narly, nasty bunkers

[archie]

Nasty, narly bunkers, the Scottish, Irish kind,(Hell, the Road Bunker, the Principles Nose et al) are pretty much eschewed by golf architects in the states. It probably stems from an inherent deire to be fair!!!!!  I must confess I am guilty in my  at Twisted Dune at backing off and not pushing the envelope too far, knowing a lot  ofour cusomers wouldn't appreciate real pain. Has anyone built really great bunkers built circa 1970 in the states? My guess is that they are few and far between. Perhaps Bill Kittleman might have an opinion on this, if we could find him.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Archie,
In one of the current Golfweek Superintendent News issues, is an article from a superintendent from Kentucky relating how the sand hazard has been rendered to nothing more then eye candy with razor-clean edging and August-Syndromed style maintenance. It was a really good article that seemed to be cut too short. (edited)

Brad's arcticle in the same issue was just as poignant and way too short. Ultimately their point is just--bunkers, the rugged and fearful kind, are need to help save the game and they can be more then affordable when constructing and maintaining them.

I shudder to think of a day of a user-friendly bunker at Pine Valley. I think you too could probably more then understand that worry.

We, as golfers need challenge. Challenge is what keeps us coming back for more, no matter how much we succeed or fail. Hazards are exactly that--HAZARDS, and in most cases, are to be avoided to prevent adding more strokes to ones score on the hole. (In both match play and stroke play) (All basic stuff, I know, but sometimes we have to remind ourselve the very simplest meanigns of the game.

What are sand hazards?

For me they are natures way of attacking or providing resistance. More bunkers aren't neccessarily good, but use and placement should always reign supreme.

When used just for eye candy, sand hazards serve no purpose other then add to the cost-therfore are in most cases useless. unless they add a heart-striking visual deception to the hole or target which they are guarding.

Tom Doak once said it here, and I quote, "Sand hazards are over-rated" and it took sometime for me to understand exactly what he meant. (even after I produced a very visual picture from Berkshire-Blue #4 bunker loaded with face of heather)

Bunkers took a turn for the worst when RTJ made them big and bold, razor-edged curves. The reason why is the rest of the golfworld out there, that was designing courses at the time, followed suit, and just like all things interpreted a certain style into an oblivion. Gone was the strategic positioning in the fairways and out on to the sides where playability reigned. CHALLENGE died on that day.

But now we have many young designers today that are getting it back. They have gone so far to the point of getting dirty themselves to prove it.

Long may they live.

[Michael Dugger]

amen Tommy,

While knarly sand hills or pine valley esque bunkers may look out of place in a turf oasis such as Augusta, who cares!  They wouldn't is the whole darn place wasn't a sod farm.   It is sad to think that there really are some architects out there who admonish this type of thing.  For so many reasons we need to embrace the idea that even though we are capable of doing things they could not 100 years ago it does not make it better to do so.    

[Mike_Cirba]

Archie,

Sand Hills.  

I know you've been there, but having been faced with a greenside bunker shot with a 2-3-story lip that towered over me, I finally fully understood what is meant by the term hazard that I throw around too often.  I'd also take my hat off to work of some other modern architects who do similar type of work, and we all know who they are.

They are supposed to make us feel as small and hapless as we really are.  We are supposed to avoid them like the plague.  They are the heart and soul of strategic golf, because without great challenge and penalty, there is no real risk or excitement.

Ugly, gnarly, nasty, full of venomous snakes and man-eating tigers, quicksand....whatever....bring it on.  If it takes a good golfer 2, 3, 4 strokes to extricate themselves, too friggin bad.

It's the reason that the sterilization and modernization of bunkers in too many "restoration" attempts gets my blood boiling more than any other issue in the game.  

[Joel_Stewart]

Its a good question, "Has anyone built really great bunkers circa 1970's in the States".

I played Cuscowilla in Georgia last week and thought Coore/Crenshaw built some very big, impossing, difficult bunkers with Georgia soil that are unique and strong.  The 5th hole was especially good.

As an architect Steve Smyers seems to be ahead of the curve in overall bunker construction.

[Joel_Stewart]

Archie:
I haven't played Twisted Dunes but wonder becuase of this post if you are considering tweaking the course now that it has been open for a year and reconstructing the bunkers?

[Dunlop_White]

Below are a couple of "before/after" photos of my home course. They exemplify the evolution of the bunker quite nicely.

Hole 12

1939

2002

Hole 14

1939

2002

Although the dimensions and positions of these bunkers have remained the same, 1). maintenance practices and 2). grass varieties distinguish the current bunkers from their Perry Maxwell originals.
Maxwell had a penchant for rugged bunkers with jagged edges. Notice the natural, weathered look of Maxwell's bunkers which were highlighted by native fescues, such as blue stems and broom sedge.
Today, zoysia has been sodded into the bunker surrounds. Although zoysia provides a visual contrast of texture and color, these bunkers appear puffy and upholstered and are maintained differently, as they are well defined, cleanly cut, and manicured.

[TEPaul]

I've seen a lot of bunkering and on many new construction courses that could be considered a return to the narly, nasty type but all of it is in the surrounds! I have yet to see even one of those courses that keeps the interior sand areas particularly inconsistent or penal. Consistency of sand surface seems to be the standard everywhere as I suppose golfers and general memberships simply won't put up with iffy, difficult sand areas to play out of.

The only golf course I know of that kept their interior sand areas inconsistent, iffy and occasionally very dangerous to play out of was Pine Valley and now even that has begun to change.

I think the primary reason PVGC kept their bunkering and sand areas that way was simply because there was so much sand that it would have been an enormous maintenance undertaking to maintain its consistency and still today PVGC does not keep any rakes on the course! But apparently the maintenance crews are starting to maintain most of it as consistently as they can.

But to my knowledge PVGC was the only course that really had the old fashioned "playbility" that we sometimes hear about and read about with footprints in the sand, some surfaces that were very hard packed and required a different type of shot--and certainly one that could get very inconsistent results even from very good golfers!

We hear things like C.B. MacDonald banning rakes from The Links club and Tillinghast calling for a herd of elephants for tournement day set-up and such but if things like that ever existed they don't seem to today.

The only way I can see a course ever doing something like that again today would be at the direction of a very strong admininistration that would logically probably have to post a sign very prominently in the club saying something like:

"The bunkering on this course is purposely not maintained--if you wish to play and score well avoid the bunkering  altogether!"

This would be clearly necessary to take the heat off the maintenance staff and then the club could take the next step, as PVGC does, and not have any rakes on the golf course!

But there are certainly a number of courses today that maintain the surrounds in a very narly fashion--and so then it's far better to be in the bunker than around them--sort of upside down logic, if you ask me. If a course is going to maintain surrounds like that they should take the same situation and playability into the interiors of the bunkering too!

[TEPaul]

Actually we should all think long and hard about this whole idea of "fairness" which has over time resulted in "consistent" and "playable" interior sand areas in the world's bunkering.  

We say the demand for "consistency" and "fairness" in bunkering today is an indication how our entire society has changed in comparison to say the Scots of 100 and more years ago. But is it really? Probably not.

First of all there are two types of penal bunkering; One, the type that's inconsistent of both surround and sand surface and unmaintained, and two, the type that's penal due to the size and dimensions of its design although the surround and sand areas may be consistent and maintained!

One can try to make the case that the Scot's are more intuned to nature and the vagaries of it and therefore tend to accept the inherent "unfairnesses" of golf more readily including inconsistent penal bunkering.

I wonder if that's really true. They probably accepted the unfairnesses of it before because there really wasn't anything they could to about it anyway but only because it was simply too much for them to maintain it!

But now they can and in most cases, like us, they now do.

So again, the simplest and best way to go back to the way it once was is with the dedicated directive of a club's administration!

Even the great PVGC had unmaintained bunkering and sand areas but only because they perceived it to be far too great a job to maintain all the sand they had--but now even that's changing.

So every golfer will have to recognize that even though a club is able and capable of maintaining their bunkering to consistency and fairness they have dedicatedly decided not to do that anymore! That's the only way today, in my opinon, because it removes any question of why things are the way they are!

If you really think about it--that sign--for all to see, explaining not just that the bunkering is potentially unfair and inconsistent but why, is the best way, maybe the only way, to return bunkeriring to the way it once was!

[archie]

It is interesting to note that a lot of our complaints at Twisted Dune early were because the bunkers were hard natural sand, ala PVGC. I think that the players innate ability to feel the consistency with his feet is a long lost art, and considered poor maintenance by many. I doubt if we will be changing too many bunkers at Twisted, although we are surely removing a couple on #17 (too much eye candy). I would love to build some real scaaaryyyy pits if I ever build another course!!!  

Still trying to think of some great bunkering on new courses, in our area, Galloway might stand out as pretty good, in that they are deep and manly, not gnarly enough to qualify though!!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Sand Hills bunkers have no rakes.  It is assumed that the wind will sort of smooth them each day.  

[Matt_Ward]

Agree with Mike C on the topic. Hazards have become on many courses nothing more than simple cut-outs. They are not HAZARDS -- they are pro forma created eye-candy that does little to inspire real strategic thinking.

I'm not saying every bunker needs to be some sort of endless pit but having a few in key locations does spice up things and makes you begin to think several holes before you get to the one in mind.

Also -- it's not the amount of bunkers -- it's how they are placed. I also believe bunkers need to be placed on the target lines of the better players -- far too often they have little value or any possibility in striking fear.

One last note -- I shall never forget when Nicklaus actually had to play from Hell Bunker at the 14th at TOC in the '90 BO I believe. Jack could not escape and the golf gods actually extracted a bit of revenge for all the years he played there.

[TEPaul]

Archie:

Last time I was at Galloway there were a couple of bunkers that would definitely qualify as nasty, narly etc and would not disappoint even the most pure of the purist on this site. Certainly not all of them but a few of them.

One in particular on that back nine par 3 (maybe #14)--a very good hole--was the most rugged thing in every way I can recall. Matter of fact there was so much vegetation in it one of the people I was playing with lost his ball in it and none of use were even willing to go in there and help him find it since we didn't feel like ripping up our clothes. It was about like those two bunkers to the right of the fairway at #10 Merion used to look like. Those things you couldn't even go in or you'd hurt yourself.

Clearly bunkers like those mentioned are a bit much but they at least are examples that the most narly, nasty maneating bunkers do still exist in this world--although certainly not throughout a course that I know of!

But I do think the sign is the thing--tell the people whether they like them or hate them that's the way they are so avoid them to play well and if you don't want to put up with that don't come back!

It's really no different than what Tillinghast told JH Taylor when Taylor complained that the extreme difficulty of some of the more penal "championship courses" that were being built by Tillinghast and his compatriots in the golden age were way too hard for the normal golfer and in fact that kind of architecture was simply undemocratic!

Tillinghast told him in no uncertain terms that people like that could either get a lot better or just stay away!!

And Archie, it really doesn't matter what the people think--what really matters is what you think and those responsible for many courses think. If those people really care about what others think nothing is likely to change. That's a lot different than the Tillinghasts and the Crumps--they really didn't care what others thought about that kind of thing--the truly didn't!!

[A_Clay_Man]

While most of the Bunkers at BWR aren't as narly and nasty   (a few are) the placement on many of them (diagonals) remind me of some of the bunkers at CPC.

[Don_Mahaffey]

This is an example of the bunkering at The Kingsley Club. The club's web site has a photo album that shows more. The narliest bunker I remember was the one on the front right of the short 2nd. Hopefully this will work as this is my first attempt at posting a picture. I guess you'll have to click on the link.

http://www.kingsleyclub.com/guigen/GIFcourse/tourIMG/PHOTOhole/06.5.jpg

http://www.kingsleyclub.com/guigen/GIFcourse/tourIMG/PHOTOhole/03.1.jpg

[TEPaul]

Don:

I tell you what--those Kingsley Club bunkers are rugged and natural looking and I love the look of the second photo. The bunkering in the first photo is cool looking too but at the very least that photo perspective should be backed way up to see if it might somehow alter the scale of that bunkering on that hole in the first photo. But somehow I would doubt it could!

I like the little I've seen of Devries and I bet the Kingsley club plays great too but those bunkers in the first photo are absolutely and massively out of scale to the rest of that hole--and I mean massively. The green itself is almost lost in that photo the scale of those bunkers is so massive in the context of what else is there!

I love the overall "lines" of that bunkering--the lines of the pits, the lines of the top profiles of the entire sets and the way they sort of follow the overall lines of the trees and the basic topography. But, My God, the green itself looks no bigger than about half again the size of just ONE of those many pits!

That hole and that bunkering despite looking very good in the way it was constructed would look a lot better to me if the scale of it was just toned down by about 5-10 times!

[ed_getka]

Tom Paul,
 The photo you're looking at is deceptive. The bunkering throughout the front nine of Kingsley is exceptional and you should make a point of getting up there to see it in person when you have a chance. You will not be disappointed!

[Joe Hancock]

Camera perspective.....plays and looks very cool. The bunkers on #6...the ones on the right aren't even the ones I'm looking at on that hole. That bunker complex on the left is one of the most natural, creative, form fitting I've ever seen. This picture is cool, but it's only a taste.

Joe

BTW Don, weren't you only 10 feet directly behind the pin on #2? How'd you see that bunker on the right?....lol

[JoeAndriole]

The evolution or sanitization or homogenization of bunkers appears to be universal.  I recently examined hell bunker and while it is large and deep; it is sharp edged, gracefully curved and quite kempt looking.  It does not have the wild, forboding, irregular and IMO more natural and desirable state that struck fear in my heart at the Amateur in '76.  Much the same goes for all the Old Course bunkers and it seems to me that they are being emulated all over the Isles - at least where budgets allow.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...it's been hinted at, so I'm going to go ahead and ask the unthinkable and inconceivable and politically incorrect question.  

When I last played Pine Valley about 16 months ago, there was a good deal of work going on.  Much of it centered around tree removal but it also appeared that an effort to really formalize and "clean up" the bunkering and waste areas was taking place.  For instance, the narrow coffin of death to the left of 10 was widened quite a bit, seemingly to make recovery easier.  Other bunkers had newly-laid sod surrounding them.    

At the time, I told myself that I must be mistaken and that it was probably a temporary thing to get the course ready for the coming year (it was early spring).  

Please tell me that I'm wrong and that the fearsome bunkering at Pine Valley isn't becoming standardized or homogenized in any way.  I really want to hear someone confirm that it's as gnarly and nasty and unpredictably terrifying as it's always been.    

[JSlonis]

Mike,

I had a chance to play there June 25th, and am looking forward to July 15th for the GAP Open.  The bunkers didn't look all that different to me compared to past rounds.  They may have been a bit more manicured (raked) in some spots, but still very difficult.  I actually prefer them to be less raked, and unkempt, because the sand packs down, and it's easier to hit good sand shots from firmer lies. I was in a couple greenside bunkers and due to the raking the sand was fluffy and the ball sat down making the shots more difficult.

 On the 10th, my playing partner hit a "chunky" 8 iron into the "Devil's You know what"...I can tell you by watching and laughing, that you could groom that pit all you want and it ain't gonna make a difference...that is the nastiest of them all.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jamie,
It is a piece of cake. (the DAH)

Matt, It was in fact the 95 Open when Jack took a few shots to get out of Hell.

[ed_getka]

JHancock,
 I agree wholeheartedly regarding #6 bunkering, I took some pictures of it from the #7 tee just so I could see all of it at once even though it is not what the golfer sees while playing the hole.

[Doug Wright]

Pacific Dunes has some great nasty bunkers. The second time I played it, I hit driver into the pit left of #6 for the sheer fun   of trying to hit it up and over the 40 foot bank onto the green...The one short of the high green on #9 was no bargain either. Seemed there was some leftover grass and other natural stuff lying around in there.

All The Best,

[archie]

Lucky enough to spend two days at the Valley last weeK. Thought that the sand might be too processed arond seventeen for sure. It actually made the shot harder because of the chance of a plug, previously inconceivable. Couldn't leave footprints when I caddied there, now they are a possibility on a couple of holes, which makes it tougher. I know Rick Christian (super) is real good and won't let it stay soft for long.  Still, PV has som of the best bunkers I have ever seen!