[Patrick_Mucci]

Most CBM-SR-CB bunker floors that I've played were flat.

I suspect many early architects produced flat bottomed bunkers as well.

On modern courses are pitched bunker floors a concession on the part of modern day architects to make the game easier for the mediocre to poor golfer ?

If so, is this along with buffers of rough an attempt to temper the rigors of the game ?   

Is it an attempt to soften the challenge so that mediocre to poor golfers aren't "turned off" because they can't meet the challenge.

Did the "Golden Age" architects tend to be more penal with their bunkers ?

[Tim Gavrich]

It certainly seems that way.  However, to a good extent now (moreso before they were redone), the bunkers at Pawleys Plantation (Jack Nicklaus, 1988) are pretty penal in that way.  You're not often hoping for an uphill lie in a bunker, because such things are rare.

My favorite bunkers come in two forms.  Either the Macdonald/Raynor type (Pete Dye is also awfully good at it) or the type with very steep flashed faces where the ball more or less collects in a bottom, low area (a la some of Norman's courses or ANGC, etc).  So I guess I prefer either extreme.  The middle ground is less satisfying.  Ultimately I prefer the look of Macdonald/Raynor-type bunkers.  One of the reasons why Yale is my favorite golf course of all.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

I think there has always been a mixture of both through the years. Whilst many of the older links courses had deep, flat bottomed pot bunkers many also didn't and most had a mixture. The good Dr. was an advocate of placing bunkers up into the mound and not at the bottom to help improve visual and drainage.

I think the answer to your question is variety.

[Sean_A]

I am in the same camp as Jon.  While I am often very critical of the way bunkering is employed (both placement & style) on the vast majority of courses, I still believe variety based on the site and aesthetics has to be the way to go.  While I can't stand the look of the MacRayBanks flat bottom bunker at the base of a slope it presumably serve a purpose.   To me there is a certain advantage to having flat bottom bunkers from a player's PoV - you should get a flat lie which can't be bad, plus, balls don't often plug which is a definite plus imo.  Conversely, often times, pitched bottoms leave downhill lies or uphill lies.  I can't think of too many situations where a downhill lie is favourable and the uphill lies can swing either way - it depends on the how steep the lie is.  The bottom line is twofold.  Very careful thought as to the necessity of bunkering is first and foremost.  Is the hole enhanced by the bunkering or is there another technique which could be used to confound the golfer? Secondly, its the placement rather than the look/style of the bunker which is the most important aspect of bunkering once its decided to place bunkers.  That isn't to say that aesthetics isn't important, because it certainly is, and I see no reason why form and function can't be blended together.  However, at the end of the day, folks is folks and all like/dislike different stuff.  There is no accounting for taste.

Ciao

[Matthew Mollica]

As a slight deviation on your theme Pat, I find many bunkers of more recent construction are pitched. This may be due to poor construction methods, or by design as they sometimes make escape difficult. Especially greenside bunkers cut into slopes. They may only have a small functional floor at their rear, and sometimes in close proximity to the rear lip of the hazard. This may also correspond with sites of maximum foot traffic and rougher lies, compounding things.

The 70+ year old courses we have here in Melbourne feature a mixture of flat and pitched floors. Maybe different intent, and different constructors, as well as different techniques (either horses or humans).

Matthew

[A.G._Crockett]

Most CBM-SR-CB bunker floors that I've played were flat.

On modern courses are pitched bunker floors a concession on the part of modern day architects to make the game easier for the mediocre to poor golfer ?

If so, is this along with buffers of rough an attempt to temper the rigors of the game ?   

Is it an attempt to soften the challenge so that mediocre to poor golfers aren't "turned off" because they can't meet the challenge.

Did the "Golden Age" architects tend to be more penal with their bunkers ?

Pat,

Could it be the other way around?  Speaking only for myself, and as probably at least a decent bunker player, I'd much rather play from a flat bottomed bunker than a pitched lie, even if the bunker face is steeper in the flat bunker.

My guess would be that the Golden Age GCA's were more likely to make recovery possible; today, so much of the emphasis seems to be on making the course harder for marketing purposes.  I'd put rough in that same category.

[wsmorrison]

Some architects in the classic era rarely, if ever had flat bunkers.  Certainly not the way Raynor and Banks chose to present most of theirs.  I prefer the look and playability of undulating bunker floors.  It is possible to get a helpful lie or a difficult one.  One's stance isn't perfectly level in either case (like Raynor and Banks) thus identifying the better ball strikers.  I think it is incorrect to think that pitched bunkers are easier than flat ones.  You can get both uphill and downhill lies.  Raynor and Banks rarely (in my experience at least) had grass faces on the leading and trailing edges of their bunkers.  There would be a steep grass face.  I guess, depending upon the orientation and moisture, the ball can hang up in the grass in some cases or roll/be deflected off in others.  The undulating floors and more exposed sand are more difficult from a playability perspective and a psychological one.  I don't think bunkers in the golden or classic era or those of today with undulating floors and sloped sand faced bunkers are less penal, I think they are MORE INTERESTING.  Perfectly flat floored bunkers with steep angular faces are aesthetically less pleasing and boring.

Pat likes the style of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks.  His bunker preference is showing.  Please, Pat.  Stow it 

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I don't know the answer to your question....
I don't think any of those guys felt one was more or less penal than the other.....I think it just came doen to simplicity.....and evolved....
I know that , for me, bunker style would be determined by location and if not on a sandy site I will try to have flat bottoms with a slight edge to keep the ball from catching next to a grass line....
Mike

[Rich Goodale]

Controlled variety in outcomes/next shots is the key to well-designed bunkers.  If everything funnels to a flat bottom, the next shot becomes trivial, even if sometimes difficult.  If outcomes are completely random and/or balls tend to "stick" on the sides (360 degrees) then the game is too goofy.  To me, 80% flattish lies and 20% dodgy ones are about right.

[Bill Gayne]

Are the maintenance requirements significantly different for pitched or flat? I generally associate the flat with steep walled bunkers such as a 90 degree angle found in many sod walled pot bunkers.

To me flat bunkers are often dug and pitched bunkers are scraped.

Visually I prefer the flat on a links course but would rather play the pitched.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In the Golden Age, CBM and maybe Ross had flat bottom bunkers.  MacKenzie, Tillie, Colt, Flynn and a lot of others (i.e. the white faces of Merion) used flash bunkers.  Tillie seemed to have the most variety.  MacK seems to have the most fans now of aesthetics.  And, I think the biggest reason for flashed bunkers then and now is that, to quote Billy Crystal, "They look mahvelous, dahling". 

I agree that early gca's in fact seemed to do trench bunkers but most "grew out of it" for more natural looking styles.

I am not sure that either style is particularly more penal.  Each can vary in depth, ball location, etc. to produce mostly playable shots, but occaisionally, a very tough lie. 

[Rick Shefchik]

I think maintenance is a huge issue with pitched bunkers. The super at my club has to send out the grounds crew after every significant rain to reshape the faces of our pitched bunkers, due to washout. They were originally designed in 1926 by Tom Vardon, and follow the contour of the hilly property nicely, but they can be a pain to maintain.

Flat-bottomed bunkers would be little challenge without some sort of raised lip, however. You don't see many sod-faced bunkers in the U.S., but I have seen an attempt at a solution on the Arthur Hills-designed Chaska Town Course (used for the first two stroke-play rounds of the 2006 U.S. Am at Hazeltine). Hills built perfectly flat fairway bunkers, then put raised mounds at the far edge of the bunkers, dictating how much loft is necessary to get out. If you're 180 yards from the green in one of these bunkers, and your ball rolls close to the mound, you're not getting to the green.

[Ronald Montesano]

Fairway bunkers versus greenside bunkers?

Ask any tour pro from which she/he would rather escape and the uphill pitch is preferred.  Think Curtis Strange at the 1988 Open, 72nd green.

No one has mentioned drainage of bunkers...have bunker drainage methods changed since them there golden days?

How large are the lips/mounds that surround these bunkers?  Yes, flat bottom bunkers would be more penal.  Think about those gargantuan Pete Dye ones at PGA West and most if not all at Old Course.

I just watched Andres Romero drive into the green-front bunker on #4 at TPC Boston and get a slight downhill lie.  Wonder if it will present any trouble?

If you don't set your shoulders to the slope, you're not getting out cleanly unless you're lucky.

[Jon Wiggett]

I think maintenance is a huge issue with pitched bunkers. The super at my club has to send out the grounds crew after every significant rain to reshape the faces of our pitched bunkers, due to washout. They were originally designed in 1926 by Tom Vardon, and follow the contour of the hilly property nicely, but they can be a pain to maintain.

Rick, washout usually occurs as a result of surface water from the surrounds running into the bunker. If your course is suffering from this then maybe looking at this issue and solving it will minimise the problem.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Controlled variety in outcomes/next shots is the key to well-designed bunkers. 

If everything funnels to a flat bottom, the next shot becomes trivial, even if sometimes difficult. 

Rich,

How could the surrounds not flow to a flat bottomed bunker ?

If outcomes are completely random and/or balls tend to "stick" on the sides (360 degrees) then the game is too goofy.  To me, 80% flattish lies and 20% dodgy ones are about right.

[Tom_Doak]

If you just wanted to make the bunkers as difficult as possible, you would build the greenside bunkers so there was a bit of downslope going toward the green.  I believe Jack Nicklaus had that at Muirfield Village for a couple of years back in the 1980's, because I remember some of the pros complaining about it.

Pat, I always felt like a contoured bunker would provide for different lies and stances and lead to more difficult recovery play, over all flat bunkers.  Of course, if the flat bunkers are ten feet deep and the contoured bunkers are three feet deep, that's a different story.

[wsmorrison]

I am not at all fond of flat-bottomed bunkers if the ground allows undulating floors.  I don't argue that grass faces are bad, but I like the look and psychological effect of higher sand faces.  However, flat floors are too predictable and are anathema to me as regards golf.   It doesn't matter that the floors can be far below the surface of the green.  New wedges nullify that difficulty.  When the courses were first built that utilized the unnatural look of flat floors, it had to result in very penal recoveries, perhaps even too penal (I'm especially thinking of some of the greenside bunkering at Yale).  The systematic lack of variety in stance and lie is wrong in my estimation.  It would be OK if it existed on some bunkers, but an improper design feature when over used.  And it was over used by Raynor and Banks.

Rich,

I prefer closer to 3:1 ratio of uneven lies to flat lies.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Some architects in the classic era rarely, if ever had flat bunkers.  Certainly not the way Raynor and Banks chose to present most of theirs. 

Could you identify them and the bunkers you're referencing ?

I prefer the look and playability of undulating bunker floors. 

Wayno,

How do you maintain a bunker with an undulating floor ?

Robert Von Hagge suggested this on the 11th hole at Boca Rio and I rejected it due to the nearly impossible task of maintaining the undulations as designed.

It is possible to get a helpful lie or a difficult one.  One's stance isn't perfectly level in either case (like Raynor and Banks) thus identifying the better ball strikers. 

I think it is incorrect to think that pitched bunkers are easier than flat ones.  You can get both uphill and downhill lies. 

That's not true.
Bunkers can be flat at the opposite end of the green and slope upward toward the green.

The focus of this thread is on that upward slope nearest the green.
I should have clarified that in the original post.

Raynor and Banks rarely (in my experience at least) had grass faces on the leading and trailing edges of their bunkers.  There would be a steep grass face. 

Which courses are you referencing ?
Certainly not Westhampton.

I guess, depending upon the orientation and moisture, the ball can hang up in the grass in some cases or roll/be deflected off in others. 

The undulating floors and more exposed sand are more difficult from a playability perspective and a psychological one. 

How so ?

How does a bunker that slopes upward toward the green present a more difficult shot than a flat bottomed bunker ?

I don't think bunkers in the golden or classic era or those of today with undulating floors and sloped sand faced bunkers are less penal,


Wayno, you can't deny that a bunker that slopes up toward the green is easier to extract the ball from, versus a flat bottomed bunker, especially for the mediocre to poor golfer.

I think they are MORE INTERESTING.  Perfectly flat floored bunkers with steep angular faces are aesthetically less pleasing and boring.

That's your Flynnophile opinion !  

Pat likes the style of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks.  His bunker preference is showing.  Please, Pat.  Stow it 

I prefer flat bottomed bunkers for several reasons, none of which are related to MacDonald, Raynor and Banks.

1  I believe they present a sterner test
2  They're easier to maintain
3  They don't get the wash outs
4  The bunker depth remains more consistent.

[David_Tepper]

Question - when CBM/SR/CB designed & built the majority of their courses, was the sand wedge (as we now know it post-Gene Sarazen) in common use?

[archie_struthers]

 

I'm kinda keen on flat bottomed bunkers and perhaps my undersatnding of same differs from some of the cognoscenti here.

Haivng the bunkers flat at the bottom works particularly well on large deep pits...requiring the player to affect any spin or height of shot thru skill and not use of slope...obviously any bunker that has some depth and size to it has to have slopes to enter and exit to some extent...making for some interesting shots....a flat bottom at the bottom of a large pit is rather cool IMHO  ....and makes for easier maintenance as a bonus

I like the feel of a lot of deep bunkers....where you really are in them and not just visiting

[Melvyn Morrow]

My Opinion is that the modern ideas behind hazards are based upon just causing some inconvenience to the golfer. I believe the course should offer severe penalties for the brash, the risk taker and for the wayward shot.  As for pitched vs flat, I prefer a natural contoured finish to flat and I can not see why it can’t reflect those on the fairway. Flat is boring and easy, but variation adds the spice to life

We seem to have forgotten that they are there to penalise the golfer.  Jeff and I had a brief decision last week on hazards and I like deep bunkers. I just cannot see the reason behind the shallow pitched bunkers, as IMHO they are just a waste of space. 

Many of the designs over the last 50 years seem to have made life easier for the golfer. But I think we need to reflect back and examine the way the original courses were designed. No, I’m not shouting the traditionalist marching song, but am trying to explain that golf should follow the contours and reading the numerous descriptions on courses on this site, many appear to like courses with those characteristics. Yes I’m talking about Links, because that was the birth place of the modern game, but I feel we can still learn from the ideas behind the original concept of the game and encompass them on all types of courses.

I for one do not see the point of an easy bunker or hazard, the choice of the escape route should be totally down to the golfer (with some cunning and enticing assistance from the Architect) and I believe he/she should decide after careful consideration all the options, a shallow pitched bunker is just no obstacle or deterrent, requiring minimal thought as to direction –

Well that’s MHO

[Rich Goodale]

Controlled variety in outcomes/next shots is the key to well-designed bunkers. 

If everything funnels to a flat bottom, the next shot becomes trivial, even if sometimes difficult. 

Rich,

How could the surrounds not flow to a flat bottomed bunker ?

If outcomes are completely random and/or balls tend to "stick" on the sides (360 degrees) then the game is too goofy.  To me, 80% flattish lies and 20% dodgy ones are about right.

Pat

It depends on the slope/gradient of the surrounds and the "stickiness" of the sand.

rich

[Rich Goodale]

I am not at all fond of flat-bottomed bunkers if the ground allows undulating floors.  I don't argue that grass faces are bad, but I like the look and psychological effect of higher sand faces.  However, flat floors are too predictable and are anathema to me as regards golf.   It doesn't matter that the floors can be far below the surface of the green.  New wedges nullify that difficulty.  When the courses were first built that utilized the unnatural look of flat floors, it had to result in very penal recoveries, perhaps even too penal (I'm especially thinking of some of the greenside bunkering at Yale).  The systematic lack of variety in stance and lie is wrong in my estimation.  It would be OK if it existed on some bunkers, but an improper design feature when over used.  And it was over used by Raynor and Banks.

Rich,

I prefer closer to 3:1 ratio of uneven lies to flat lies.

Wayne

That is not fun golf, it is torture.

Rich

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

When have you ever in your lifetime maintained a bunker (of any size, shape or style) on a regular basis?

Raking your footprints doesn't count. Hopefully Mr. Von Hagge asked you the same question when you made your comment.

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

If one is going to have sloped bunkers, then it seems to me there should be a balance of how many greenside bunkers are sloped into and away from the greens.  Of course the ones sloped into the greens are even more drainage construction critical/sensitive, it seems to me.  As an aside, Ed Lawrence Packard was one archie that I have noted over the years was very good at designing a balance of into and away from green slopes.  Thee is a nobody ever heard of' course in my area, named Chaska that ELP did with his son Roger, that has an excellent set of strategically placed bunkers, of perfectly even balance for into and away from line of play, both greenside and FW. 

As for undulations within a bunker... I once had a bit of a pre-post remodelling tour of a course in these parts, NOrth Shore CC in Menasha, where Hepner did a marvelous job of placing cupped areas of bunker within a bunker.  The super was keen on the nuances of the varied lies within the same bunker due to that construction technique huance, and made no mention of any added difficulty in maintenance issue, Pat.  That super would have noted it if it were significant, IMO.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()