The Arble Ideal Bunkerless Golf Course

[Bryan Izatt]

Complete with stealth bomber edifice overlooking the course.

[Mark_Fine]

Bryan,
Hard to make many judgements that would be really accurate by just looking at the aerial.  However, want first comes to my mind is a one dimensional "hit straight down the middle and keep it out of the trees" golf course.  Beyond that, who knows?  What I will say with confidence is that ANY course void of interesting hazards (formal or informal) or with the same hazard used over and over again is going to be a very dull playing experience! It is also not how many but how 
Mark

[TEPaul]

For maybe a decade I've been incredibly interested in the idea of bunkerless architecture.

While, I've surely found that many will disagree I think a good case can be made that sand bunkering is something of a supplement to sites that do not have much in the way of other interesting features (to use as one form of "hazard" or whatever).

To me the greatest alternative to sand bunker hazards is what we sometimes refer to as "gravity golf"---eg a lot of good and interesting topography throughout where the golfer needs to take the bounce and runout in various directions into consideration as the primary "hazard" feature.

One of those who seems to disagree with me is my old friend and mentor Bill Coore. He said he thinks sand bunkering is in the top 2-3 most important features in all of golf course architecture. I believe he just feels it's such an important "stylistic" expression or tool for a golf course architect. I understand that completely but I think given a unique and interesting topographical site sand bunkering is still something of a supplement which may not need to be used for really good and strategic design.

Max Behr seems to vaguely make this case too by his mention that on many golf sites sand is just not a natural element of the site and perhaps not even the region for hundreds of miles.

[Adam Russell]

TEPaul,
 I'm in your camp on the bunkerless course idea. I think it would be a stark change in a place where, like Behr said, sand is not natural. The right clay or mountain site would be fantastic, and would add to the range and diversity as well as be inherent easier to maintain, environmentally and maintenance-wise.

[David Stamm]

Max Behr seems to vaguely make this case too by his mention that on many golf sites sand is just not a natural element of the site and perhaps not even the region for hundreds of miles.

Is that necessarily a defect, Tom? I understand the attraction of holes being bunkerless, if the land lends itself to it and does not need it per se. But to purposely do it for the sake of not having bunkers seems going overboard as much as an architect that uses too many of them. Most of the great courses are built on sand based soil, and therefore the bunker is an appropriate hazard. I have to agree with Coore on his assesment.

[BCrosby]

One of the cool things about Cuscowilla (C&C) is their use of local red clay soils to color the bunker sand. The bunkers at Cuscowilla look the way that exposed dirt does in the area. It's  shock the first time you see it. And then after a couple of holes you love it.

Behr would be pleased.

Bob

[Sean_A]

Hmmm.  Of course any mention of ideal and course should include some bunkers, but it would be welcomed by me at least, if using a bunker to create interest was the last option considered rather than the first.  I think we would get much more interesting courses to play and perhaps save a bit of cash to boot!

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

They still have to drain those accursed swamps.

[Bryan Izatt]

Seems to me that bunkering is an inherent defining element of what constitutes the form and function that is a golf course.  Debating how many, of what type, and where they are on the course is like debating beauty - it's in the eye of the beholder.

But, I'm surprised that no one wants to know where this course is or who designed it.  It must be relatively unique from a bunkering perspective. Was the architect inventive or idiotic?

Only one hint so far, there is some sand and lots of water nearby. 

[Garland Bayley]

Here's a course that was designed and build by WH Diddel to be bunkerless and difficult using contours and narrow green entrances. Unfortunately, as you can see bunkers were added later, and they have to drain those accursed swamps.

[Garland Bayley]

...
But, I'm surprised that no one wants to know where this course is or who designed it.  It must be relatively unique from a bunkering perspective. Was the architect inventive or idiotic?

Only one hint so far, there is some sand and lots of water nearby. 

The parallel holes crammed next to each other and lack of bunkering simply suggests a multitude of municipal courses where this is quite common. That would make the architect pragmatic.

Bill Diddel did have a period where he attempted to build interesting bunkerless courses, so Bill Diddel would be my guess.

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

I would have sworn that the aerial you posted (Woodland CC) was a Pete Dye course, judging from the two ponds.  Did the Dyes renovate it?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

I would have sworn that the aerial you posted (Woodland CC) was a Pete Dye course, judging from the two ponds.  Did the Dyes renovate it?

Although I don't know the history extensively, I would have to doubt Pete worked on it. It was Bill's home course and he lived off the 12th hole.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Woodland does look like a Dye remodel.  In any event, it kept or restored its original width.

As to bunkerless courses, while I don't like the idea, I think reduced bunker courses will become the norm for practical reasons. But even from a "pure design" standpoint, I believe that a mix of different recovery shots - espeically around the greens - like rolling fw chip, grass bunker, chocolate drop mounds, etc. is more interesnting over time, better strategically and visually better in many cases than a series of "sand bunker left, sand bunker right" greens.

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:  You should learn to use Google.  I just looked up Woodland CC's web site and if it's the one in Carmel, Indiana, their second sentence is "We have just completed the newest updates to our Pete Dye designed golf course."

Mr. Diddel was sort of a mentor to Mr. Dye [hard to believe as that sounds since their styles were so different], but I am not surprised Pete would do the work there.

[Garland Bayley]

From billdiddel.com

1951 Bill designs a course on his acreage near Carmel with contoured greens, narrow approaches and no bunkers to make it one of the toughest in the Indianapolis area.

1953 Bill opens Woodland for public play. His home, a log cabin is located near the twelfth tee.

Where did I go wrong? Was it not Carmel, IN?

Edit: Dumb question, it was in the Indianapolis area! 

[Steve Burrows]

Garland:  You should learn to use Google.  I just looked up Woodland CC's web site and if it's the one in Carmel, Indiana, their second sentence is "We have just completed the newest updates to our Pete Dye designed golf course."

Mr. Diddel was sort of a mentor to Mr. Dye [hard to believe as that sounds since their styles were so different], but I am not surprised Pete would do the work there.

Woodland Country Club was the first course that I worked at when I was entering the golf course industry:

As originally designed, Woodland Country Club was indeed bunkerless, and, before it's demise/renovation/redesign by Pete Dye and Tim Liddy in 2001, the course had perhaps 20 sand bunkers for the entire course, though many of the greens were protected by grass bunkers.  The course was indeed enjoyable without the burden of too many bunkers and those that did exist were well-placed and worthwhile.

The redesign did use some of the existing corridors (the bottom and right of the posted image), but the 5 holes at the top left of the image are entirely new creations from land that was purchased for that purpose, whereas some holes were lost to the strip mall development at the bottom right of the image.  Moreover, the old Diddel cabin which was located at the old 12th tee (now the 6th tee) was shamlessly destroyed.

[Steve Burrows]

As a point of clarification, I do not believe that either Pete Dye or Tim Liddy, or their plan for the redesign of the golf course at Woodland Country Club, had anything to do with the destruction of the old Bill Diddel cabin.  That happened a little bit after the opening of the new holes, and seems independent of their work.

[Tim Bert]

Attached are aerials of my favorite bunkerless course.  It is a muni in Millington,TN.  Par 70 (only two par 5s), wide open, and lots of short par 4s.  These images were captured in the winter when everything is dormant, which is why the entire course appears to be sand.  In reality, there is no sand!

Front nine


Back nine

[Mike_Cirba]

I find this whole "bunkerless" course as something foreign and esoteric to be indicative of the fact that we as a group are out of touch with reality to a great degree.

Growing up, I'm betting that over half of the first 25 courses I ever played were either bunkerless, or had a very small handful.

It wasn't as a result of some chic, nouveau design idea, but merely indicative of the fact that these courses were very modestly designed and maintained and were largely without monies to have such luxurious extravagancies.

I'd bet that of the 25 or 30 thousand courses worldwide, or the 18 or so thousand in the US today, probably somewhere around 20% of them have no bunkers.

As mentioned, the best of them have great terrain and landforms where "gravity golf" is the order of the day, and the worst of them are dull and featureless.

Again, I think it comes down to budget and environment.   On a course with great land, and great natural features such as ANGC, or even Cobb's Creek (which has about 25 bunkers and was build with slightly less), the need for a multitude of bunkers is overkill, and not only superfluous but also even foolhardy as they interfere with the roll of the ball.

On land that is less naturally interesting, the creation of great artificial hazards is the tool of choice, and for good and solid reasons.

[Garland Bayley]

I find this whole "bunkerless" course as something foreign and esoteric to be indicative of the fact that we as a group are out of touch with reality to a great degree.

...
As mentioned, the best of them have great terrain and landforms where "gravity golf" is the order of the day, and the worst of them are dull and featureless.

...

Yep there is a bit of out of touch with reality here. We get courses with bazillions of useless bunkers praised to high heaven here (and I'm not referring to Whistling Straits here). Thankfully people like Sean Arble temper those views with contradictory views.

Also, I would mention that there are many dull bunkered courses too. The even play PGA Tour events on such courses.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I would have sworn that the aerial you posted (Woodland CC) was a Pete Dye course, judging from the two ponds.  Did the Dyes renovate it?

I hope no one can ever recognize my work from a satellite.
What a pity to not be creative any more.

[Cory Brown]

I like the idea of designing a course using hazards other than the usual sand bunkers.  I know some courses have used rock formations.  Unfortunately rock formations can be quite a penal hazard, but the idea of using what is indigenous to the site whether or not it is sand is an interesting idea.  It has been noted that A.V. Macan added in his fairway bunkers well after construction on some of his courses.  This was to better understand the topography of the course.  To see how it would really play.  The idea of a course without bunkers might seem a little strange, but even long grass could serve a similar purpose.  Most people would not understand a golf course without bunkers, but it could be an interesting exercise to design a course using features that natually occur rather than sand bunkers, just because that is what we are used to.

[TEPaul]

"Is that necessarily a defect, Tom? I understand the attraction of holes being bunkerless, if the land lends itself to it and does not need it per se. But to purposely do it for the sake of not having bunkers seems going overboard as much as an architect that uses too many of them. Most of the great courses are built on sand based soil, and therefore the bunker is an appropriate hazard. I have to agree with Coore on his assesment."


DavidS:

No, I don't think it's a defect at all to have sand bunkering on sites that have never had natural sand within hundreds of miles of their site. On the other hand, I do not necessarily think it's a defect if some courses don't have sand bunkering, given various aspects, ramifications and situations of particular sites (preconstruction).

But I do understand Max Behr's point. I don’t believe he felt sand bunkering on sites that had no natural sand was in any way a defect either, and he said so rather explicitly;

“It seems to me, however, that if architects are right in their contention that no course should appear other than the result of nature, and that such a contention carried to its logical conclusion must result in the ridiculous, we have taken the word Nature too literally. The very fact that sand must be used in locations to which it is not indigenous, together with the civilized aspect of such distinguishing features as the greens, tees and fairgreen, must qualify such a precise understanding of the word (Nature).”
“Naturalness in Golf Architecture,” Max Behr


When Behr implied in one of his essays that sand bunkering on sites that had no indigenous sand but nevertheless used imported sand and that sand bunkering was therefore a sort of an odd vestige of original linksland golf that hung on with all golf architecture he was merely making a point by tracking the history and evolution of golf course architecture back to the original linksland in Scotland and then tracking it forward when it first began to emigrate out of Scotland to inland sites which Behr claimed were ill suited to golf and architecture (and golf’s natural linksland agronomy).

However, and somewhat despite what Behr said above (in fairness to Behr we must recognize WHEN he wrote that) it is apparently true that when golf and architecture first emigrated out of Scotland to inland sites sand bunkering was generally not used. Therefore, we should probably ask ourselves both WHEN it first came to be used prevalently on almost every single golf course in the world, and, in my opinion at least, WHY it came to be used on almost every golf course in the world!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I'm surprised that Engh's new Four Mile Ranch near Colorado Springs, CO has not been mentioned:

www.fourmileranch.com/golf-course.php