Bunker Schemes Over Time

[Sean_A]

"Even though some are quite large, they don't overwhelm in the way that MacKenzie or Tillinghast bunkers tend to.  Their placement is excellent and they don't interfere with ground movement and thus deflection as do the bunkers at Bethpage Black for instance.  Merion bunkers, though in the original locations and considering today's technologies, are still very much in play and in some cases (cross bunker on 1) are even more meaningful today.  This is the genius of the bunkering few discuss.  How a bunker scheme can remain strategic and interesting 90 years later on some courses by design (Merion and Oakmont for example) or by nature/randomness (The Old Course) while other bunker designs become outmoded and others are overdone.  I hope we can start a discussion on this on a new thread.  It is a subject that has long interested me."

This quote intrigues me.  What do folks think about the explanation?  I know my first response is to question if anything like all the bunkers at Merion are properly in play and if quite so many are required to get the job the done.  However, I think I understand what the writer is saying with "they don't overwhelm in the way that MacKenzie or Tillinghast bunkers tend to".

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Merion, Oakmont and St. Andrews all have A LOT of bunkers, as you well know.  If you put in that many, and don't restrict them all to the landing areas, you're not likely to have to add more later.

At Oakmont and St. Andrews many of the bunkers are not very visible off the tees, which explains why they are not overwhelming to look at.  But I can't really say why Merion is not overwhelming or why it is different than say a Tillinghast course in that regard.  In fact I am not sure I'd agree that it is that much different.

[Tom MacWood]

I don't agree with much of what he (or she) has written, so I don't think much of his theory. He says Mackenzie bunkers overwhelm him. They don't overwhelm me. They can be visually dramatic, but they are not particularly difficult to negotiate, and aesthetically they blend beautifully with their site. In contrast to his other example - Oakmont - not very aesthetically pleasing and down right intimidating at times. Is there a more severely bunkered course in the country?

He also sites Tilly's bunkers as being overwhelming. I don't think the author is very familiar with Tillinghast's work. Bethpage is severely bunkered, but that is the exception (it was modeled after PV). I would say the bulk of his courses are bunkered moderately to moderately heavy, not unlike Merion.

Basically he saying Merion, Oakmont and TOC remain strategic and interesting, while Tilly and Mackenzie's course do not. The first part may be right, the second part is not.

Older courses remain strategic/interesting more often than not based upon the undulations of the ground as opposed to the bunkers, and in particular the contours on and around the greens. I think TOC is the best example of this factor.

[Phil_the_Author]

Sean,

As Tom Mac mentioned, Bethpage Black's bunkering is sever. What it isn't, is what this person said.

"...they don't interfere with ground movement and thus deflection as do the bunkers at Bethpage Black for instance..."

Holes 2, 5, 6, 10, 15 & 18, by the simple nature of the land on which they sit, have no possibility whatsoever of employing a ground game. Holes 3, 8, & 14, all par-threes, also have this same situation. 9 out 18 with no possibility of a ground game, not because of poor design; rather the exact opposite as each of these holes work well.

What about the others? Holes 1, 7, 11, 12, 13 & 16 all have a good portion of their front green entrances open to allow for play on the ground and onto the putting surfaces.

That leaves three holes, 4, 9 & 17. 17 is a par-three that is completely surrounded by bunkers.That is a quite common occurance in holes of this type and, in fact, GOLF Magazine named it as one of the 500 greatest holes in the world in 2000. It can't be that bad! $ actually has a limited availability for ground play when the player places his second shot to the far right of the green as Tilly designed it to be played.The bunkers fronting the green are the "Risk" vs. the "Reward" of finding the putting surface in two.

That leaves the 9th. Surrounded by bunkers, this green has no ground game open to it whatsoveer.

One hole out of 18... I think whoever wrote that doesn't know Bethpage Black and DEFINITELY doesn't know Tilly whose first and primary aspect in all of his designs were the green entrances for the purpose of the ground game. He actually wrote that on a number of occasions...
  

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - it IS a very interesting quote. (I'm reminded of a long ago thread by Wayne Morrison on the elasticity Flynn designed into his courses, including somehow managing to have bunkers remain relevant even decades later). I wish I knew enough about the specific courses mentioned to even try to comment intelligently; but, I will suggest that if a bunker is originally put in place to serve only one purpose -- i.e. to delineate a specific strategic choice -- then it would almost surely lose a significant part of its relevancy over time and technological changes, even if the tee could be moved back to add length.  The opposite then -- i.e. a bunker originally placed (consciously or not) so as to interact with the fairway/natural landforms, the green site, and the tee in a myriad of ways, not all or any of them necessarily delineating a strategic choice -- would seem to stand a much better chance at retaining relevancy.  Does that make any sense?

Peter  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I recall that debate here, although I don't know who posted the quote.

As to Tom Doak's theory of putting them their in the first place, it would be interesting to compare the maintenance costs of putting in more bunkers in hopes they would be relevant in 90 years vs the cost of rebuilding in a new location after the same period of time, or perhaps even every 30 to 45 years.  Most obviously have chosen to move them later.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I was not actually advocating putting in a lot of bunkers in hopes some of them come into play later.

I thought that the poster of the original quote was advocating that, based on his examples.  And I know how much Sean hates overbunkering, so I was pointing that out for his benefit.

[Bill_McBride]

I recall that debate here, although I don't know who posted the quote.

As to Tom Doak's theory of putting them their in the first place, it would be interesting to compare the maintenance costs of putting in more bunkers in hopes they would be relevant in 90 years vs the cost of rebuilding in a new location after the same period of time, or perhaps even every 30 to 45 years.  Most obviously have chosen to move them later.

The idea is the Classic Age architects, for example, would have been aware that distance would increase significantly over the future decades after the bunkers were initially placed, and therefore they were placed where they'd be a factor in the future?

While that might be true because those guys were aware that the gutty replaced the featherie, and the Haskell ball replaced the gutty, where is it apparent that this placing of bunkers for future longer drivers took place?   From what I've seen, tees have had to be moved back so the existing fairway bunkers are relevant.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Yes, I know what you mean, slap enough bunkers in and eventually they will see action over 90 years.  Though I am not sure that is what the quote refers to.  For instance, when I look at Dr Mac bunkering they tend to be very much in play except for the framing jobs he did which ironically help to overwhelm the greens they "protect".  Merion, by contrast, has some holes with excessive bunkering, but they don't overwhelm the greens - some are just overkill and just as pointless as some Dr Mac bunkers.  I don't know enough about Tillie courses, but for sure the Black is bunkering nightmare.  That said, I think the idea was to create a penal championship course whereas I don't think Dr Mac had this sort of difficulty in mind.  If he did, he nearly always has a gap that can be played for and for the most part his carry bunkers are a matter of choice or because a person is out of position.  Now, with that many greenside bunkers, its seems awful easy to be out of position!

Below are examples.  Its just my opinion, but because of the style of the bunkering the visual effect is very different. 

#2 Montecito


#3 Montecito


#4 Montecito


#8 Montecito


#11 Montecito


#15 Montecito


#13 CPC


#15 CPC


#4 Merion


#13 Merion


#17 Merion


Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, a couple of the professionals have spoken, and I don't know if the person who wrote that quote knows what he/she is talking about, but I can't shake the feeling that there is something very interesting/important being grappled with here (in general, if not in the specifics).

Peter

[Ben Sims]

I like Sean's post.  I disagree with some, agree with some.  In general, I think there are certain types of bunker scheme's that remain timeless. The bunker short of the green on a hole with a long approach is one example.

But Sean, I do disagree with your assessment of Tilly vs. Mac bunkers.  By stating that Tilly was penal and Dr. Mac wasn't is grossly missing the point of their bunkering at  CPC and BPB.  I think both architects were using bunkering to tie in scale.  Looking at the large cypress trees and the jagged, rocky coastline, was anything but the types of bunkers that the good Doctor used going to look normal?  Would you say that pot bunkering would've been better at CPC?  As for places like SFGC and BPB.  It becomes immediatly clear that Tilly was also a big user of size to confuse and overwhelm the golfer.  Can you tell how far away that green is just by looking on a Tilly course?  I would argue that Dr. Mac and A.W. Tillinghast were the leaders' of their generation in using bunkering to frame, but also to confuse and camouflage. 

With all of that said, I think the argument needs to be subdivided into the legitimacy of greenside bunkering over time vs. the legitimacy of fairway bunkering over time.  Distance changes would, IMO, have a larger affect on how well a fairway bunker scheme hold up over time.  Other than a bunker immediately in front of a green, I don't think technology affects greenside bunkering.

On a side note, I feel that the brightness of the sand in the Dr. Mac examples contributes to the hypothesis about Merion bunkers vs. CPC and Valley Club of Montecito bunkers.

[Phil_the_Author]

Sean,

You stated that, "I don't know enough about Tillie courses, but for sure the Black is bunkering nightmare..." I hope to correct your thinking on this a bit! I think Ben touched on it well when he stated, "I think both architects were using bunkering to tie in scale."

Size and scale are two very differnt things. Many of the bunkers on the Black are quite large and dep, yet they are not overwhelming to the holes they are designed for, only for those trapped within them. You stated further that, "I think the idea was to create a penal championship course whereas I don't think Dr Mac had this sort of difficulty in mind..."

That is not accurate. Chamge the word "penal" to "challenging" and it is much closer to the truth. Tilly believed that courses that challenged the better player PRODUCED even better players. His courses are difficult yet eminently fair. Look at this years Open. Only a handful of players went under par and 4-under won it, yet the course yielded a number of 64's, 65's & 66's. Tough, challenging but FAIR!

You mentioned about Mackenzie’s tough bunkering that, “If he did, he nearly always has a gap that can be played for and for the most part his carry bunkers are a matter of choice or because a person is out of position.  Now, with that many greenside bunkers, its seems awful easy to be out of position!”

Please read my original post on this thread about Tilly’s use of a potential ground-game on the Black. Tilly really did allow openings for play into the greens there. Take a look as they are staring the player, good or bad, in their face! Now to take advantage of them requires proper positioning, but since when is that NOT a sign of fine design?

I think you need to re-think your position…

[Sean_A]

I like Sean's post.  I disagree with some, agree with some.  In general, I think there are certain types of bunker scheme's that remain timeless. The bunker short of the green on a hole with a long approach is one example.

But Sean, I do disagree with your assessment of Tilly vs. Mac bunkers.  By stating that Tilly was penal and Dr. Mac wasn't is grossly missing the point of their bunkering at  CPC and BPB.  I think both architects were using bunkering to tie in scale.  Looking at the large cypress trees and the jagged, rocky coastline, was anything but the types of bunkers that the good Doctor used going to look normal?  Would you say that pot bunkering would've been better at CPC?  As for places like SFGC and BPB.  It becomes immediatly clear that Tilly was also a big user of size to confuse and overwhelm the golfer.  Can you tell how far away that green is just by looking on a Tilly course?  I would argue that Dr. Mac and A.W. Tillinghast were the leaders' of their generation in using bunkering to frame, but also to confuse and camouflage. 

With all of that said, I think the argument needs to be subdivided into the legitimacy of greenside bunkering over time vs. the legitimacy of fairway bunkering over time.  Distance changes would, IMO, have a larger affect on how well a fairway bunker scheme hold up over time.  Other than a bunker immediately in front of a green, I don't think technology affects greenside bunkering.

On a side note, I feel that the brightness of the sand in the Dr. Mac examples contributes to the hypothesis about Merion bunkers vs. CPC and Valley Club of Montecito bunkers.

Ben

CPC is only one course and to be fair, I think the blurred lines between bunkering and pre-existing landscape have been made sharper and less convincing over time.  However, there are other Mac courses where he uses large bunkers and many of them.  That is why I used some Montecito pix as examples, but Pasa has many as well.  Personally, I think this sort of style was mainly confined to his California period, but he also used large bunkering at other places sometimes.  I also think you are correct about scale, but only in the context of bunkering.  Dr Mac could have created scale without the bunkering as well, but he chose to use bunkering.  I a not saying its good or bad.  I don't generally go for it, but I wonder why he did this massive scale stuff in California on sites other than CPC.

I think you are right about greenside bunkering remaining relevant over time, but when so many are used, its nearly impossible not to remain relevant.  That said, I have never bought the camouflage argument for Dr Mac's bunkers.  He may have tried to do this sort of thing, but it can only work once and so its relevance is very doubtful.  Personally, I think his greenside bunker schemes were meant to control the correct angle of approach which is why trees on the edges these sorts of courses make no sense - they make the greenside bunkering irrelevant and actually take away the opportunity for heroic recovery to greens between bunkers.  The same could be said for soft conditions. Despite my criticisms of Dr Mac (mainly that he repeats the same schemes too often), I do believe his bunkering has held up over time.  On the other hand, I believe that a hole like Woking's 3rd is just as relevant yet it only required one bunker and good use of the natural terrain.         

Philip

Penal isn't bad, its a descriptor of a style of architecture which fits BB very well (Tillie designed it ths way on purpose) and yes the course is fair, but that as nothing to do with the issue.   

I am still curious as to the thought process behind designing  bunker schemes in such large numbers and scale, but I am struggling to get a grip on the topic as a discussion piece.

Ciao
     

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I am still grappling with your initial observation.

The greens at Merion which you pictured are framed by bunkering into mounds at the back every bit as much as the MacKenzie courses which you showed.  The only difference is that the Merion bunkers are smaller ... and of course most of them were bigger and flashier until Tom Fazio smothered them in bluegrass sod.

Dr. MacKenzie did tend to build bigger bunkers than most of his contemporaries, but Merion (East) is not the greatest contrast by any means.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - your mention of Woking's 3rd made me think of the difference between a fairway bunker that works independently of the natural contours of a fairway and a bunker that works in concert with those contours, the latter potentially 'extending' the area of hazard the bunker presents far beyond the confines of the sand itself (depending on the degree of slope/contour, and the firmness of the conditions). I imagine that those kind of fairways bunkersr, orginally built, say, outside the range of all but the best players/drives, remain relevant today in all conditions.

Peter

[Ben Sims]

Sean,

I'm not so sure that Dr. Mac's California work had the micro-contours that Woking used to tie in scale. 

I also think that--if you want to talk about other works of bunkering and scale in NorCal--you're forgetting about Pasa and SFGC.  I've heard MANY folks here and elsewhere talk about how these archies used size to confuse and that those two courses might have the best scale of any small site course around.  At SFGC, Tilly even used bunkering to dually hazard two fairways.  I think that it's been written elsewhere that the huge expanse of grass in the middle of the property with large bunkers separating the two fairways is one of the most ingenuous ways to make a small site seem large.

The 16th at Pasa, for me at least, seemed like a huge hole.  This is in part to a partially blind tee shot. But what really makes it seem big--when it's not--is the bunkering on the green. 

And I STILL think you are missing another key point that bunker edges and "cleanliness" makes a bunker appear larger than it is.  When I went to see Augusta in college during the practice round, I was surprised at how much smaller the bunkers looked in person. I attributed it to the blinding sand and the extreme contrast. 

[Sean_A]

Sean:

I am still grappling with your initial observation.

The greens at Merion which you pictured are framed by bunkering into mounds at the back every bit as much as the MacKenzie courses which you showed.  The only difference is that the Merion bunkers are smaller ... and of course most of them were bigger and flashier until Tom Fazio smothered them in bluegrass sod.

Dr. MacKenzie did tend to build bigger bunkers than most of his contemporaries, but Merion (East) is not the greatest contrast by any means.

Tom

The initial quote isn't mine, but I think there is something to it.  When I look at the Merion bunkers in question they in no way overwhelm the green.  Now this doesn't mean that I think those examples are good bunkering, but Dr Dr Mac's California bunkers are very different.  They almost crowd out the green which I can only assume is intentional - I don't get that sense with Merion.  Dr Mac seemed to limit the view of the greens if one isn't in the correct position thus creating an illusion of a small target except that it is my impression that it isn't an illusion - they are small targets from the wrong tposition.   As for many of the rear bunkers on higher ground, I just don't get it.  If Dr Mac wanted to continue the illusion of small targets one would think he would stick in the odd blind bunker in the rear (leaving a feeling of doubt) rather than big bold bunkering which seems to counter-act the limited views and give the player a sense of the space and where it ends/begins.  On the other hand, they could be a clear signal that there is no bailout long and that balls will not roll back off the rear hills.  IMO, this is one of the marked differences between Dr Mac, Colt and what came before.  Often times pre the big British archies, these amphitheatres were used as collection areas.  Dr Mac seemed to want to use the amphitheatre, but not make them collecting whereas I don't think Colt wanted to build this style of green-site at all.  He loved his raised greens with bunkering below.  In a sense, Dr Mac seemed to create and make popular an extra "floor" of bunkering which even today stands out as exceptional.

Peter

Yes, horizontally gathering bunkers are much more effective than, well, not gathering bunkers.  They also leave a sense of doubt in the player's mind as to how much space there is available.  - this is why I like them so much.  One bunker can do the job of two or three and still keep the look and playability of the course exciting ala the J Kirk theory of fun.

Ben

It is interesting how you believe sharp lines for bunkers offer the illusion of size.  That could be true because more sand tends to be on view with this style compared to the rounded upholstered look or pots.  In this way, the shape of a bunker could be more important than I previously thought.  To be honest, I am more of a utilitarian when it comes to shape.  I tend to go for what is the cheapest to build and maintain as the most appropriate (think of Fowler's trench style), but not always. 

All this aside, I have always believed that golf is a game played on turf and so the terrain should be the key element if possible.  If bunkering, water (hazards) etc becomes the key element(s) than either the land was poor for golf or somebody got carried away with the relationship between hazards and the land and the intention of hazards.  It is hazards which largely determine the style of course, but it is still a golf course and proper balance is essential.     

Ciao