What Characteristics of Course Bunker Schemes Stand the Test of Time?

[Mike_Cirba]

Andy,

1, 2, 8, 11, 13

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, You better not speculate toady.
I have no more questions on the subject.

Your comment seemed odd in response to Wayne's post and I wondered if you only meant it on the day the original design opened. Apparently you did not.

No, I didn't.
Few clubs start with an inherent culture, unless that culture is a personification of the owner/dictator/founder.

Knowing that a benevolent dictatorship is best suited for such decisions, I wondered how that individual's characteristics translated to the culturl fabric of a whole membership.

Cultures tend to evolve, some more quickly than others.
In many cases the founders, through the admissions committee and ongoing governance, see that the culture is properly perpetuated.

I would imagine that Pine Valley's culture was formulated at its inception, or perhaps earlier.

Oakmont's was probably established early on, as was Seminole and others.

In modern times, Friar's Head, Hidden Creek, Sand Hills and others come to mind.

Outside of these examples, some clubs develop a consistent culture, others never find their way, and others vascilate between the two.  It's a unique dynamic, dependent upon those who initially guided the club and the admissions committee.

[Mark_F]

Wayne,

Wind.

Bunkering schemes that also tie in with other fairway hazards - i.e rough, where avoiding one means the other becomes part of the equation. Mackenzie was a master at this, particulary at Royal Melbourne West.

Deception through topography and/or construction, where it is difficult to ascertain exactly how far away they are.

[Peter Pallotta]

"I'm not sure if it's hypocritical on my part, because I like them so much, or, the essence of the mere juxtaposition that intrigues?"

Adam - thanks.

I think it's "history". Either the actually historical features/styles from the long past or the good copies/references/homages to that past by modern architects -- if we love the game and the fields of play, we can accept not nature and appreciate the form as part of history.

(Especially if, as you say here, it provides a wonderful and relevant playing experience). For me too, occasionally -- I nod happily and say "ah yes, that..." But more often, I see something saying "here I am - golf course this way". It's okay; I'm always happy to be there and grateful -- but not my preferred choice.

But I really like your essence of mere juxtaposition as an explanation of what's intriguing.

Peter

[Thomas MacWood]

If challenging the elite golfers of today is the measuring stick on whether a bunkering scheme has passed the test of time or not (and I'm not sure that should be the measuring stick under the circumstances), than I would say there are very few courses built prior to WWII that have passed.

Can you name any?

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I am surprised you cannot name any.  I named one in my opening post on this thread. 

Designed-in elasticity has enabled a number of courses to stand the test of time.  While less likely for the best players, there are a number of courses that remain outstanding tests of golf.  For club players of various abilities, there are quite a few more courses that continue to stand the test of time.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
If Merion has passed the test of time against the best of today (and IMO the jury is still out) I assume you are basing that on the 2005 US Am. Did the bunkering scheme standout in that championship? In watching the semis and finals on TV I don't recall the bunkering scheme being a major factor; I do remember the eventual champion Molinari (a journeyman) making seven birdies in fifteen holes.

Any other courses that come to mind?

[TEPaul]

If one wants to know IF or HOW the bunkering schemes of Merion East may or may not be standing the test of time with the long and strong modern golfer, I very much doubt anyone has observed that interrelationship as I did in and around the week of the 2005 US Amateur at Merion (with stroke play qualifying also at Philadelphia CC).

The reason I say that is I followed every day that week one John Hurley of Nebraska WHO in the eyes of the USGA's I&B Tech Dept. has proabably got the highest ball speed of any competitive golfer in the world.

So I actually saw how the bunker schemes of Merion East and PCC did what Pat calls "interfaced" with the strongest and longest of today's modern golfers (and every day he certainly was playing with other US Am competitors who although not as long as him are still extremely long).

How the bunkering schemes "interfaced" was pretty amazing and I can guarantee you was NOT EXACTLY what the original designers of those courses had in mind conceptually and strategically!

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

You've never been to Merion.  You watched selected scenes on TV and you don't recall the bunker scheme being a major factor.  So what does that prove?  Only that you are uniformed.

What you imply by Molinari's score and journeyman status has no bearing at all.  But just so you are aware, he one-putted 11 of 15 greens that magical round of his.  Most of those putts were well outside his opponent, who was understandably discouraged by the birdie barrage.   Of the 300+ competitors, only 5 broke par in stroke play.  All by a single stroke.  If you were there and knew the course, you'd understand that the pin positions were relatively easy (they had to get a lot of golfers around the course) and the course conditions benign.  But you weren't and you don't know much at all about the course, how the bunkers affected play and remain quite confused as to its history.  So in your case, it is no wonder the jury is still out. 

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

That last post is right on the money! It's the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth!

[wsmorrison]

If Merion has passed the test of time against the best of today (and IMO the jury is still out) I assume you are basing that on the 2005 US Am.

No, you assume incorrectly.  Unlike you I am basing it on several hundred rounds of golf, watching top pros and amateurs play the course in person--including the 2005 US Am, several thousand hours studying the course, archival materials, interviews and other considerations. 

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
No need to be defensive...there are few courses of Merion's era that can stand up to today's elite golfers. As I said I don't recall the bunkering scheme being a major factor, I do remember the rough being a factor. What were some of the holes where the bunkering really stood out?

[TEPaul]

"Wayne
No need to be defensive..."


Wayne:

How many times on these threads have we seen that preface and response from this man??

This is the very lead in that seemingly got him to conjure up this ridiculous thing that he calls "The Philadelphia Syndrome."

The questions is----is this man capable of having an intelligent discussion with anyone on here who questions his remarkable speculations and opinions that he never can seem to back up with anything solid or factual?

My sense is, and always has been, this is simply a result of the fact that he has never been to these courses he tries to critique this way. It's not his fault really as noone could do it effectively if they've never even bothered to set foot on these courses.

Patrick says you have to play them and many times under many different conditions to understand much about them. Perhaps, but all I say and ever have said is, you have to have been there at some point,  AT THE VERY LEAST! 

[wsmorrison]

I am not defensive.  You misinterpret my reply.  You comment on something you have no first-hand knowledge of and minimal experience with and I remarked that you are uniformed.  I told you what I thought and the experience I have in coming up with my thought.  That's it.  If you think that is defensive, I think you are offensive.

This thread is not just about bunker schemes standing up to elite golfers, but extends to all classes of players.

You mentioned that your remember the rough being a factor.  It was not significant.  Perhaps the limitations of watching the tournament on TV and not knowing the course prevents you from understanding many things about the course.

There is no reason for me to discuss with you which of the holes have bunkering that demonstrates the test of time.  You don't know the course.  Besides, your pledge discourages me from enlightening you.  Cease with your pledge and many conversations would be enhanced.  If you do not, do not expect much assistance though in your case much is needed.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom MacWood,
Not all bunkers need to have "caught" golf balls in order to be a factor.  Take a hole like 13 - Even if the players in the semis and the finals weren't in the big, dangerous bunker fronting the green, it was certainly a factor. 

Same on #18's green fronting bunker.  Put the hole on the right side, and that bunker can spell disaster.

And I think the bunkering on #1 is fantastic.  I remember playing a tee shot to one of the outside bunkers, then playing to a tiny little bunker behind the green, fom which I ended up trumbling 10 yards back in front of the green.  These weren't huge or difficult to escape, but they significantly spice up what would be a fairly short and otherwise routine hole.  Instead, #1 is one of the best first holes in golf - at least The World Atlas of Golf seems to think so.

Back to the original question - what characteristics stand the test of time?  Well-placed and well-built.   And perhaps, designed from the green backwards.  I still laugh when I hear guests at my club asking why the architect would put a bunker right in the perfect landing area...  Those will stand the test of time  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Interesting thread.  Appropriate to me, since I spent time earlier this week going back to one of my courses and examining all the bunkers for removal, resizing, or renovation to get a new look, reduce maintenance, etc.  (and to better challenge the Nationwide Tour players who visit each year)

Interesting points include the function of bunkers that require lengthening ability.  It is starting to work on both ends of the multiple tees.  Generally, I don't add bunkers for the really long hitters. Narrower fw, etc. are cheaper for the few who really hit it that long.  But, lately I have really been shortening up the forward tees. If the typical woman/jr/beginner playing there is hitting it about 140 off the tee, max hole length should be 270 on a par 4.  From the tees for good males hitting it close to 300, that would be the equivalent of a 500 par 4, meaning the tees would be separated by about 230 yards.  If a fw bunker is place at 130 from the fw tee it would be 360 from the backs, giving it two functions - normal short hitters and the occaisional long knocker.

Even with that, it occurs to me that modern fw bunkers themselves ought to be lengthened, not unlike Pete Dye strip bunkers, to accomodate the vast distance differentials.  If we want to save money, or achieve a different look, then we scatter several smaller bunkers up the the fw, rather than a solid strip.  And, by staggering some closer and further from the fw, we can get some more subtle effects than a Cape like carry bunker all down the fw for everyone.

But, that is just me projecting what might last in the future.

As to existing courses, I find that bunkers get axed specifically, and not just entire schemes (although that does happen when someone decides to "freshen" the course.  Bunkers that get removed are often cited as "recieving too much play" or "recieving too little play."  There is no set rule for "the right amount of play" but most memberships seem to know it when they see it......TD's idea of placing them at different distances is fine, although it they were extreme - say 100 yards and 400 yards off the tee, they probably have less chance of lasting.

[Dan Herrmann]

Jeff,
Is there a place for grassy bunkers in a world that desires reduced maintenance costs?  Have any grassy bunkers "Stood the test of time"?