Does a failure to imagine the vertical dimension cause too many bunkers?

[Michael Moore]

Tom Doak opined that

"The fundamental problem is that not many people are good at visualizing and thinking in 3-D, so they tend to reduce everything to 2-D. And in 2-D the greens will all be flat, so they need to be defended by bunkers (or water),"

and also that

"Drawing a bunch of bunkers makes the strategies more obvious; that's why everyone builds too many bunkers."

Edward Tufte begins his masterpiece Envisioning Information by stating the general problem -

"All communication between the readers of an image and the makers of an image must now take place on a two-dimensionsal surface. Escaping this flatland is the essential task of envisioning information - for all the interesting worlds (physical, biological, imagary, human) that we seek to understand are inevitably and happily multivariate in nature."

Frankly, my yardage books have done poor job of this (we are getting into some hand-drawn books this summer with contour indications), and this problem has captured my imagination since I first read about it.

Thoughts?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree that imagining a 3D world on paper is a serious limitation that many gca's have to one degree or another. I even thought Pete Dye had that problem early in his career and it shows at Harbor Town, for example.

Could the other problem be that most of us play follow the leader, and the JN/Tour Pro approach to design of playing high aerial shots to greens just slowly took over the design thinking? Even if so few play that way?  The idea that a green should be "receptive" together with ever increasing green speeds tends to flatten greens as much as lack of 3D thinking, as well.

This has potential to be the greatest topic ever here.  Lets try not to screw it up!

[Jamie Barber]

I think this is less an issue on links courses, where traditionally the humps and hollows are used very effectively as green protection. The Valley of Sin at TOC or Duncan's Hollow at RSG are two examples but most (maybe all) links courses I've played use such features.

I read that one of the successes of Kingsbarns had been the construction of such natural looking features on what was previously a very flat site -  but I've not had the fortune to play it.

Another "greenside" protection is the false front, where the contours of the ground give the visual illusion of the green front being closer than it is.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not sure the problem is necessarily too many bunkers, but too much rote placement.

I think the recent discussion regarding too many tee markers fits nicely here because there seems to be some thinking that you can place a set of bunkers out about 275 from the tips, and then have those same bunkers come into play by every level of golfer if they are only wise enough to play the right set of tees.   

This is fallacious thinking.   I know plenty of 12 and higher handicap players who can drive the ball 275 yards and if they move up another set or two those bunkers are easily carried, or that turn in the dogleg requires an iron off the tee to avoid running though the fairway.

Also, if I never see another green protected at 4 o'clock, 8 o'clock bunkering it will probably be too soon.   

I think we should remove the argument that there are too many or too few bunkers and just discuss this in terms of using the natural land in a more efficient manner for golf.

To me, THAT is the problem with looking at everything in two dimensions.

[Mike Nuzzo]

It also looks prettier when making a presentation.
Especially to the lay person who hires the architect.

Same with green design.
If you drew some simple ovals some would think that they were boring.
I started out by drawing a lot and reducing the ones that didn't improve the hole in the field.
And it certainly helped to work with Don.

[TEPaul]

"Re: Does a failure to imagine the vertical dimension cause too many bunkers?"


I think so, at least to some degree.

Max Behr actually dealt with all this and in remarkable detail in his article, "The Nature and Use of Penalty."


Some snippets of it:

"We therefore find ourselves confronted with a problem which arises in all special restrictions---we are faced with the concepts of space and time, and they must be accounted for and dealt with. In an unbounded and natural pastime they do not force themselves upon our attention. But when we go about making a game by laying out a definite area within which play must take place, we find that we can only concretely control the surface of the ground which, when leveled and marked off, is made up of the two dimensions, length and width. But to complete space, which is three dimensional, we yet have to account for the dimension height......

.......Penalty, therefore, accounts for the dimension height........"


He goes on to make the point that since golf is a pastime in which the ball is not vied for between human opponents, as it is in most all other stick and ball games, there is not the need to strictly limit and define the playing field in golf as it is in tennis or baseball or other stick and ball games where human opponents physically vie for a common ball. In stick and ball games where human opponents physically vie for a common ball, the penalty for a ball that passes over a definite boundary line merely suffers a lose of a point and is replayed. Golf and golf architecture generally does not have such defined limitations or restrictions on time and space because the ball in golf is not physically vied for between human opponents and consequently golf and its architecture does not need such limitations. 

"In golf, nature, more or less modified, is our opponent; there can be no limitations to space and time."


Therefore, again, in golf the dimension of height or verticality is the penalty dimension.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, the sand bunker is simply the easiest tool in an architect's palette or arsenal to create a whole host of solutions to various problems of layout and design and for that reason it has become sort of like an addictive drug and has become very much overused. And when I say, has become, I think that goes back close to a century now!

[Tim Nugent]

Some other factors are bunkers are a different color/texture from grass and hence standout visually.  Therefore, they are used to also add visual complexity to panorama.  Architects also use them to define strategy.  A grass bunker just doesn't impart the same degree of attention that one fill with sand does.  
Here's 2 examples:
I just did a remodel where the course had to stay open during construction.  This led to much interaction with the memebers.  The biggest subject - hands down - was sand bunkers.  On one hole, a straight away short 4 (about 360) had a pot bunker about 210 on the left. It only affected  seniors and women.  Everyone else just blew it by.  I grassed it in and replaced it with one 260 on the right.  As I was carving in the new bunker, I had to stop and let a couple of old guys hit their second shots (from the vacinity of the old bunker).  Then they drove past, turned around and said - with dismay bordering on contempt - "you aren't putting a bunker in there are you?"  I had to bit my tongue.  I wanted to reply "what do you care - you're never going to be in it" but had to be politically correct and just nod.

On another hole, I built a entire new green complex 80 yards beyond the present green.  The green is rather large - over 11,000 sf and is really 2 greens in one - side by side.  it has a narrow throat leading to the left green/side and the right half has a deep 8' horizontal bunker across the front of it.  The rear has multiple hollows in case one goes long (but these are not visable from the fairway).  I did not put the sand in for about 1/2 year as I needed to take out the old green first before I could see what I could see of the bunker (I also over dug it by about 18" to make room for the spoils when I did cut the sandline in). You would not believe the rumors flying about whether it was going to be sand or grass.  The high handicappers kept lobbying for grass while some of the better golfers lobbied for sand.  It was a nice distraction, so I let them stew about it (athough the club president knew that it sand on the plan and would be sand upon final completion).

Also, the architect really needs to be more hands on when creating landforms like bumps/hollows/slopes/ridges and the like.  More so than 90%of creatng a sand bunker.  Why? Because most contractors just don't have the eye or feel to make them look and play correctly. sand bunkers are more repetitious and can be tweeked at the end by the architect.  Plus earthforms need to be shaped in subgrade and then topsoiled.  If, after topsoil, they don't work, you have to re-strip off the topsoil and reshape the subgrade.  Each time you handle topsoil, you lose about 20% of it.  Plus it's hard to convey on paper at 1"=100' - 2' CI.  Even at 1"=50' and 1' CI you need a shaper with lots of experience and one who's insync with you.

I did a job with Landscapes in Souix Falls where I wanted the landforms more complex than the plans showed.  The super complained that if that's what I wanted, that's what should be one the plans (although he knew the plans @ 1"=100' were only to get it close).  So when the clubhouse plans required the practice green area to be moved, I drew it with all the ins & outs, ups & downs to satisfy him.  Guess what? He came back with "How dow you expect me to stake this? There won't be enough space to get a dozer between the stakes".  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Then there is the practical example ofpresentation posed by Mike N.  Just look at the entries in the Armchair Architect  contest.  If it don't "look" like a golf course, you don't have a good chanceof getting the commission. You can always take them out in the field - they are actually a good trading item to use when horse-trading CO's with the contractor.

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael - interesting topic.

I'm inclined to think that, since there's no one here but us chickens, what manifests itself does so because it serves some human purpose/need  - in this case, our love for and need for "signifiers", despite our occasional protests against them.  In other words, while it's true that we find it hard to imagine in three dimensions, maybe we just don't try all that hard to do it because we're so ready to accept the substitute. (I'm not sure why that is). Here's Alison writing about Walton Heath in 1920:

"...the course at present differs from all others in that it depends almost entirely on undulations for its difficulty. No doubt sandbunkers will be cut in due course, but the configuration of the ground has been used so skilfully that comparatively few will be needed, and the golf is already most interesting."

What strikes me is the "no doubt" bit, i.e. Alison says the course already works very well and is interesting -- but he STILL recognizes that bunkers will start appearing sooner or later.

Signifiers...

Peter

[TEPaul]

"Some other factors are bunkers are a different color/texture from grass and hence standout visually.  Therefore, they are used to also add visual complexity to panorama.  Architects also use them to define strategy.  A grass bunker just doesn't impart the same degree of attention that one fill with sand does."



TimN:


While I may be in the minority this way, I actually prefer bunkering that is not particularly visible due to its sand NOT showing prominently. This is why I've come to prefer bunkering where the faces are pretty far grassed down with perhaps very little or no sand showing.

I happen to think this very much makes (perhaps forces is a more appropriate term) golfers actively concentrate and engage with the golf course and it architectural risks and rewards far more simply to try to visually figure out what-all is going on out there in front of them.

Personally, I feel THIS is essentially the way of Nature herself on interesting ground! 

[Sean_A]

This is an interesting question.  I can't imagine too many archies holding their hands up and stating they don't see 3D very well in 2D form!  I also can't imagine that many archies can't visualize in 3D.  I think its a choice archies purposely make to add bunkers and I must say that at least to some degree they probably add so many because its expected of them.  I think both Tom P and Tim N are right.  Bunkers are a relatively easy way to create interest and challenge especially if the land isn't so great.  I also think bunkers are used to break up grass lines and create road maps as to how the hole should be played or guiding the desired view etc. 

Like Tom P, I generally prefer the grass roll over look (upholstered?) on parkland courses to seeing the sand faces because they are less intrusive on the landscape.  They seem to add a bit of an extra element of doubt at to how much it takes to carry them.  I also prefer the pot bunkers on links for this very reason except a bit of odd sand here and there to tie in with location is fine.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Perhaps more architects visualize in 3-D than I opined on that other thread.  But over the course of years, let me tell you about some phenomena I've noticed:

1.  Some of the coolest holes I've built look boring or weird in yardage books or in plan view, because what makes them cool is contour.  A bunker can be offline but very much in play because of feeder slopes ... but in plan view it looks superfluous or misplaced.

2.  A lot of the wiggly curvy edges of fairways done by certain architects [Robert Muir Graves for one] look silly in real-life view, because those curves are a function of being drawn and visualized in overhead plan view.  For that matter, I've seen a bunch of mounding and grading work on courses which I will swear to you was added by an architect who thought his grading plan looked a bit boring AS A DRAWING.

3.  Many architects [especially Tour pros as Jeff alluded] tend to reduce everything back to two dimensions.  For instance, they are building a small target green on a par-4, but there is a severe knob at the edge of it ... so they want to reduce the knob to a 1% or 2% slope, instead of just making the green a bit bigger to allow for the bounce of the ball.

4.  Too many architects think people are impressed by "multiple optional routes," and those routes only look like options (on paper) when you are steering around bunkers.  Even Dr. MacKenzie was guilty of this.

For sure, bunkers are also added because they look sexy in photographs, but I think the reason bunkers have proliferated is as much for reason #4 above as for visual purposes.  Bunkers which are strictly visual aren't that bad, in my view, because they tend not to bother that many golfers anyway.

[TEPaul]

"Bunkers are a relatively easy way to create interest and challenge especially if the land isn't so great."


The thing that perhaps disturbs me the most is not just that I think bunkers tend to get overused but they are used far too much in so many areas where the land is just fine as it is for interesting golf and golf's shot values, as well as aesthetically.

I've come to feel that too many architects just aren't taking the time to really consider what those areas mean without bunkers or could mean.

This is not said to criticize architects exactly because I am certainly aware that a vast, vast majority of golfers and people who observe golf and architecture have come to think that if a certain amount of bunkers are not used on any and every golf course everywhere then the architect has basically not done his job properly.

[Ronald Montesano]

Is 3D also to a certain degree associated with randomness?  We anticipate golfers avoiding a certain bunker one day, then being victimized by it the next?  This follows the 12-handicapper-who-hits-it-275 example.  Bunkering is eliminated by the pro golfer much more so than the amateur, given the less-random nature of the pro's game.

If bunkering/hazards are found on the perimeters, they are intended principally to catch the horizontally-stray shot.  If bunkering/hazards are mid-fairway, they are intended for the most part to catch the vertically-stray shot (either hitting the ball too far or not far enough). 

The other interpretation of vertical here would be up-down/height, correct?  That would apply to the heaving and hoeing of fairways, the rolling nature, the rise and fall.  In those cases, wouldn't the presence of hilly lies replace the bunker/water as the principle hazard?

[Philippe Binette]

The answer to this smart question: YES

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Perhaps more architects visualize in 3-D than I opined on that other thread.  But over the course of years, let me tell you about some phenomena I've noticed:

1.  Some of the coolest holes I've built look boring or weird in yardage books or in plan view, because what makes them cool is contour.  A bunker can be offline but very much in play because of feeder slopes ... but in plan view it looks superfluous or misplaced.

2.  A lot of the wiggly curvy edges of fairways done by certain architects [Robert Muir Graves for one] look silly in real-life view, because those curves are a function of being drawn and visualized in overhead plan view.  For that matter, I've seen a bunch of mounding and grading work on courses which I will swear to you was added by an architect who thought his grading plan looked a bit boring AS A DRAWING.

3.  Many architects [especially Tour pros as Jeff alluded] tend to reduce everything back to two dimensions.  For instance, they are building a small target green on a par-4, but there is a severe knob at the edge of it ... so they want to reduce the knob to a 1% or 2% slope, instead of just making the green a bit bigger to allow for the bounce of the ball.

4.  Too many architects think people are impressed by "multiple optional routes," and those routes only look like options (on paper) when you are steering around bunkers.  Even Dr. MacKenzie was guilty of this.

For sure, bunkers are also added because they look sexy in photographs, but I think the reason bunkers have proliferated is as much for reason #4 above as for visual purposes.  Bunkers which are strictly visual aren't that bad, in my view, because they tend not to bother that many golfers anyway.

Tom

I agree with #s 1 & 2.  I would very much like you to expound on #3 - "reduce everything back to two dimensions".  As for #4, I think many golfers are impressed with guiding bunkers because they probably see them as real hazards rather than guide markers.  I am not sure I understand the multiple route comment because so far as I know this is accomplished best with centreline hazards.  I don't really think of Dr Mac as a centreline guy (but then I don't really think of anybody this way!).  He strikes me as more the type to create the strategy using maximum bunkering rather than minimal bunkering (which I think of as centreline).  For around the greens this style always struck me as quite penal especially during his California period.  Because I think bunkers are so over-used I don't go for the strictly visual bunkers (which may be why I have such a problem with many of Dr Mac's) except for once in a blue moon.  I know most dig the things, but honestly, after seeing half a dozen stupid bunkers (many of the worst being the cluster jobbies and sand setting next to water - especially when the slopes take the ball to the sand rather than the water) on a course it begins to annoy me to no end.  I just want archies to be more creative and think of other types of hazards that could be employed before thinking of sand.

Ciao

      

[Jeff_Brauer]

If we are worried about bunker proliferation, I think that era is over for a while!

Two thoughts on TD's above post -

The squiggly fw lines do look silly on ground level. Many gca's draw a mound and then draw the fw around that mound, which looks "right" on paper.  I realized its better to have a straight fw edge and let it roll up and down the contours than keeping it level if you want it to have a nice rolling look.  Ditto for greens.  When I worked for Tim's dad, we had a habit of shaping greens around mounds.  On one green, I drew it round and put the mounds on the outside corners, much like Colt did on Chicago area courses.  To my eye, they looked much better but they didn't look as logical as on plan.

I also agree with TD on the multiple routes, having done a lot of them myself.  It looks better on plan to have two separate routes, but it often plays better to have two subtly distinguished routes.

TEPaul,

I don't think its a new thing- certainly Mac courses had a number of bunkers, until the end when the Depression caused his epiphany.  But the one I have always wondered about is Ross, who wrote that it was easy to over bunker a golf cousre, and yet placed two top shot bunkers 100 yards off the tee on numerous holes at the same time.....showing that the placement of every bunker does demonstrate where the architects head was really at during the design

[Tim Nugent]

TEP. out-of-sight-out-of-mind? To each his own.

Bunkers less an issue for pros? I don't agree.  Would you see as many pulling 3 rather than driver if those fairway bunkers weren't in play?

Jeff, another problem w/the shape it around the mound is those mound slopes are hell on spray rig booms, plus limit turning around area.

As a member of the Big Tent club, why do some feel that it's a "one or the other " equation.  Why not embrace the fact that bunkers part of the course and can be used equally as well as other features/hazards. 

Tom D.  Just remind clients that they are hiring you do deliver a golf course and draw plans.  The plans are yours, for your use and are "instruments of service".  Dad used tell clients they for quantifying the work and should be thought of as like Michelangeo's sketchbooks.  They illustrated the idea of where he wanted to go but once the chisel hit the marble, the veining of the stone took presidence.

[TEPaul]

"TEP. out-of-sight-out-of-mind?"


TimN;

Huh? I don't understand what you said that for. What does that mean?

[Tim Nugent]

TimN:


While I may be in the minority this way, I actually prefer bunkering that is not particularly visible due to its sand NOT showing prominently. This is why I've come to prefer bunkering where the faces are pretty far grassed down with perhaps very little or no sand showing.

I happen to think this very much makes (perhaps forces is a more appropriate term) golfers actively concentrate and engage with the golf course and it architectural risks and rewards far more simply to try to visually figure out what-all is going on out there in front of them.

Personally, I feel THIS is essentially the way of Nature herself on interesting ground! 


TomP, I was refer to this.  You appear to not favor seeing sand in a bunker.  To me if you don't see it, it's easy to block it from you mind.  Ever notice how much easier it is to hit great shots on the range than on the course?  IMO it's because there is no penalty for hitting it bad. Therefore, you swing freer and easier, timing and tempo are in sync and wholla - 250 right where you were aiming.

The less there is to think about, the less chance for mental constipation.  Hence, "out-of-sight-out-of-mind".  I know you could argue that just "knowing" a bunker is there is enough.  But I think that once you don't see it, you play differently.  Many times I hit shots I wouldn't have otherwise had I known there was hidden bunkers ahead.  The phrase "glad I didn't know that was there" comes to mind.  Now if it's a private coourse you play all the time, things get a bit different.  It becomes ingrained at a subconscious level.

If I extrapolate your sentiment about not caring to see sand, it's easy to see (what I surmise to be) your penchant for the need for few (if any) bunkers.  The same result could essentially be achieved if the sand was replaced with grass.

[TEPaul]

"To me if you don't see it, it's easy to block it from you mind.  Ever notice how much easier it is to hit great shots on the range than on the course?  IMO it's because there is no penalty for hitting it bad. Therefore, you swing freer and easier, timing and tempo are in sync and wholla - 250 right where you were aiming."


Tim:

That all may be true; I don't deny that at all. I do think it is a lot easier to swing away worry-free if something has not visibly created concern in your mind such as very apparent sand in bunkering.

However, what about when you go into a sand bunker when all you can see from the tee, for instance, is the shadowy green surrounds of that sand bunker?

That would make you feel pretty stupid, don't you think, for not trying to concentrate better to figure out exactly what-all is going on out there that you may need to think about and avoid?!

And that is precisely why I think it can be more psychologically demanding and more psychologically interesting with sand bunkering where the less obvious and sometimes shadowy grass surrounds and not necessarily the sand itself is about all you can see. I think that should make the thinking (strategic) golfer try to engage more with the land, with the golf course and with its architecture since what's out there to worry about is not as obvious (visible) as a bunch of sand in bunkers or flashed sand in your eyes and in your vision.

[Garland Bayley]

The thought that occured to me when Tom first mentioned this was, will there be significantly less bunkers at Common Ground? I.e., is he overbunkering the private courses to satisfy the clients?

[Philippe Binette]

Maybe too many is not the issue, but the quality of position and composition would definitely be weaken if designed by somebody who doesn't see 3D

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

There ARE fewer bunkers at Common Ground, because it was a project with a tight budget, and because I told my associates that we had been overdoing the bunkers and they needed to limit bunkering to no more than three per hole (average).  I think in the end it wound up with a few more than that, but significantly less than the 100+ bunkers at Rock Creek, for example.  Jim Urbina actually built a bunkerless (and water-less) par-3 at Common Ground!

One reason Rock Creek has so many bunkers is because the bunkers are used as transitional elements between maintained fairways and rocky, native areas.  I suppose we could have done this all with "rough" but the rough-to-rock transformation is hard to make work.  We didn't use long waste bunkers (like Nicklaus did with Desert Highlands), but we did use enough bunkers to make a long grassing line go away visually.  Is that overkill?  Yes, if you're only talking about bunkers.  Was it the client's input?  Not in that case ... some of our clients have been in love with bunkers, but others not so much. 

One reason I do think we've had too many bunkers sometimes is because we have a half-dozen creative-minded people on every site, and they are more likely to suggest where to place another bunker than where to take one away.  I also agree with Tim on the fact that construction people (and for that matter owners walking around the site during construction) tend to see all the dirt and not visualize the contrasting grasses and mowing heights that will eventually be there ... so they long for a bunker to break up all the brown dirt.

However, that's getting away from the premise of the topic, which is that architects DRAW too many bunkers on the original plan in order to make it look interesting.  Adding too many bunkers in the field (whether for visual reasons or because you want to add "strategy") is a different topic, because it's impossible to avoid the third dimension on-site ... even though, as I said before, my experience is that good players seem to be focused on MINIMIZING the effect of that third dimension on play.

Tim N:  No worries regarding my clients and plan sets; they are thoroughly briefed beforehand on what the plans are for.  [Permits!]  We actually built Barnbougle Dunes without even having a drawing of the final routing plan -- I reversed the back nine on my last pre-construction visit and we just started building it that way!

[Garland Bayley]

Good for Jim! We'll call it my favorite hole at Common Ground sight unseen.