[Sean_A]

"...a good cross bunker here and there makes an essential UNCOMPROMISING demand on the player which you can't easily argue is bad for him."  The capitals were my addition. 

It seems to me, with restoration all the craze, that the straight forward cross bunker (as opposed to the Colt diagonal cross bunker) should be making a comeback.  I sense that it is, but I could be wrong.  Do folks like old time cross bunkers and are they making a comeback?

A few excellent examples of what I mean.





Ciao

 

[Lyne Morrison]

Sean - I find them intriguing.

However my feeling is that cross hazards set out perpendicular to the line of play are not much fun for most - be it sand, mounds, rough or water -  I cant see the need for a cross hazard where it will typically catch the average club golfer while the accomplished player has a straightforward lay-up or carry. That seems to be the wrong way around to me - too uncompromising perhaps.

That said, I do particularly like the way diagonal cross bunkers can provide a nice dose of risk and reward for the long driver on a shorter par 4 or 5 - 'the bite off as much as you can chew' approach that provides these players an element of choice and emotion while also providing a narrow fairway corridor for the shorter hitters to negotiate. The short hitter wont always find the turf - but that is their challenge. I figure this compromise combination has to be more fun for most players.


Cheers -- Lyne

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

Cross bunkers have virtually no impact on the reasonably accomplished and/or mentally competent golfer, who's attitude is and should be:

"OK, danger straight ahead.  Hit it over if you can, hit it short if you can't, if you get into it get out and play the next shot."

The only people who are sorely affected by such binary hazards are those who are unaccomplished and/or mentally deficient.  I know you fall in neither category, so what are you trying to do?  Stir up a pot with no food in it?

Rich

[Anthony Gray]

  Many cross bunkers never come into play, but add aesthetic value. I would like to see more for this reason.

  Anthony

 

[David Whitmer]

I tend to agree with Lyne and Rich in that it seems most cross bunkers are not very harrowing to the accomplished golfer, and therefore they seem to punish the lesser golfer. If cross bunkers can be placed in a spot that demands a decision from all golfers (say, the second shot on a par 5), then I am all for them. The best example I can think of off the top of my head, although I have never been there, is the Hell bunker on the 14th at St. Andrews. Would I be correct in stating that Hell is a cross bunker?

[Bill_McBride]

Cross bunkers are being designed on some new courses.  Here's the third hole at Pensacola Country Club (Jerry Pate 2006), 350 yards from the back tee, 280 yards to the cross bunker that goes all the way across the fairway:



One or two on a course is great.  The ladies have figured out how to lay up just in front, which leaves a blind shot, or play around, which requires good accuracy, so it's more of a challenge for them as Rich suggests above.

It also adds interest for the more skilled player, as only the top of the flag is visible when you are inside 140 yards, so many choose to lay up so they can see the green.  There is a sharp ridge across the green with a fallaway area behind and a deep bunker behind the green, so it's helpful to be able to see the green.  Others trust the yardage and try to get as close as possible off the tee.  It's fun to play a hole where decisions are required!

[Sean_A]

Perversely, I think many are mainly in the right when they say cross bunkers only effect the high cappers.  This would seem to suggest that the issue isn't the cross hazard, but where it is placed.  However, if it is a true cross hazard (imo Hell isn't as there is space to evade it on the left), it must be traversed at some point.  This begs the question of where then shall it be placed to create the most "damage" to the most people.  Just short of a green is the obvious answer.  Does this mean there is no place for fairway cross bunkers?  Should the high capper not be faced with a do or don't die carry once in a while? 

What is interesting about the two photos I posted is that for most golfers, these cross bunkers are in play.  When I say most, I mean down to very low cappers.  All it takes is a bit of head wind and a poorish drive (or even a drive in the rough) and practically every player on this green and blue planet has a decision to make. Do I want to lay up and be faced with an obscured third (due to the uphill nature of the shot) or be bold and be left with a much more visible third and hence a better chance at a 4?  Is there no place in the game for such a straight forward demand?  If not, why is it acceptable near the green as in the pic below?



Please don't take the questions as rhetorical or argumentative.  I do think there nay be some very good answers to these question.

Ciao 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I once argued (politely) with Tommy N here about cross bunkers.  I agree with Lyne that they are conceptually not as strong as the angle bunkers combined with a zig zag fw.  I would argue that the 90 degree cross bunker would ever look natural or part of an artistic composition, unless there were some pretty strong cotours where it fit.

The best use of cross bunkers I have seen in modern times is John Fought's use of them in the second shot landing areas of par 5's.  Not much different than Pates use on the par 4 above, but it seems like taking the risk to get within 100 yards, or having to lay back to 160 would be a good strategic decision on a par 5.  And, if some can clear it and reach the green, that's okay too.  

They would take some serious consideration in how far along the centerline these bunkers extend - IMHO they need to be well short of "Hell's half acre" for average play reasons, but perhaps thicker than a Raynor strip bunker.  Otherwise, the range of distances they challenge is effectively too limited.  If on a par 5, I could see one combined with a narrrow tee shot landing area, flanked with hazards. If you miss the fw, then you have real trouble clearing the cross hazard and it becomes a true 3 shot hole.

[Anthony Gray]

I tend to agree with Lyne and Rich in that it seems most cross bunkers are not very harrowing to the accomplished golfer, and therefore they seem to punish the lesser golfer. If cross bunkers can be placed in a spot that demands a decision from all golfers (say, the second shot on a par 5), then I am all for them. The best example I can think of off the top of my head, although I have never been there, is the Hell bunker on the 14th at St. Andrews. Would I be correct in stating that Hell is a cross bunker?

  David,

  Hell is a cross bunker that the average player must deal with. They have even put the Open tee on the adjacent course to try to bring it into play for the pros. Good call.

  Anthony

[Tom_Doak]

We have thrown in a couple of cross bunkers at Old Macdonald, because it was in keeping with the spirit of his work, and so I can blame them on him!  One of them is even called Hell.

I agree with Jeff that they aren't "ideal", but I agree with Sean that's exactly the reason to use one every once in a while.

Of course, in modern architecture we are more likely to have water and other hazards that are even more penal than cross bunkers ... and if you've got those, you don't need cross bunkers, too.

[PThomas]

 i think cross bunkers are great, and wish they were used more...esp great as a diagonal/bite-off-what-you-can chew hazard

[Bill_McBride]

I tend to agree with Lyne and Rich in that it seems most cross bunkers are not very harrowing to the accomplished golfer, and therefore they seem to punish the lesser golfer. If cross bunkers can be placed in a spot that demands a decision from all golfers (say, the second shot on a par 5), then I am all for them. The best example I can think of off the top of my head, although I have never been there, is the Hell bunker on the 14th at St. Andrews. Would I be correct in stating that Hell is a cross bunker?

  David,

  Hell is a cross bunker that the average player must deal with. They have even put the Open tee on the adjacent course to try to bring it into play for the pros. Good call.

  Anthony

Anthony, I spent the better part of a day at the 2005 Open in the bleachers at #14 hoping to see some of the field have to deal with the Hell bunker as I have to deal with it (usually circumnavigating out to the left onto or near the 5th fairway like one of Dr Mackenzie's player, B I think).  Nobody did the whole day, every player drove well down the Elysian Fields and flew Hell with no problem, even with the hole playing around 600 yards from that tee on the Eden course.  Modern equipment, conditioning, whatever, took all the fun out of watching the Long hole.  Bummer.

[Brent Hutto]

I think many double-digit handicappers would bitch mercilessly about an "unfair" hazard like a cross bunker when the same guys would accept a creek crossing the fairway without a peep.

[Sean_A]

I think many double-digit handicappers would bitch mercilessly about an "unfair" hazard like a cross bunker when the same guys would accept a creek crossing the fairway without a peep.

Brent

Perhaps you are right.  That may in part be down to aesthetics. Somewhere along the spectrum of bunkers covering the middle of a fairway, "pretty" centreline bunkers tend to turn into "ugly" cross bunkers - even for many on this site.  In a way, I am trying to find out why this is. 

As Tom and Jeff point out, this sort of hazard isn't ideal, but then imagine how boring design would be if only ideal hazards were used and that is without considering that everybody has a different idea of ideal.  That said, I am one to believe that it isn't the hazard per se which is ideal or less so, but how and when it is used is what makes it ideal or not. 

Ciao

[Anthony Gray]

I tend to agree with Lyne and Rich in that it seems most cross bunkers are not very harrowing to the accomplished golfer, and therefore they seem to punish the lesser golfer. If cross bunkers can be placed in a spot that demands a decision from all golfers (say, the second shot on a par 5), then I am all for them. The best example I can think of off the top of my head, although I have never been there, is the Hell bunker on the 14th at St. Andrews. Would I be correct in stating that Hell is a cross bunker?

  David,

  Hell is a cross bunker that the average player must deal with. They have even put the Open tee on the adjacent course to try to bring it into play for the pros. Good call.

  Anthony

Anthony, I spent the better part of a day at the 2005 Open in the bleachers at #14 hoping to see some of the field have to deal with the Hell bunker as I have to deal with it (usually circumnavigating out to the left onto or near the 5th fairway like one of Dr Mackenzie's player, B I think).  Nobody did the whole day, every player drove well down the Elysian Fields and flew Hell with no problem, even with the hole playing around 600 yards from that tee on the Eden course.  Modern equipment, conditioning, whatever, took all the fun out of watching the Long hole.  Bummer.

  Bill,

  I was disapionted also. I would have liked to see the pros play from Hell. I had your same thoughts.

  Anthony

[Jeff_Brauer]

i think cross bunkers are great, and wish they were used more...esp great as a diagonal/bite-off-what-you-can chew hazard

I may be picking nit, but in my mind, that doesn't desribe a cross bunker.  It describes, well, ah...a diagonal/bite off what you can chew bunker.  IMHO, they are different that what is being discussed here.   A cross bunker implies no way around.  Or, virtually so.

[Sean_A]

i think cross bunkers are great, and wish they were used more...esp great as a diagonal/bite-off-what-you-can chew hazard

I may be picking nit, but in my mind, that doesn't desribe a cross bunker.  It describes, well, ah...a diagonal/bite off what you can chew bunker.  IMHO, they are different that what is being discussed here.   A cross bunker implies no way around.  Or, virtually so.

Jeff

I agree with you.  That said, assuming fairways were wider back in the day, could the examples I posted really have been wide centreline bunkers?  I really don't know the complete story on how the term was used back in the day.

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

I tend to agree with Lyne and Rich in that it seems most cross bunkers are not very harrowing to the accomplished golfer, and therefore they seem to punish the lesser golfer. If cross bunkers can be placed in a spot that demands a decision from all golfers (say, the second shot on a par 5), then I am all for them. The best example I can think of off the top of my head, although I have never been there, is the Hell bunker on the 14th at St. Andrews. Would I be correct in stating that Hell is a cross bunker?

  David,

  Hell is a cross bunker that the average player must deal with. They have even put the Open tee on the adjacent course to try to bring it into play for the pros. Good call.

  Anthony

Anthony, I spent the better part of a day at the 2005 Open in the bleachers at #14 hoping to see some of the field have to deal with the Hell bunker as I have to deal with it (usually circumnavigating out to the left onto or near the 5th fairway like one of Dr Mackenzie's player, B I think).  Nobody did the whole day, every player drove well down the Elysian Fields and flew Hell with no problem, even with the hole playing around 600 yards from that tee on the Eden course.  Modern equipment, conditioning, whatever, took all the fun out of watching the Long hole.  Bummer.

  Bill,

  I was disapionted also. I would have liked to see the pros play from Hell. I had your same thoughts.

  Anthony

Or at least have to be somewhat concerned about it!  As it was, they just bombed fairway woods over it, or long irons in some cases.

You were there in 2005?  That was a great time, wonderful warm weather and the local crowd cheering Monty on.  Tiger was relentless.

[PThomas]

i think cross bunkers are great, and wish they were used more...esp great as a diagonal/bite-off-what-you-can chew hazard

I may be picking nit, but in my mind, that doesn't desribe a cross bunker.  It describes, well, ah...a diagonal/bite off what you can chew bunker.  IMHO, they are different that what is being discussed here.   A cross bunker implies no way around.  Or, virtually so.

you probably right Jeff...so i will clarify:  i like both the cross bunker and the bite off what you can chew type!

[Matt Waterbury]

The best use of cross bunkers I have seen in modern times is John Fought's use of them in the second shot landing areas of par 5's.  Not much different than Pates use on the par 4 above, but it seems like taking the risk to get within 100 yards, or having to lay back to 160 would be a good strategic decision on a par 5.  And, if some can clear it and reach the green, that's okay too.  

They would take some serious consideration in how far along the centerline these bunkers extend - IMHO they need to be well short of "Hell's half acre" for average play reasons, but perhaps thicker than a Raynor strip bunker.  Otherwise, the range of distances they challenge is effectively too limited.  If on a par 5, I could see one combined with a narrrow tee shot landing area, flanked with hazards. If you miss the fw, then you have real trouble clearing the cross hazard and it becomes a true 3 shot hole.

#4 at Black Rock (Hingham) has this exact set up, though to be fair the cross bunker is more of a cross hazard with bunkers placed in it. The driving area gets narrower as you move further from the tee, so it is a challenge to fit a driver in. Second shot brings the cross hazard in to play: lay up short and have a 160 yard blind 3rd, or take it on and have a 90 yard pitch.

Obviously, the nature of this hazard is a bit more extreme then a "normal" cross bunker, so it fits in the "love it or hate it" realm.

Note: this is a picture from Ran's review. This is the shot you end up with if you bomb a drive (280+) and end up in the left fairway bunker. He's looking at a 200 yard carry to get over the cross bunker. Hero shot, or lay up. The more "usual" play would be to lay back short of the bunker, and have 230 to get over.

Cheers,
Matt

[Jeff_Brauer]

I love that photo above,  as it has the topo to demand or allow a cross bunker.  In some cases, the gca would blow through that hill to allow visibility, but the framing bunkers and trees certainly don't leave any doubt about the line, even if you have to blindly guage some distance.

About the only real problem I see there is someone calling out across the fw on the upper shelf - "Yeah, this is my Titleist - I think that's your Nike under the dead guy!"

[Sean_A]

The best use of cross bunkers I have seen in modern times is John Fought's use of them in the second shot landing areas of par 5's.  Not much different than Pates use on the par 4 above, but it seems like taking the risk to get within 100 yards, or having to lay back to 160 would be a good strategic decision on a par 5.  And, if some can clear it and reach the green, that's okay too.  

They would take some serious consideration in how far along the centerline these bunkers extend - IMHO they need to be well short of "Hell's half acre" for average play reasons, but perhaps thicker than a Raynor strip bunker.  Otherwise, the range of distances they challenge is effectively too limited.  If on a par 5, I could see one combined with a narrrow tee shot landing area, flanked with hazards. If you miss the fw, then you have real trouble clearing the cross hazard and it becomes a true 3 shot hole.

#4 at Black Rock (Hingham) has this exact set up, though to be fair the cross bunker is more of a cross hazard with bunkers placed in it. The driving area gets narrower as you move further from the tee, so it is a challenge to fit a driver in. Second shot brings the cross hazard in to play: lay up short and have a 160 yard blind 3rd, or take it on and have a 90 yard pitch.

Obviously, the nature of this hazard is a bit more extreme then a "normal" cross bunker, so it fits in the "love it or hate it" realm.

Note: this is a picture from Ran's review. This is the shot you end up with if you bomb a drive (280+) and end up in the left fairway bunker. He's looking at a 200 yard carry to get over the cross bunker. Hero shot, or lay up. The more "usual" play would be to lay back short of the bunker, and have 230 to get over.

Cheers,
Matt

So where is the cross bunker?  Someone has somesplaining to do.

Ciao

[Matt Waterbury]

The best use of cross bunkers I have seen in modern times is John Fought's use of them in the second shot landing areas of par 5's.  Not much different than Pates use on the par 4 above, but it seems like taking the risk to get within 100 yards, or having to lay back to 160 would be a good strategic decision on a par 5.  And, if some can clear it and reach the green, that's okay too.  

They would take some serious consideration in how far along the centerline these bunkers extend - IMHO they need to be well short of "Hell's half acre" for average play reasons, but perhaps thicker than a Raynor strip bunker.  Otherwise, the range of distances they challenge is effectively too limited.  If on a par 5, I could see one combined with a narrrow tee shot landing area, flanked with hazards. If you miss the fw, then you have real trouble clearing the cross hazard and it becomes a true 3 shot hole.

#4 at Black Rock (Hingham) has this exact set up, though to be fair the cross bunker is more of a cross hazard with bunkers placed in it. The driving area gets narrower as you move further from the tee, so it is a challenge to fit a driver in. Second shot brings the cross hazard in to play: lay up short and have a 160 yard blind 3rd, or take it on and have a 90 yard pitch.

Obviously, the nature of this hazard is a bit more extreme then a "normal" cross bunker, so it fits in the "love it or hate it" realm.

Note: this is a picture from Ran's review. This is the shot you end up with if you bomb a drive (280+) and end up in the left fairway bunker. He's looking at a 200 yard carry to get over the cross bunker. Hero shot, or lay up. The more "usual" play would be to lay back short of the bunker, and have 230 to get over.

Cheers,
Matt

So where is the cross bunker?  Someone has somesplaining to do.

Ciao

The hazard is effectively a cross bunker: any shots that run up to it or land on it are funneled into the bunkers you see.

Q: does a cross bunker have to be one continuous bunker? If there were, say, 10 bunkers lines up across the fairway with 1 foot of fairway between each, would the strategy change at all?

Cheers,
Matt

[RSLivingston_III]

I don't see what's wrong with cross bunkers. At least you can lay up behind them if you can't carry them. It's not like these swamps that demand a 200 yard carry with no lay up area.  Face up to your ability and play what is in front of you. They are a challenge to be negotiated. With out them you have an open freeway/muni course.

Sorry, seen too many classic courses destroyed for the hacker golfer.

[Mike_Cirba]

Riverton in NJ has this cross bunker that dates back to the early 1900s.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()