Are bunkers placed solely for "beauty" appropriate?

[Dan Herrmann]

Do you think that bunkers placed solely for visual appeal appropriate?

I think not, but we sure see a lot of them, don't we?

[Emil Weber]

If a bunker looks beautiful and fits into its surroudings, then I like it as a framing method. I know a lot of GCAers think bunkers should be used sparsely and only in the right places, but if it adds beauty, it adds to the enjoyment. We do see a lot framing bunkers, I'd think cypress point no.16, for example.

[Sean_A]

Do you think that bunkers placed solely for visual appeal appropriate?

I think not, but we sure see a lot of them, don't we?

Dan

Generally I am against this practice, but on a sandy site I spose there could be the odd bunker here and there to blend the course into the surrounds - especially if the area around the course is protected/fragile for some reason. In fact, this is one of my biggest beefs with desert golf.  The seams between course and surrounds are far too often stark and obvious.  Its sort of like building a house or car without trim - it just looks unfinished and ugly. 

Ciao

Ciao   

[Adam Clayman]

Dan. The sit that comes to mind is whistling straits. Is that what you mean? Otherwise aiming and framing bunkers have become acceptable for even a critical eye.

[BCrosby]

Dan -

Athens CC's (Ross, '25) 9th has a wide fw that sweeps up a hill, bending slightly left to right. Ross designed a single bunker (nle) near the c/l that was too far up the fw to be a factor for drives and not close enough to the green to factor into approach shots.

Why Ross wanted a bunker there puzzled me. Playing one day with Mike Young, we started talking about the old c/l bunker. Mike pointed out what I should have figured out earlier. It was very simple. Ross put it there to break up the massive green expanse of the fw. It served a purely aesthetic purpose.

Which I thought was a good idea. So sure, good bunkers can in certain circumstances have a purely aesthetic function.

A problem with modern gca, however, is that there are too many bunkers serving only that purpose. Too many modern architects try too hard for the Wow!!! thing, often at the expense of other design virtues.

Bob  

 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Do you think that bunkers placed solely for visual appeal appropriate?

I think not, but we sure see a lot of them, don't we?

I think that there are cases where they look great but perhaps do not strongly come into play but are still appropriate. All the better if they can do both.

[Jamie Barber]

By "placed for visual appeal" do you mean they are not really in-play or just there for beauty so absolutely not in play?

I'm not in favour of bunkers purely for visuals, but those to trick or intimate you are good. Take the first at Hunstanton, big bunker is 60 yds or so off the tee. It *shouldn't* be in play unless you top or duff it, but it's there ... just looking at you.

[Ben Sims]

I asked the site a month or so ago if they could think of a good to great course (I'm thinking TD scale 7's and above) that is sparingly bunkered. I received almost no replies. 

I think this goes to show that the answer to this thread question is yes.  If you have over 75 bunkers on a course, how many see play consistently?  How many are containment bunkers, how many are aiming bunkers?  Several desert courses have bunkers used solely to "tie in" the eyesore gap of grass to sand and scrub. 

I played an uphill par 3 this morning that was in the 105 yard range--from the back tee.  It had an elevated green framed by two huge trees and bunkers on three sides.  The front bunker however, was a good 10-15 yards in front of the green front.  You would normally see that type of illusion on holes with long approaches, i.e, it served no purpose to dissuade.  But it looked damn cool, and framed the hole fairly well.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
Something that's even more inappropriate are all the extra bunkers wasted on sites with good terrain.

Two courses that come to mind are Yale and Fishers Island, almost nothing in the way of fairway bunkering. A couple of weeks ago I played a relatively new course that had more fairway bunkers on 2 holes than Y&FI have on their 36.

[Dan Herrmann]

I was thinking of an old Palmer course I played once - The Carolinia down near Pinehurst.  It seemed like Palmer (or his crew) just put these shallow kidney-shaped non-natural bunkers all over the place.  They were so easy to hit from that a 5-wood was the normal choice for long shots.

Pretty much the opposite of an old Flynn course, Woodcrest (NJ), where the club had removed strategic bunkers for whatever reason over the years.

[Bill_McBride]

Dan -

Athens CC's (Ross, '25) 9th has a wide fw that sweeps up a hill, bending slightly left to right. Ross designed a single bunker (nle) near the c/l that was too far up the fw to be a factor for drives and not close enough to the green to factor into approach shots.

Why Ross wanted a bunker there puzzled me. Playing one day with Mike Young, we started talking about the old c/l bunker. Mike pointed out what I should have figured out earlier. It was very simple. Ross put it there to break up the massive green expanse of the fw. It served a purely aesthetic purpose.

Which I thought was a good idea. So sure, good bunkers can in certain circumstances have a purely aesthetic function.

A problem with modern gca, however, is that there are too many bunkers serving only that purpose. Too many modern architects try too hard for the Wow!!! thing, often at the expense of other design virtues.

Bob  

 

Bob, wouldn't that bunker have been in play for the ladies and old guys and foozlers in general?  Ross was famous for those top shot bunkers that better players sneered at but were agonizing for those for whom they were in play.

A cross bunker 120 yards in front of the 15th tee at the Valley Club of Montecito has been restored to the original Mackenzie design, and the old guys are still pissed off! 

I don't how a bunker within the fairway borders could ever be considered completely eye candy.

[Mark Pritchett]

The good doctor's fairway bunker on #10 at ANGC comes to mind. 

[BCrosby]

Bill -

No. The bunker Ross wanted was well down the fw and out of play for anyone from the tee. It perplexed me for a long time. Ross didn't need fill dirt in that area. The bunker wasn't in play for drives or approaches. What was Donald thinking?

M. Young pointed out the obvious. (As I recall his sentence began, "You dumb %#@,...") The bunker is there simply to break up the wide, green expanse of the fw as it runs up to an elevated green.

Bob

[BCrosby]

The good doctor's fairway bunker on #10 at ANGC comes to mind. 

On the 10th at ANGC that MacK designed, it was a walking, talking definition of a strategic bunker.

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

Bill -

No. The bunker Ross wanted was well down the fw and out of play for anyone from the tee. It perplexed me for a long time. Ross didn't need fill dirt in that area. The bunker wasn't in play for drives or approaches. What was Donald thinking?

M. Young pointed out the obvious. (As I recall his sentence began, "You dumb %#@,...") The bunker is there simply to break up the wide, green expanse of the fw as it runs up to an elevated green.

Bob

So it wouldn't have affected a short hitter's attempted run up shot with a fairway wood?  I'm confused by how a bunker in the middle of the fairway could be "out of play" in all circumstances for all players.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse here, but the initial post talked about bunkers placed solely for beauty.........

[BCrosby]

Bill -

It was an obloid, not terribly large bunker. It was not a cross bunker in any sense. It was still there as late as the 50's.

It might have caught a badly topped and very unlucky approach shot. But it really wouldn't have figured in how people played the hole. Which is why I found it so odd.

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

Bill -

It was an obloid, not terribly large bunker. It was not a cross bunker in any sense. It was still there as late as the 50's.

It might have caught a badly topped and very unlucky approach shot. But it really wouldn't have figured in how people played the hole. Which is why I found it so odd.

Bob

It was gone by November 1964, I know that for sure!

That's always been an awkward hole, at least for me, it's so easy to hit that angled tee shot into the left rough.    A bunker like you describe might have pepped it up a bit!

[Mark Pritchett]

The good doctor's fairway bunker on #10 at ANGC comes to mind. 

On the 10th at ANGC that MacK designed, it was a walking, talking definition of a strategic bunker.

Bob

Correct, however, I was thinking of the bunker in its current state relevant to the hole as a "beauty" bunker. 

A very artistic bunker indeed.

[Will MacEwen]

Dan. The sit that comes to mind is whistling straits. Is that what you mean? Otherwise aiming and framing bunkers have become acceptable for even a critical eye.

I have always thought that about WS.  There seem to be bunkers just for the sake of bunkers - I'm not even sure if they are for beauty.  I found it kind of distracting during the PGA because I kept thinking "why bother putting a bunker there of all places?" 

Disclaimer - never played it, would like to.

[Carl Johnson]

Bill -

No. The bunker Ross wanted was well down the fw and out of play for anyone from the tee. It perplexed me for a long time. Ross didn't need fill dirt in that area. The bunker wasn't in play for drives or approaches. What was Donald thinking?

M. Young pointed out the obvious. (As I recall his sentence began, "You dumb %#@,...") The bunker is there simply to break up the wide, green expanse of the fw as it runs up to an elevated green.

Bob

At our renovated Ross course (Carolina GC in Charlotte) the 8th (par 5) is a gentle dogleg to the left, downhill off the tee and then back up to the green.  On the right side of the fairway off the tee, toward the top of the hill going up, Kris Spence added a bunker that is out-of-reach of most members' drives (assuming you're hitting from the "proper tee,") yet generally not in play on second shots.  I cannot recall if the Ross's original design had a bunker in this spot -- if so, it was long gone -- but my recollection is that Kris explained the bunker as helping to frame or define the far right side of the  fairway.  In that sense, it's purpose (as explained) was to help players line up their drives better.  It was intended primarily as a aid, not a hazard.  Regardless of whether my recollection is correct, what I've said makes sense to me, and in fact I think the bunker makes a substantial contribution to the hole.  Here's a link to Ed Oden's photo slide show of the course.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/eko_gfl/sets/72157608575550343/show/
  You can see the bunker on the right in the two shots from the No. 8 tee.

Dan Herrmann's title refers to "beauty."  His question is: "Do you think that bunkers placed solely for visual appeal appropriate?"

To my way of thinking, "visual appeal" could include a framing bunker, and in that sense I think they are appropriate.  Regarding pure beauty, I don't have any difficulty with such bunkers, either, particularly in a links-type environment where sandy areas are part of the natural landscape.  There are lots of features on golf courses that you cannot justify for any reason other than "beauty" that we all live with and appreciate -- including trees, water features, flowers, etc.  I'm not a fan of trees on golf courses, but I'm not going to say "Let's take out every tree that has no strategic value."

[Norbert P]

 I believe this is the 6th at Ballyneal. Image stolen from an older post.



The bunker that suits the question is the one in the farthest distance on the dune.

  I don't have a problem with it but it would be interesting to me why the archie chose to put it out there.  Then again, maybe the bunker was already there.

Disclaimer: I have never been there and reserve that as my escape clause for saying something that is not intelligent.

[Adam Clayman]

Slag, That blowout area is not in play and was created for visual reasons. So, it must be acceptable. 
  It resides behind the 7th teeing ground. Another one is also visible from the 7th tee looking northeast, beneath the second teeing ground on the steep part of the hill.
The reason for creating these blowouts is to make all the bunkers look like they are just another natural part of the site. Since the site (region chop dunes) has few natural blowouts, to me, it only makes sense.

There is a great mental image described to me when the artist created that specific blowout pictured. ( I think it was either Brian or Kye, but I could be misremembering) At that time, 2004, the area was nose deep in a drought. So, there were some small natural sandy scrub areas that resembled blowouts. The imagery was how the artist was repeatedly looking to a distant scrub area and then returning to his canvas to properly get how the vegetation was spaced. Similar to how an artist would paint a portrait, switching between the subject and the canvas.   

[Dan Herrmann]

Good dscussion...  I see now how framing adds to the design.

[Aidan Bradley]

[Jim_Kennedy]

Aidan,
I have never been a fan of amoeba-like bunkers, but this one looks pleasantly situated among its fellow aliens, the forest of pod-like trees.