Bunkers next to water

[Mark Bourgeois]

Good get on GMBF's brudda, Kalen.

Sean, I grow tired of counting the ways, but your post provides yet more support for crowning Ganton a 10 -- or if you prefer, a rare troisieme etoile a la mode Ree-char.

The only tragedy at Ganton is the demise of the brawniest belt of sand this side of the Empty Quarter, a tragedy that would bring tears, yes, even to you my eremikophobiac.

RIP Pandy!

[Garland Bayley]

That's a beach Kalen. Read my previous posts. Beaches come with water.

[Kalen Braley]

That's a beach Kalen. Read my previous posts. Beaches come with water.

And sand...... 

[Richard Hetzel]

IMO, when the sand blends right into the water, it looks "undefined" and somewhat sloppy, for lack of a better term. Does "disheveled" work?

King's North Course, 2007

[Garland Bayley]

...


...

This one looks silly to me. I know it is only a picture, so I cannot tell for sure, but the level of sand in the bottom of the bunker looks to be lower than the level of the surface of the pond. To get such a situation has to be very contrived. Haven't they heard of the concept of a water table?

[Dan Herrmann]

What about Pine Valley 14? 



I think is one fantastic hole whee the bunker/pond concept is completely successful.

[TEPaul]

"There aren't many bunkers next to ponds on classic golf courses, because there aren't too many ponds on them to begin with.
But, the first two I can think of are the cross bunkers between the green and the pond on the 18th at Pine Valley, and then the greenside bunkers on the 9th at Merion."


TomD:

There are ponds (of a sort) in front of PV's 18th and Merion's 9th but in both cases there were waterways (of a sort ) on both holes before golf was put on those properties.

As I'm sure you know the somewhat formalized bunkers between the water and green at PV were done by Flynn after the fact. The original situation between the water and green on the 18th of PV was a massive upsweep of sand that had virtually no chance of holding long-term and so like on #2 and #10 it was altered after the fact on #18 to a series of more formalized bunkers with grass surrounds apparently to create greater stability against erosion which had been a previous constant problem.

#18 green is quite interesting too, as I believe Crump essentially created most of it by fill via just lifting up most all of the front from what was the pre-existing natural grade. Colt actually called for an 18th green that may've been smaller (perhaps farther back) with a grass grade (perhaps even shortish cut where a ball might filter backwards) sloping back into the water from the front of the 18th green.

Some of those old course survey maps hanging on the walls of the club have the pre-construction contour lines on them even if, at this point, they are remarkably faint and hard to make out.

I have a feeling the stretch of ground from the back of the first tee across the front of the 18th green and over to the end of the clubhouse was brought up significantly compared to the way it was in that area before the golf course.

[Mark Bourgeois]

What about Pine Valley 14? 



I think is one fantastic hole whee the bunker/pond concept is completely successful.

Good Lord, you mean the tree/bunker/pond concept, don't you? Or maybe the tree/bunker/pond/tree concept.

[TEPaul]

As for the 14th of PV, it's important to know for starters that pre-golf course that entire area out there that includes the very large lake on the beginning of #15 and the end of #16 as well as the position of the 14th green was essentially something of a swampy quagmire. Therefore, that entire 14th green and all that is the 15th tee was man-made created and certainly not on the plans in the first year or a few (actually some of the recent research word on #14 is the idea for that green was foreman Jim Govan's). So, due to that and the fact that PV is a massive sandy site, the interesting so-called "beach bunker" in front of that 14th green is sort of natural or almost inevitable.

That area that includes about the second half of #13, #14 and the beginning of #15 was an area that Colt and Crump were not really going or routing near in the beginning. The 14th hole area and the beginning of the 15th actually took a few years to be even considered for golf.

I also have the feeling that when it was and that swampy area was way more formalized into that large lake is when Crump dropped some serious money doing it all in that area.

[jkinney]

"Cape" - #14 - at NGLA has a marvelous bunker into salt pond combo on the right front of the green. When the hole is cut on the right, its presence seeps ever so imperceptibly into one's pre shot routine on the approach !

[Matthew Rose]

While looking at the photos, I thought of two possible theories as to why a fronting bunker might be placed between a green and a fronting pond.

One might be the concept of a "graduated penalty"... maybe the archie feels that a shot that is well struck but just short should not be penalized as harshly as one which is well short, possibly as the result of a topped shot or fat iron. In other words, the worse shot gets the worse penalty.

The other might be that the pond is simply there for aesthetic value, but the archie would rather it not be in play too much. It might explain why this phenomenon seems more common on resort layouts. It's always been my understanding that high handicappers generally miss short more often than any other direction.

Not sure if these are necessarily accurate, they're just thoughts I had while looking at those pictures. I personally don't have a problem with water on a course for aesthetic value in some places although being a low handicapper, I have more fun when it's in play. But the recreational golfer might just like to feed the ducks while they wait for the green to clear.

I notice some of Ross' courses have ponds on par threes that might be 50-60 yards short of the green. What does everyone think his primary motivation would have been in these cases?

[Doug Siebert]

I never understand the dislike in GCA of this feature.  Many consider it a "double penalty".  I'm happy with that kind of double penalty, because if I think my ball is dropping into Rae's Creek on ANGC's 12th, and instead finds that little bunker in front, I'm breathing a sigh of relief because I'd rather play my second from there than my third from the drop zone!

The only ammunition these naysayers would have IMHO is if you had a stream crossing right up against the green (think TOC #1) and a bunker on the OTHER side of the water.  That would be nasty, having to to play an explosion shot over the water to the green!  I can't recall ever having played such a shot, though I'm sure I must have at some point.

Bunkers are supposed to be a hazard, even though few (in the US at least) actually are for better players, and even less so for pros.  So I think pretty much all is fair where they are concerned, including bunker clusters where a really bad shot leaves you playing an explosion over another bunker (though I'll admit that's just plain mean for the poor 20+ handicaps)  I don't even object to trees blocking the shot to the green from a bunker or making you hit it low - if you can see the bunker and tree from the tee, or have played before and know its there, you oughta know to stay the hell away from that particular spot.  No matter how bad it is there, its better than if you had hit it OB and few would claim that OB as a concept is inherently unfair.

[Philippe Binette]

for some reason, some seems to fit and some don't...

I don't know how or why....

Isn't the bunkers at 16th at Augusta the most awful thing on a top 50 course?

[Evan Fleisher]

Exactly what I was going to say.  I've always felt those types of punkerplacements were there as a 'buffer" rather than an actual "hazard".

  Some are not penel but protect your ball from going into the water.

  Anthony

[Kalen Braley]

for some reason, some seems to fit and some don't...

I don't know how or why....

Isn't the bunkers at 16th at Augusta the most awful thing on a top 50 course?

Phillipe,

Your point really keys in on my viewpoint in this thread. I think this type of concept does have a very really place in golf course architecture.  I liken it to just about any other "feature" on courses that when done well is really good, and visa versa.

I've seen bad teeing areas, I've seen some great ones.
I've seen some horribly configured fairways and some brilliant ones.
I've seen hideous looking bunkers and I've seen superb ones.
I've seen awful and boring flat greeens, and I've seen sublime ones.

Why is putting bunkering next to water any different?  I've seen some hideous implementations of it and I've seen some excellent ones too.  Just because some of them look and play bad, doesn't mean we should toss out the baby with the bathwater and get rid of all of em... it just means we should build them better because clearly it can be done.

[Will MacEwen]

IMO, when the sand blends right into the water, it looks "undefined" and somewhat sloppy, for lack of a better term. Does "disheveled" work?

I've always thought this look to be pretty neat.  I know it isn't really considered to be in good taste, but I also thought murals on vans were pretty cool back in the 70s.

[Anthony Gray]

While looking at the photos, I thought of two possible theories as to why a fronting bunker might be placed between a green and a fronting pond.

One might be the concept of a "graduated penalty"... maybe the archie feels that a shot that is well struck but just short should not be penalized as harshly as one which is well short, possibly as the result of a topped shot or fat iron. In other words, the worse shot gets the worse penalty.

The other might be that the pond is simply there for aesthetic value, but the archie would rather it not be in play too much. It might explain why this phenomenon seems more common on resort layouts. It's always been my understanding that high handicappers generally miss short more often than any other direction.

Not sure if these are necessarily accurate, they're just thoughts I had while looking at those pictures. I personally don't have a problem with water on a course for aesthetic value in some places although being a low handicapper, I have more fun when it's in play. But the recreational golfer might just like to feed the ducks while they wait for the green to clear.

I notice some of Ross' courses have ponds on par threes that might be 50-60 yards short of the green. What does everyone think his primary motivation would have been in these cases?

  Matt,

  Very well stated. Water and sand are two different hazards with different results. I also like the look. The photo of 4 at Merion the green complex looks more aesthetic with the bunkers. And the bunkers do not look overly penal.

  Anthony

[Kirk Gill]

Just so I'm clear - if the hole is at Pine Valley the concept works, but otherwise it sucks?

[Kalen Braley]

Just so I'm clear - if the hole is at Pine Valley the concept works, but otherwise it sucks?

Not just Pine Valley, also Pebble and Cypress too according to Bill. 

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Prestwick 1899 - does this count?

[Garland Bayley]

Prestwick 1899 - does this count?

I can't tell from the quality of the picture. Is there a bunker there too?

[Anthony Gray]

Prestwick 1899 - does this count?

I can't tell from the quality of the picture. Is there a bunker there too?

  Number 17...been there!!!

  Anthony

[John Chilver-Stainer]

It's the famous bunker in front of the Nr.17 Alps Green at Prestwick

Heres a more recent version - mind you I can't spot any rakes!!

[Niall C]

I never understand the dislike in GCA of this feature.  Many consider it a "double penalty".  I'm happy with that kind of double penalty, because if I think my ball is dropping into Rae's Creek on ANGC's 12th, and instead finds that little bunker in front, I'm breathing a sigh of relief because I'd rather play my second from there than my third from the drop zone!

The only ammunition these naysayers would have IMHO is if you had a stream crossing right up against the green (think TOC #1) and a bunker on the OTHER side of the water.  That would be nasty, having to to play an explosion shot over the water to the green!  I can't recall ever having played such a shot, though I'm sure I must have at some point.

Doug,

The 3rd at Carnoustie has a bunker in front of the burn which itself is hard in front of the green. There is also a bunker front left of the green which is close to the burn.

Tom D has already mentioned the 18th at Carnoustie and there is the 10th as well where there is a burn in front of the green and bunkers to side of greens.

Generally on these old links the bunkering is to the side of the greens so the burn in front comprises a different obstacle/hazard. I'm sure there are quite a few more examples of this I could think of given time, however the 3rd at Carnoustie is different in that the bunker in front of the burn serves the same function as a hazard that the burn does. I don't have a problem with the aesthetics of this but I do wonder about the design concept.

Kyle Phillips designed a similiar feature at 9th green at Dundonald where he has a burn fronting a cross bunker in front of a shallow green. It would be interesting to get the architects view on what he was trying to achieve.

Niall