[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, I know the answer is "it depends." (On the role of the course, the topo, etc.)

But, I recall a few discussions here about fw bunker depth, with some proponents of fw bunkers being deeper when closer to the green.  I generally agree with that, but don't obsess over it.  But, if we want to generally allow recovery, but have some risk of not getting out (maybe try to create a 2/1 ratio of possible success) then some relation of fw bunker depth to shot distance makes sense, conceptually, even if the real world often presents different situations, and we generally want to avoid formula.

I wonder if anyone thinks that greenside bunkers ought to be deeper for shorter approach shots, since a 9 iron miss is a bigger miss than a 3 iron miss?

Or, do you think smaller green size on shorter holes "evens out" the penalty/challenge?

Does the sum total of hazards affect your view?  That is, is a green with one deep bunker more okay than one with several?

Should there be one "master bunker" that is deep, even if others are present for eye candy or supplemental hazard?

Does the green size - i.e. larger greens might get deeper bunkers  (or ponds, etc.) because there is more room to play around them safely affect your feeling on green bunker depth? Or should short holes with large greens tend to get deeper bunkers for the same reason, but long holes get average depth bunkers?

Or, like many players, do you just like green side bunkers in the range where you can't putt out of them, but can still see out of them?

Please feel free to offer any other thoughts (well, except Brauer, you are a real jerk! up to and including the thought that maybe I am way overthinking this as I end the work day......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes, I know the answer is "it depends." (On the role of the course, the topo, etc.)

But, I recall a few discussions here about fw bunker depth, with some proponents of fw bunkers being deeper when closer to the green.  I generally agree with that, but don't obsess over it. 

But, if we want to generally allow recovery, but have some risk of not getting out (maybe try to create a 2/1 ratio of possible success) then some relation of fw bunker depth to shot distance makes sense, conceptually, even if the real world often presents different situations, and we generally want to avoid formula.

I generally prefer deep and/or steep bunkers that present a real hazard.

Yesterday's telecast highlighted their function.

I'm not so sure about the formula aspect.
Most courses don't have the first hole heading east and the 18th hole heading west.  That's certainly formulaic, but, it works because it's practical.

I've always favored the bunkering of CBM/SR/CB because they tend to be more penal, AND perhaps equally as important, more difficult for Green Chairman to alter.  They seem to possess a permanent quality.

I wonder if anyone thinks that greenside bunkers ought to be deeper for shorter approach shots, since a 9 iron miss is a bigger miss than a 3 iron miss?

I can live with that concept

Or, do you think smaller green size on shorter holes "evens out" the penalty/challenge?

To a degree

Does the sum total of hazards affect your view? 

I guess it depends upon the methodology one uses to analyze a golf course.

I don't know that I view hazards in the absolute.
I like to view them in the context of their ability to perform their function on a hole by hole basis, taking into consideration the balance of the surrounds, the putting surface and the approach shot.

That is, is a green with one deep bunker more okay than one with several?


I'd need more data before making a decision

Should there be one "master bunker" that is deep, even if others are present for eye candy or supplemental hazard?

Again, so much depends upon the surrounds, the putting surface, the approach, the winds, etc., etc..

Does the green size - i.e. larger greens might get deeper bunkers  (or ponds, etc.) because there is more room to play around them safely affect your feeling on green bunker depth?

It's certainly and element to be considered, but, not a mutually exclusive element.

Or should short holes with large greens tend to get deeper bunkers for the same reason, but long holes get average depth bunkers?

See the answer above.

Or, like many players, do you just like green side bunkers in the range where you can't putt out of them, but can still see out of them?

No, I prefer the blind aspect in light of the enormous improvements in maintainance, the flattening of greens and the advent of the Lob Wedge.

Bunkers as hazards have had their architectural values diluted by those two factors and I believe that deeper bunkers would offset those factors and add to the fear factor.

Please feel free to offer any other thoughts (well, except Brauer, you are a real jerk! up to and including the thought that maybe I am way overthinking this as I end the work day......

[David Druzisky]

Just build whatever you want that looks cool!  They will complain any way you go!
Somethng that I have picked up on more recently is that the physical characteristics of the sand really play a big role in what you can and cant do with some of those key variables you brought up.

DbD

[Mike McGuire]

Greenside bunkers should be deep. Minimum of 3 feet below the green surface.
They should also be close to the green. You should not be able to use a triplex to mow the rough between the bunker and the green.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff

Neat questions.  I would say depth maybe shouldn't be a function of length but rather greed.

Is it better to punish poor execution or one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

Along these lines, I would like to see the green opposite any death bunkers unbunkered, to give the dub a way to tack around trouble.

Lastly, is another way to create a death bunker to install a not particularly deep but gathering (=large catchment area) bunker, such that the shot out is very difficult? I imagine another benefit of this is lower maintenance - and now that I think of it, it would take the player a few rounds at least to figure out that the penalty for greed is death! Call it a honey trap....

Looking forward to hearing what better minds have to say on this!

Mark

[Adam Clayman]

How this discussion can take shape without mentioning the wind's speed and direction seems amiss.

Is it a factor, Jeff?

[Melvyn Morrow]

SMALL, DEEP and STEEP - Min 5ft for bunkers around the Greens

Fairway bunkers need to be deeper too. 12-18" is shallow very shallow, suggest around 3 Ft after all are they not meant to be a hazard? These can be longer and larger than the Green Bunkers.

[Chris Kane]

There is a place for seriously deep greenside bunkers which leave a blind recovery shot, but I'd hate every single one fit this profile.  Make any hazard too penal and the risk-reward equation in challenging it is such that the intelligent player won't do so.

[Tim Gavrich]

My favorite bunkers are those at Yale.

[J_ Crisham]

I personally feel that greenside bunkers should be deeper on shorter holes. Penalizing a player on a 450 yd hole that the average player is hitting a hybrid into is a bit over the top. When a player is hitting a 9 iron in then the accuracy penalty should apply. I personally like the bunkering at OFCC, Beverly, and Oakland Hills. 

[RJ_Daley]

It depends... on the architect. 

[ChipOat]

As much as this will alienate and frustrate TE Paul, I agree with Pat Mucci's opinions and responses (which is not unusual, BTW).  I especially like his observation that deep, penal bunkers are less likely to be tampered with although I know of at least one exception to that otherwise insightful observation - that being on the 3rd hole (par 3) at Rockaway Hunting Club.  A really neat little D.A./Road Bunker was "modernized" about 5+ years ago - I believe Stephen Kay was the culprit although I can't swear to it.

At the risk of turning this into a Merion bunker thread, the primary reason I supported (and still support) the architectural merits of that effort is that, because the greenside bunkers were all made deeper, THEIR DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY FROM THE NIBLICK ERA WAS RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL INTENT.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -

I think a while back you posted on the VORD thread, i.e. variability of recovery difficulty. Given that you and the other architects here know all about using bunkers while designing strategically and providing options and accomodating various skill levels, I'd only mention what might be the art or trick of it, i.e.  mixing up, hole by hole, the kind and degree of penalty and the kind and degree of recovery options. 

Peter

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

You know what I think about both your question and you?

I think you should do your very best---your very best, to rid your mind of all "standardization" and "formulae" to do with golf course architecture once and for all.

That's OK, you don't have to thank me for that. You can do thank me much later or actually at the end of the day not at all.

[mike_beene]

Do you factor in the type of sand? Soft sand that everything plugs in would seem to make Old Course bunkers impossible.Out of a good lie with the right grind relief you can almost hit a ball straight up.Not so from a fried egg.

[PThomas]

shouldn't the target golfer be considered?  i.e., if you are builidng a muni i would think you couldn't get them too deep, cause then lots of players might take several shots to get out, leading to slower play and maybe lack of repeat business

 a good topic Jeff!

[Mike Bowline]

...  the art or trick of it, i.e.  mixing up, hole by hole, the kind and degree of penalty and the kind and degree of recovery options. 

Peter: well said.

I really like the variety of deep or shallow; close-to-green or far-from-green; and "death bunkers" that must be avoided at all costs on holes of various lengths (not just short shots or short holes).

I think a course that follows a formula for most every bunker location and its corresponding severity could suffer from predictability and cause boredom. Make bunker location and severity random and non-formulaic for more interest and variety.

Also, if the concept of "Unfair" is mentioned for a severe bunker on a long/difficult hole, remember everyone must play the hole, whether it is match play or medal play. That in itself tends to even things out.

[Jason Topp]

As a general rule, I think greenside bunkers should be shallow.  For a good bunker player, I do not think a deep bunker is that much more difficult than a shallow one.  The challenge arises primarily from the uncertainty from being in sand, rather than the bank that needs to be carried to reach the green.

For a beginner, a high handicapper, a child or many women, a deep bunker is a death sentence to a stroke play round.

By contrast, I think fairway bunkers should be deeper than they are.  For the better player, it makes the bunker a hazard that must be respected.   

[Alfonso Erhardt]

A story that might illustrate the risks of too deep bunkers....

When the new Greg Norman course opened in Barcelona (with a lot of bunkers, quite deep in many places), an old woman used her cellphone to call the mastercaddie saying she could not get out of the bunker.

The mastercaddie politely said she should open the clubface, swing hard, etc. The woman replied it was not the ball but she who could not get out of the bunker.....

They had to send someone help her out.

Regards,

[Paul Nash]

I prefer greenside bunkers to be deeper generally - shallow ones often don't look very good - so purely from an aesthetics point of view, the deeper bunkers tend to belong on courses with better greenside complex's - the best, and most extreme, example I can think of is Woodhall Spa - the greenside structures/ complex's are absolutely stunning - with the example of the 5th green being the most spectacular I have seen

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Great anecdote Alfonso - I managed an LOL.

Personally I think the non formulaic but more intuitive decision making are the best ones.

An interesting mix of depths will add variety, however I definitly have a soft spot for

“the short upward leap to look at the green surface” bunker

and I’m definitly fond of the

“play backwards to get out of” bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

As a general rule, I think greenside bunkers should be shallow. 

For a good bunker player, I do not think a deep bunker is that much more difficult than a shallow one. 

I disagree.
Not being able to visualize the entire scene when in a bunker makes it a more difficult shot, as does the ability to get the ball up quicker, or to hit it farther.

The challenge arises primarily from the uncertainty from being in sand, rather than the bank that needs to be carried to reach the green.

That may be true when the golfer is about to hit his approach shot, but, once he's in the bunker it's an entirely different story, now he's faced with the physical configuration of the bunker and the shot at hand.

For a beginner, a high handicapper, a child or many women, a deep bunker is a death sentence to a stroke play round.

Then, it's your position that golf course architects should design for the lowest common denominator ?

By contrast, I think fairway bunkers should be deeper than they are.  For the better player, it makes the bunker a hazard that must be respected.   

So, you've already abandoned the beginner, high handicap, child and women golfer

[Peter Galea]

Steep and deep is fine, but speaking as a superintendent, please don't make me assign half the crew to throw sand up the faces after every rain.
Years ago, I was one of those guys with the scoop shovel, seemed like EVERY morning at Bay Hill.

[Scott Witter]

Jeff:

I seem to remember that we have covered this before and it may have even been you who raised this good question as well...nevertheless, I think Tom Paul and Mike Bowline are right that there isn't any formula or right way to proceed going in, but that variety will produce interest.  No matter what, I do believe that what ever bunkers used they should be real hazards or else they are a waste of time IMO.

"designing strategically and providing options and accomodating various skill levels, I'd only mention what might be the art or trick of it, i.e.  mixing up, hole by hole, the kind and degree of penalty and the kind and degree of recovery options."

Once again,  Peter P. puts it very well in words.  There is so much to consider about the game (skill levels, private public, muni & resort design), the site, the weather conditions, visual interest, strategic, sand characteristics and so on... where variety, degrees of penalty/challenge & recovery options when weighed with the other factors mentioned will produce the right bunker for the site and the specific conditions presented to the architect.

[Jason Topp]

As a general rule, I think greenside bunkers should be shallow. 

For a good bunker player, I do not think a deep bunker is that much more difficult than a shallow one. 

I disagree.
Not being able to visualize the entire scene when in a bunker makes it a more difficult shot, as does the ability to get the ball up quicker, or to hit it farther.

  I believe those impacts are very minor for a properly struck bunker shot.  For example, I'm a decent bunker player.  When playing at PGA West Stadium last year (which has the deepest bunkers on an American course that I have played) I was surprised at how, despite looking intimidating, I did not think the bunker shots were really that much more difficult.

The challenge arises primarily from the uncertainty from being in sand, rather than the bank that needs to be carried to reach the green.

That may be true when the golfer is about to hit his approach shot, but, once he's in the bunker it's an entirely different story, now he's faced with the physical configuration of the bunker and the shot at hand.

  I'm not sure how your point here is any different from above.  I disagree.

For a beginner, a high handicapper, a child or many women, a deep bunker is a death sentence to a stroke play round.

Then, it's your position that golf course architects should design for the lowest common denominator ?

  No.  My position is that golf course architects should design courses that challenge and provide interest to the best players while being enjoyable, interesting and challenging for the poorest players.  Deep bunkers make the course nearly impossible to play for the poorest players

By contrast, I think fairway bunkers should be deeper than they are.  For the better player, it makes the bunker a hazard that must be respected.   

So, you've already abandoned the beginner, high handicap, child and women golfer

No.  Under my philosopy, course design should be interesting for all levels of player.  Many courses put little, if any depth in fairway bunkers.  Under such circumstances a good player with a decent lie is better off than in the rough.  A higher handicap will never reach the green and will instead hit it fat almost every time.  A deeper bunker hurts the good player by making hitting the green either very difficult or impossible without hurting the higher handicap much because the bunker is likely to be a stroke penalty anyway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()