrounded completely by parallel bunkers on every side (with gaps to allow access and egress) is wonderful golf course architecture. 

I'm also not the one arguing that yet another rectangular green on the same course surrounded completely by parallel bunkers on every side (with gaps to allow access and egress) is wonderful golf course architecture. 

Thank God we don't have pictures of all 18 greens or I fear we'd be sitting here dumbstruck!   

Redundancy is as redundancy does and does again. 

Why is it that you don't object to redundancy when the style suits your tastes ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I absolutely do.

I'm likely the only guy you'll ever hear on this site who criticizes Coore and Crenshaw for creating a very similar look at differing sites.

Everything in moderation, my friend.

Variety as the spice of life and all that jazz. 

The best architecture constantly surprises and delights.   One never feels like they've been there before.

For all the constant themes that appear at GCGC, for instance, I think one of the great strengths of the course is that one never feels they are playing a hole they played before, and the look of what the golfer is presented with constantly changes.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()